Stephen Hawkings vs. God

[Enoch2021]

 

 

"...the laws of science can certainly explain the way my computer works and the various mechanisms and causes that went into making it (the 'how'), but such explanations don't negate the need for the agent/efficient cause that designed it, which answers the 'why my computer exists' question."

Science can address "how" things happen, but not "why," e.g., the cause or intention underlying an action or situation.

 

===================================================================================

 

They can't address these "Hows" ...

 

Unlike the Bible, science can address anything and then change its rationale over time.

In other words, science has the luxury of being wrong.

 

 

==================================================================================

 

Actually, Scientists can legitimately only address Phenomenon that they "Observe"...then, Either Validate/Invalidate their hypothesis of causation based on Experimental results.

 

"Changing Rationales" are for "Just So" Story Tellers.  Hypotheses' are either Validated/Invalidated; Period, end of Story.

[OakWood]

A lot of Hawking's theories are not even accepted by other physicists.

[OldSchool2]

"...the laws of science can certainly explain the way my computer works and the various mechanisms and causes that went into making it (the 'how'), but such explanations don't negate the need for the agent/efficient cause that designed it, which answers the 'why my computer exists' question."

Science can address "how" things happen, but not "why," e.g., the cause or intention underlying an action or situation.

 

===================================================================================

 

They can't address these "Hows" ...

Unlike the Bible, science can address anything and then change its rationale over time.

In other words, science has the luxury of being wrong.

 

==================================================================================

 

Actually, Scientists can legitimately only address Phenomenon that they "Observe"...then, Either Validate/Invalidate their hypothesis of causation based on Experimental results.

 

"Changing Rationales" are for "Just So" Story Tellers.  Hypotheses' are either Validated/Invalidated; Period, end of Story.

A hypothesis is just a proposal and everyone from the ancient Greeks to even Einstein all proposed thought experiments to postulate what sometimes became theory, e.g., the Theory of Special Relativity (after Einstein imagined that he was chasing a beam of light).

Jesus came to take away our sins -- not our minds.

[Guest Teditis]

Enoch2021 always seems to hit the nail on the head in such discussions.

 

Since one cannot verify or falsify an idea/hypothesis/theory such as M-Theory,

as one could more tangible theories such as those made natural/physical sciences)

one cannot subject it to "the scientific method" of rigorous testing... ergo, it ain't Science.

It's just and odd idea floating around in some peoples heads.

 

Anti-theists (I don't believe atheists truly exist) need to rid themselves of God completely

and therefore need to rid it in the rest of us so that we go along with them in order to assuage their delusion. 

Unfortunately this zeitgeist is becoming the new world religion... I don't have a clue how to

address that except to learn more about God Himself by reading the Bible and leave the science 

stuff to those who are fascinated by it.

Edited October 13, 2014 by Teditis

[Enoch2021]

A hypothesis is just a proposal and everyone from the ancient Greeks to even Einstein all proposed thought experiments to postulate what sometimes became theory, e.g., the Theory of Special Relativity (after Einstein imagined that he was chasing a beam of light).

Jesus came to take away our sins -- not our minds.

 

 

============================================================================================

 

A hypothesis is just a proposal and everyone from the ancient Greeks to even Einstein

 

Just because something has been done for a Long Time....doesn't offer any Veracity whatsoever or make it right.

 

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon

Step 2: Lit Review

Step 3: Hypothesis

Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT

Step 5: Analyze Data

Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis

Step 7: Report Results

 

This is The Scientific Method...what comes before Hypothesis'?

 

"The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary." "Theories which cannot be tested...do not qualify as scientific theories."

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

 

Moreover, Observation of a Phenomenon becomes even more Critical in Lieu of...

 

The act of a conscious observer creates the existence of Matter (Particles) and the objects they entail, Instantly!  A Reality Independent of Observation...doesn't exist! Experimentally Validated, Repeatedly via Quantum Mechanics; SEE:

 

Double Slit Experiment

A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9903047

Experimental delayed-choice entanglement swapping: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1203/1203.4834.pdf

Experimental realization of Wheeler's delayed-choice GedankenExperiment: http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0610241.pdf

 

How are you gonna postulate a "Valid" Hypothesis which then must be Tested without first Observing a Phenomenon...then Repeated Observations affording Testability?

 

thought experiments

 

Thought Experiments aren't Hypothesis' or else they would be called Hypothesis'.

 

Nothing wrong with "Thought Experiments" (I partake in them often ) ; However, they are borne from a sound foundation of Already Established FACT/Verified Scientific Experiment. 

Can they LEAD to a "Valid" Hypothesis?.....Yep, as long as you can still Observe The Phenomenon then TEST it.

 

 

Jesus came to take away our sins -- not our minds.

 

Did someone say otherwise?

[OldSchool2]

A hypothesis is just a proposal and everyone from the ancient Greeks to even Einstein all proposed thought experiments to postulate what sometimes became theory, e.g., the Theory of Special Relativity (after Einstein imagined that he was chasing a beam of light).

Jesus came to take away our sins -- not our minds.

 

 

============================================================================================

 

A hypothesis is just a proposal and everyone from the ancient Greeks to even Einstein

 

Just because something has been done for a Long Time....doesn't offer any Veracity whatsoever or make it right.

 

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon

Step 2: Lit Review

Step 3: Hypothesis

Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT

Step 5: Analyze Data

Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis

Step 7: Report Results

 

This is The Scientific Method...what comes before Hypothesis'?

 

"The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary." "Theories which cannot be tested...do not qualify as scientific theories."

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

 

Moreover, Observation of a Phenomenon becomes even more Critical in Lieu of...

 

The act of a conscious observer creates the existence of Matter (Particles) and the objects they entail, Instantly!  A Reality Independent of Observation...doesn't exist! Experimentally Validated, Repeatedly via Quantum Mechanics; SEE:

 

Double Slit Experiment

A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9903047

Experimental delayed-choice entanglement swapping: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1203/1203.4834.pdf

Experimental realization of Wheeler's delayed-choice GedankenExperiment: http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0610241.pdf

 

How are you gonna postulate a "Valid" Hypothesis which then must be Tested without first Observing a Phenomenon...then Repeated Observations affording Testability?

 

thought experiments

 

Thought Experiments aren't Hypothesis' or else they would be called Hypothesis'.

 

Nothing wrong with "Thought Experiments" (I partake in them often ) ; However, they are borne from a sound foundation of Already Established FACT/Verified Scientific Experiment. 

Can they LEAD to a "Valid" Hypothesis?.....Yep, as long as you can still Observe The Phenomenon then TEST it.

 

 

Jesus came to take away our sins -- not our minds.

 

Did someone say otherwise?

You seem to be inferring as much in regards to Einstein's thought experiments.

What Einstein hypothesized with only his imagination is what scientists today visualize with the aid of computer models; frankly I don't see how either can be considered an "invalid" hypothesis.

[Enoch2021]

You seem to be inferring as much in regards to Einstein's thought experiments.

What Einstein hypothesized with only his imagination is what scientists today visualize with the aid of computer models; frankly I don't see how either can be considered an "invalid" hypothesis.

 

=============================================================================================

 

 

You seem to be inferring as much in regards to Einstein's thought experiments.

 

That's Factually Incorrect.  It's a Strawman (Fallacy).  I wasn't "Inferring" or "Implying" anything other than what I said....Specifically----

 

"Thought Experiments aren't Hypothesis' or else they would be called Hypothesis'.

Nothing wrong with "Thought Experiments" (I partake in them often ) ; However, they are borne from a sound foundation of Already Established FACT/Verified Scientific Experiment.

Can they LEAD to a "Valid" Hypothesis?.....Yep, as long as you can still Observe The Phenomenon then TEST it."

 

 

However, since you brought it up....

 

What Einstein hypothesized with only his imagination is what scientists today visualize with the aid of computer models; frankly I don't see how either can be considered an "invalid" hypothesis.

 

Einstein proposed a "thought experiment" to debunk Quantum Mechanics: A. Einstein, B. Podolosky, N. Rosen:  http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777

 

The Proposition:  If you placed 2 particles in a joint superposition then separated them by a great distance, an observation of "one" couldn't affect the other Instantly; because if it did... that would mean---Information had to travel faster than the Speed of Light; Ergo....invalidating Relativity.  Einstein termed it "Spooky action @ a Distance."

 

In the 1960's, John Bell explored Einstein's "thought experiment" and proposed an Inequality (Bell's Inequality).  If it was shown to be false, Einstein and his theory would take a dirt nap: http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Compact.pdf

 

Well in 1982, Alain Aspect PhD Physics Violated Bell's Inequality: Ergo....Einstein and Theory = Dirt Nap! : http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7138/full/446866a.html

 

 

Thanks for the Hanging Curve-Ball 

[Fez]

Has anyone seen a miracle lately? Other than wondrous events like human birth, I am curious to know if there are events where the laws of nature are suspended?

Why do you need signs and wonders to help you believe?

 

Jesus spoke on this, and he has no need to preform for us to enable us to beleive.

[OldSchool2]

"...the laws of science can certainly explain the way my computer works and the various mechanisms and causes that went into making it (the 'how'), but such explanations don't negate the need for the agent/efficient cause that designed it, which answers the 'why my computer exists' question."

Science can address "how" things happen, but not "why," e.g., the cause or intention underlying an action or situation.

 

===================================================================================

 

They can't address these "Hows" ...

Unlike the Bible, science can address anything and then change its rationale over time.

In other words, science has the luxury of being wrong.

 

==================================================================================

 

Actually, Scientists can legitimately only address Phenomenon that they "Observe"...then, Either Validate/Invalidate their hypothesis of causation based on Experimental results ...

So Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity is "illegitimate"?

What else can scientists only do, at least according to you?

[Enoch2021]

So Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity is "illegitimate"?

What else can scientists only do, at least according to you?

 

Anything on Post #17 just above? You must have missed it, it's here:

 

 

To be honest, I haven't delved into Special Relativity (Flat Land).  I've focused on taking GR to the Woodshed.  I refrain from speaking to subjects I haven't thoroughly studied; save for queries.

 

 

What else can scientists only do, at least according to you?

 

According to me?  I'm afraid I had nothing to do with outlining then establishing the framework of "Science".

 

I'm sure "Scientists" can do anything they want; However, to proclaim "Scientific Evidence" (via Validating Hypothesis'), they Must Follow Their Method; The Scientific Method:

 

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon

Step 2: Lit Review

Step 3: Hypothesis

Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT

Step 5: Analyze Data

Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis

Step 7: Report Results

 

"The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary.  "Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories."

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html