Yes you did miss something; I apologize. The latter two things I mentioned were inside comments to Wiccan (friendly jabs), based on discussions we've had in previous threads.
OH! Thanks for clearing that up.
Upvote
0
Yes you did miss something; I apologize. The latter two things I mentioned were inside comments to Wiccan (friendly jabs), based on discussions we've had in previous threads.
Of course you're right that Hawkings is saying that. Like I said a couple of pages ago, Wiccan is tenacious.
Im sure he still wont admit that:
The word beginning means beginning;
science tries to do useful things; and
that atheistic evolution necessarily implies pantheism.
On the contrary, the point in time designated as 't=0' is entirely arbitrary. Since we cannot know what happened before the Big Bang, it makes sense to label it as 't=0'. But as Hawking explained, this is an arbitrary designation.It is complete nonsense because "before" t=0 there is no such thing as "t". You can't talk about a time unit before t=0 because time does not exist.
His initial statements are simplifications for the layman. He clarifies himself later on in the lecture: "[FONT=Verdana, Arial]Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences..."[/FONT] To him, we call the start of the Big Bang the beginning of the universe because it was, effectively, the beginning: what happened before the Big Bang is of no observational consequence to what happened after."All the evidence seems to indicate that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago." - Prof Stephen Hawkings.
OK then, if he's not saying the universe had a beginning there what exactly is he saying?? Is there some secret code that he uis using that I don't know about and that you do?
On the contrary, the point in time designated as 't=0' is entirely arbitrary. Since we cannot know what happened before the Big Bang, it makes sense to label it as 't=0'. But as Hawking explained, this is an arbitrary designation.
If I want to model the flight of a thrown ball, it might be prudent to label the start of its flight as time zero. But does this mean that time itself began there? Of course not.
His initial statements are simplifications for the layman. He clarifies himself later on in the lecture: "[FONT=Verdana, Arial]Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences..."[/FONT] To him, we call the start of the Big Bang the beginning of the universe because it was, effectively, the beginning: what happened before the Big Bang is of no observational consequence to what happened after.
That is, the universe 'began' in the same way that a cake 'begins': though its constituents existed before t=0, their exact mechanics are of no consequence to the final cake.
His name is Hawking, not Hawkings.
I know, I know ... I'm sorry.
I often make this mistake.
D'you know what it is? In discussions with atheists I am so used to reading and typing the name "Dawkins" which sounds a bit like "Hawking" and so I get mixed up and add an "s".
Guess which out of those two people I admire more?
That's right, the one who didn't let a personal prejudice make him think he had something important to say and subsequently turn into an embaressing fool.
What do you think of the God Delusion as someone who actually knows a bit about philosophy and theology?
What do you think of the God Delusion as someone who actually knows a bit about philosophy and theology?
No, I wouldn't.
Tell you what Stan ... start another thread on it.
I know I brought it up but I don't want this thread to get side-tracked here. We're at a crucial moment. Any minute now, Wiccan Child is going to re-appear and admit defeat
Dawkins and Marilyn Manson. Not bad, for a school employee and very ugly guy to get rich and famous the time honored way. Bash a Christian and get paid.
Which one is the "school employee" and which one is the "ugly guy"?
Dawkins was doing pretty well for himself before The God Delusion.
He's much more than "a school employee", anyway.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial]"Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier."[/FONT]Where does Hawking say that t=0 is completely arbitrary??
Tell me, if time began with the Big Bang, how can there be preceding events?You seem to think the following is extremely telling for some reason but that reason can only be because you don't understand the relevance of it: "Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences ..."
They have no observational consequences because they are before and outside of the existence of the universe and time.
Hence why we may as well say that time began then. We don't know whether it did or not,Science as we know it can say absolutely nothing about such hypoythetical "events".
Partially. Hawking is simply stating that we cannot know what happened beyond 13.5 billion years. Any events which happened to occurred before then are of no consequence, so we may as well treat them as if they never occurred.If you are saying that some event outside of or before the existence of the universe and time brought about the event that occurred at t=0; then you, me and Hawking agree.
I would, if Hawking hadn't proven my point earlier on: he specifically defined the word 'begin' to be the start of the Big Bang, not the dawn of time itself.Let's leave the next bit to Stephen by way of conclusion:
"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe begaan would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but does not have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase will not have the opposite arrow of time to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older and won't return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, I think I'd better stop now." (Haha , good one Stevie!)
I think it is time to accept defeat graciously,
Mike.
Liberals, gays, and socialists? Nice to see Christian charity thriving. You know you have another cheek, right?To you maybe.
And of course "the usual suspects."
When did Manson come up? I must've missed it.
Manson wanted to be a writer, but found that he could make more by writing lyrics for songs.
Here he is interviewed by O'Reilly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucnA8ElvZQA