Is Stephen Hawking Really This Stupid?

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Joe V.

He didn't pull anything out of his butt, he calculated his conclusions of the origins of the universe based on an understanding of quantum physics and mathematics. You base your conclusions of the origins of the universe from a book written thousands of years ago. Who am I supposed to believe more, Hawking or you?

Actually, the question is whether you should believe Hawking or the Bible. The two explanations are different in nature. The Bible records it as an historic event. Hawking theorizes it based on his imagination.

Regardless, the Biblical record has two advantages over Hawking's theory. First, the account of creation was dictated to the author by the Creator Himself, so it comes from Someone Who knew a little about how it happened. Second, being thousands of years old, it was written closer to the actual historical event, and therefore even by secular standards it is more reliable information than anything anyone can write today.

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by npetreley
being thousands of years old, it was written closer to the actual historical event, and therefore even by secular standards it is more reliable information than anything anyone can write today.

In that case, all hail Nammu, Mother of the Sea, who gave birth to the Heaven and the Earth.

 

[Morat]

LMAO, when did I ever insult the man? I was simply getting your attention. Hes a genius, and he says some great things about God.

Is Souljah really this stupid?

If so, she pulls this "when did I ever insult the man" out of her butt.

You set up an either/or case with the title and your first post.

EITHER Stephen Hawking is stupid OR he pulled something out of his butt.

I'd find that sort of insulting. Wouldn't you?

 

[Jerry Smith]

And now, Nick is no longer merely an expert in evolutionary biology. He also has the intellectual market cornered on physics and cosmogeny. How nice.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Morat

You set up an either/or case with the title and your first post.

EITHER Stephen Hawking is stupid OR he pulled something out of his butt.

I'd find that sort of insulting. Wouldn't you?

Not at all. Pulling something out of his butt is using his imagination. If you acknowledge that, then fine. But if you believe it, its BLIND FAITH.

/s0uljah is so misunderstood

 

[Satoshi]

Actually, the question is whether you should believe Eratosthenes or the Bible. The two explanations are different in nature. The Bible records the shape of the Earth as it is. Eratosthenes theorizes it based on his imagination.

Regardless, the Biblical record has two advantages over Eratosthenes' theory. First, the account on the shape of the Earth was dictated to the author by the Creator Himself, so it comes from Someone Who knew a little about how it is. Second, God living in Heaven, His perspective is further away from the Earth, and therefore even by secular standards it is more reliable information than anything a mere five-foot human can write.

 

[Joe V.]

+++
Actually, the question is whether you should believe Hawking or the Bible.
---
Why don't I believe the Bible? Because it was written by the hands of ordinary man. There are no assurances that this is actually the word of God, except your assurances that it is true. You are not asking me to have faith in your Bible, you are asking me to have faith in your assurances. In my experience, I can not implicitly trust the words of any man, only my instincts.


+++
Hawking theorizes it based on his imagination.
---
Did you read what I said? I said he "calculated his conclusions". I didn't say he "imagined" his conclusions. Huge difference. Had his "calculations" pointed to the existence of a supreme being, I think he would have been more than happy to say so. He did not, however, arrive at that conclusion. If you really wish to refute Hawking's calculations, by all means, research quantum mechanics and do the math yourself.

- Joe

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Did you read what I said? I said he "calculated his conclusions". I didn't say he "imagined" his conclusions. Huge difference. Had his "calculations" pointed to the existence of a supreme being, I think he would have been more than happy to say so. He did not, however, arrive at that conclusion. If you really wish to refute Hawking's calculations, by all means, research quantum mechanics and do the math yourself.

Appeal to authority? Anyway, Hawkings has some great ideas about God actually. Want to hear them?

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by s0uljah
LMAO, when did I ever insult the man?

When you started a thread titled, "Is Stephen Hawking really this stupid?"

And then when you proceeded to judge the content of his theory, based on a kindergarten understanding of physics.

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by s0uljah


Respond to my question about the first virtual particle and I might take you seriously.

I responded three times to you.

Evidently you didn't read the links I gave you, and you also decided to lie about it.

Wish I could say I was shocked.

And now you want to be spoon-fed more information, right after I just indicated what a shallow position that is.

 

[Starscream]

LMAO, when did I ever insult the man? I was simply getting your attention. Hes a genius, and he says some great things about God.

I asked if you all follow this idea? Considering the emotional response, I know that you do worship him, blindly, as you all pointed out.

Now you are being purposely deceptive (for the second time today, no less), s0uljah.

Try starting a new thread in the entitled "Is Jesus Really This Stupid?" and see if you receive any emotional responses.

As far as blind "Hawking" worship is concerned, several of the posters here have said that don't they agree with Hawkings or that they don't know enough about the hypershpere to make a conclusion. You are a liar to insinuate otherwise.

You are so bent on arguing with atheists today that you don't even realize you are making a fool of yourself. My advice is for you to step back, think about the damage you are doing to your credibility (and the credibility of your religion - which is supposed to incite you to be an honest person), and perhaps later apologize for being purposely difficult and rude to deal with.

Nothing severs as evidence against Christianity more than the actions of some Christians.

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by s0uljah
Appeal to authority?

Not at all. Appeal to mathematics and physics. And appeal to evidence.

The equations are there. If you can refute them, go ahead and post the refutation here.

Too bad you don't know enough mathematics, physics or evidence to play at this card table.

 

[Morat]

Not at all. Pulling something out of his butt is using his imagination. If you acknowledge that, then fine. But if you believe it, its BLIND FAITH.

/s0uljah is so misunderstood

You claimed he was stupid or lying, that the concept he was putting forth had no basis in reality, and that passing it off as "scientific" was deceptive.

Then you claim it's not an insult. Sorry, Souljah. I think we understood you fine. You acted arrogant and insulting, got called on it, and now want to feel persecuted.

Appeal to authority? Anyway, Hawkings has some great ideas about God actually. Want to hear them?

Appeal to authority is only invalid if the authority is not a true one, the question lies outside the authority's realm of expertise, or sufficient argument exists among true authorities.

Hawking is an acknowledged authority on cosmology (but not theology, which means his views on God are no more valid than my own). Cosmological origins of the universe lie within the scope of his authority. And he made no attempt to pass his hypothesis off as anything but a hypothesis, so you cannot even claim the matter is contentiuous.

So the appeal to authority is quite valid.

That actual fallacy is "Appeal to False authority".

I somehow doubt you'd be so snarky if someone mentioned that your translation of War and Peace was a little iffy, since you don't speak Russian.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by s0uljah
I didnt. He rocks usually. But I am asking where he gets this idea? And why do people buy it??

Tell ya what; once you've got at least a master's degree in physics, and another in mathematics, someone can try to explain it.

Until then, let's settle on: "He has a theory about how the universe works which he believes makes sense, and which you appear to have no reasonable counterargument for".

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

I lied about nothing.

Is Stephen Hawking Really This Stupid?

-Emotional title to get your attention. Recall I also said he was a genius.

Do you all actually buy this? <-- First question.

If so, why? <-- Second question.

You have no explanation other than "you wouldnt understand, so we cant talk about it"

And this is a "discussion forum"?

 

[Morat]

Did you forget the "pulled it out of his butt" comment?

You must have. I can't imagine you being so deceptive. You implied that either Hawking was stupid, or he was making things up.

Wiggle all you want, but your words are in black and white.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Nope, I asked do you all believe this, as it seems it was pulled out of his butt, and if so, why? If you don't know why, it is BLIND FAITH hiding behind "complexity."

I never lied.

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by s0uljah
"Is Stephen Hawking Really This Stupid?"

Recall I also said he was a genius.

Stephen Hawking: Stupid genius
Jesus Christ: God man

I think you've made your point.

 

[TScott]

I read the article that prompted this thread and don't agree with the conclusions of the author and doubt Hawking would either.

I find it curious that the poster-who-calls-himself-SOuljah seems defensive towards the response he received after composing such a provocative thread header.

 

[Mallory Knox]

Originally posted by s0uljah
I didnt. He rocks usually. But I am asking where he gets this idea? And why do people buy it??

I'm sure he did not pull it out of his butt. He has reasons, reasons that you cannot understand because YOU DO NOT HAVE THE BACKGROUND.