Is Stephen Hawking Really This Stupid?

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by 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.

Defensive? Did I ever get upset?

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Mallory Knox




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.

Really? What are those reasons? Do you understand them? No? Blind faith, have you? Point proven.

 

[Joe V.]

+++
Really? What are those reasons? Do you understand them? No? Blind faith, have you? Point proven.
---
Did you read my post, s0uljah? Did you comprehend what I said? I said he "calculated" it. He used his understanding of quantum mechanics and math and deduced what our origins were with logic and formulas. He didn't accept what was written in the Bible, he actually busted his butt for years to determine what our origins were. Can you make the same claim?

You don't agree with him? Fine, but you actually want to refute him. Go ahead, if you've got the courage. Study the same math and quantum theories he did and see if you can mathematically disprove Hawking's theories. If you really want to KNOW and not BELIEVE, you'll do it. If not, then you're all talk.

I accept Hawking's theories on blind faith because he did the math and you didn't. I don't think I'm smart enough or disciplined enough to challenge him. I'd rather have blind faith in his claims then yours.

- Joe

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Oh, so he calculated a theoritical hydrogen thingy sitting in the middle of the universe? There was no imagination at all, huh? Just pure math?

Did you know that there is more to that math than just math?

 

[Morat]

Getting a little defense, huh Souljah?

Sorry, face facts. You were insulting, based on nothing more than a synopsis of something Hawking wrote.

Something, in fact, that was quite obvious hypothesizing.

And then you had the gall to claim it was completely made up, with no effort to search out the man's original words, or review the work that he had done on the subject.

What blinding arrogance you exhibit, Souljah. Isn't pride a cardinal fault?

It takes a ton of pride to dismiss a man as either stupid or "making things up" without reading his own words or the work that he based them on.

No wonder you're defensive. You don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[Joe V.]

s0uljah, you're the one who has a problem with his "imagined" theory, not me. I'll say it one more time. If you really want to disprove his theory, then do it yourself. If you are honest and true to your beliefs, and most importantly, if you're not afraid of the results you'll find, then you'll do the research yourself and prove - to YOURSELF - that there is no "hydrogen thingy sitting in the middle of the universe". The only person who can HONESTLY convince you is yourself, not me or Hawking or anyone else, including God.

- Joe

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

And I will say this one more time. IT ISNT PROVEN. It is a hypothetical! LMAO You all got so upset when your God was attacked, and you think we are irrational?

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Morat

No wonder you're defensive. You don't have a leg to stand on.

I have nothing to defend. This is your God's theory. Again, I was simply asking if you believe it, and why?

If you take that as insulting, then that is fine. It wasn't my intention.

 

[Morat]

And I will say this one more time. IT ISNT PROVEN. It is a hypothetical! LMAO You all got so upset when your God was attacked, and you think we are irrational?

What tiny amounts of respect I had for you are fast dwindling.

No one claimed it was. In fact, several times we used the word "hypothesis". Very tentative.

Yet you still claim either he's an idiot, or completely making things up. You're either insulting him, or his work by claiming he merely makes things up, not that they're the result of effort, education, and intellectual work.

Period.

While you claim it wasn't your intention, you continue to do it. And then you add in insults to us by claiming we are behaving in ways we are not for reasons we don't have.

You need to stop and take stock. When everyone here is claiming you've been insulting, perhaps it's time to consider whether they are right.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Morat

What tiny amounts of respect I had for you are fast dwindling.

No one claimed it was. In fact, several times we used the word "hypothesis". Very tentative.

Yet you still claim either he's an idiot, or completely making things up. You're either insulting him, or his work by claiming he merely makes things up, not that they're the result of effort, education, and intellectual work.

Period.

While you claim it wasn't your intention, you continue to do it. And then you add in insults to us by claiming we are behaving in ways we are not for reasons we don't have.

You need to stop and take stock. When everyone here is claiming you've been insulting, perhaps it's time to consider whether they are right.

It really doesn't concern me if you think I am not worthy of respect. Not to be mean, but your opinion doesn't matter to me.

You do not understand me, even though I have clarified. So either, you are incapable of following my thought process, or you just want to continue arguing in circles.

Whatever. My point...one...last...time...

His theory is based on imagination to a certain degree. I asked if you blindly follow it? Some have said no, some have continued to get upset. I wonder what the answer could be?

 

[Morat]

His theory is based on imagination to a certain degree. I asked if you blindly follow it? Some have said no, some have continued to get upset. I wonder what the answer could be?

Do you not read my posts? At all? I can only imagine not.

Let me sum up:

"His hypothesis is based on his work. His calculations based on physics models that have been heavily tested. His hypothesis itself, however, is fairly untested. Some predictions it makes are valid, but rigourous testing is impossible at this time."

As such, I consider it an interesting hypothesis from a man whose work has generally been good. I will continue to consider it an interesting hypothesis until such time as it passes rigourous test, when I will consider it a valid theory. Should it (and it most likely will) fail those tests, I will consider just another idea that was neat, but wrong.

In the meantime, I will still consider your attempt to equate "hypothesis" with "making things up" disengenous and breaking your own commandment against bearing false witness.

It's very Clinton like of you.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Morat

Do you not read my posts? At all? I can only imagine not.

Ditto.

"His hypothesis is based on his work. His calculations based on physics models that have been heavily tested. His hypothesis itself, however, is fairly untested. Some predictions it makes are valid, but rigourous testing is impossible at this time."
[/B]

THIS IS ALL I ASKED. In the very first post. Your belief in this theory! Goodness!

 

[Morat]

THIS IS ALL I ASKED. In the very first post. Your belief in this theory! Goodness

Hypothesis. I've corrected you several times. Apparantly merely using the correct word in place of the incorrect word was too subtle.

Hawking's hypothesis. It's a rather interesting idea. It's certainly too bad you're unwilling to look at the work it's based on.

Perhaps you can answer me something: I know that it's less work than actually learning what he said and the work he based it on, but is it bliss?

People say it's bliss, but I'm not so sure. It's probably easier though.

 

[Ben johnson]

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

Nammu? Isn't he the UNCLE, of SHAMMU??? (OR is it all just a whale-of-a-tale???)

("DOWN, Shammu...")

 

[Starscream]

Gosh, s0uljah I thought I've seen it all from some of the regulars here, but you've hit a new low.

I invite you again to step back, and think about what you're doing here. Your credibility is shot.

IMHO, you purposely started this thread in hopes that we'd defend Hawkings just so you can hit us up with some childish remark regarding Hawkings' Worship.

The posters here are not defending Hawkings because they worship him, they are simply defending a briliant scholar from the cheap shots of someone who doesn't understand what a hypothesis means. Also, you've deceptively ingored the posters who said they weren't sure what to think about this hypothesis. But then again, you can't paint atheists with the same brush if you actually read the different opinions posted here, right?

It's pretty clear this is little more than a game for you. When you decide to settle down and think about this maturely you might realize you are doing nothing but damaging your faith. Just another religious hypocrite to add to the long, long list.

 

[Mallory Knox]

Originally posted by s0uljah
Really? What are those reasons? Do you understand them? No? Blind faith, have you? Point proven.

I don't understand them, so I would have no idea if his theory is correct or not. But I would not be ignorant enough to call him "stupid" simply because I don't understand him.

 

[Starscream]

I don't understand them, so I would have no idea if his theory is correct or not. But I would not be ignorant enough to call him "stupid" simply because I don't understand him.

s0uljah's 'point' is that we have some kind of blind idol worship in regards to Hawkings. He doesn't want to hear that you don't know if Hawkings is correct or not, for then he can't insult you with his 'blind faith' ad hom.

This whole post is just a dishonest ploy on behalf of s0uljah. Too bad he hasn't yet realized that we didn't fall into his trap.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Originally posted by mac_philo
You can read about two dimensional universes in Chesterton's 'Flatland' or Dewdney's 'Planiverse.' It'll limber your mind up for these sorts of concepts and give you some analogies that your mind can spatially represent.

I apologize for not having read the whole thread, but I recognize something I can correct.

I am holding my copy of Flatland in front of me. The author is "Edwin A. Abbott". My copy doesn't say when it was originally published, but it contains an intro called "Preface to the second and revised edition, 1884, by the editor". Remarkable when you consider Einstein had yet to publish anything and n-dimensional physics was a good 50+ years away.

As for the rest of your post, mac, I agreed with you.

Tinker

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by s0uljah

His theory is based on imagination to a certain degree.

IMO it is based entirely on imagination. After he "imagined" it, he did a lot of math. So what? It's still imagination.

That's not necessarily bad. Einstein formulated a lot of his theories based on his imagination. That was part of his genius. But we've been able to observe that many of his theories are true, or nearly so.

When we've been able to observe the hypersphere, I'll move it from the pure fantasy column over to the observed phenomenon column. Until then, it belongs in fairyland.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Starscream

s0uljah's 'point' is that we have some kind of blind idol worship in regards to Hawkings. [/B]

I don't think s0uljah is that far off. IMO most of you have blind idol worship of your intellects and education, which is what elevates Hawking to an idol in your view.