Science is Dead:Hawking(Stephen) says and other renowned scientists ag

[Bonky]

I'm not sure how to even respond to the statement that you both make that science doesn't prove things?

 

How about humans aren't snails... does science prove that?

 

**Video comment removed**

Given that the term "human" is defined by us humans, yes we can narrow down exactly what is human and what isn't. Science eliminates things that aren't true, it's what's left over that we can use to find useful answers. **Video Comment removed**

Edited January 2, 2015 by ncn
Videos are to be placed in the video forum for approval and posted in any other forum

[Enoch2021]

It seems to me that "God" is simply used as an explanation for that which we can't grasp. What I'm hearing is that conveniently those things that are beyond of our microscopes and our telescopes etc are easily explained by an all powerful/all knowing creator. All the while supposedly this approach is labeled as "more adequate" than the "we don't know" approach.

I mean I get it, it's an attractive method to explain things, but I don't know that it really answers much.

 

You seem to forcibly categorizing this as a "GOD of the gaps" scenario; which it is not.  It's not what we don't know....it's what we do know; Based On SCIENCE.

 

The Universe, Based on the "Pillars of Science"....

 

1st Law (1LOT): The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.

2nd Law (2LOT): The amount of energy available for work is running out, and the Universe is moving inexorably to "Maximum Entropy" or Heat Death.

 

If the total amount of mass-energy is constant, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy—the ‘heat death’ of the universe.  Since it had a beginning and nothing can be the "Cause of Itself"....for that would mean it Existed Prior to it's Existence  , then what's your choice?

 

You only have 2 choices as to "How" we are here: Random Chance (Nature) or Intelligent Design (GOD). The Laws of Physics, Chemistry/Biochemistry, Information; and the tenets of Functional Specific Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, and Common Sense Rule Nature out...Laughingly so. If you summarily rule one of the choices out.... where does it leave you?

Based on the Law of Non-Contradiction--- two things that are contradictory can't be responsible @ the same time (or do you disagree?).   This is not a False Dichotomy (Bifurcation Fallacy) because there is no THIRD CHOICE. Now if I summarily refute Randomness the choice MUST BE ID. YOU MAY THEN conjure thousands of possibilities under ID; however, it has ZERO to do with the tenets of first postulate.

 

 

Information "CODE" DNA, VALIDATED via the Scientific Method....

 

1. Observe a Phenomenon: The Genetic "CODE"--- "Functional Protein" Synthesis.

2. Lit Review: Million of examples "CODE"/Software that seemingly only originate from Intelligence. hmm  

3. Hypothesis: "CODE" does not originate from non-sentient/non-intelligent sources.

 

4. TEST/Experiment: Create an Intelligible "CODE"...

(Dependent Variable): Intelligible CODE Created.

(Independent Variable): Ask Politely...Create a "CODE ?" to: Wind, Waves, Tornadoes, Rocks, Mud, Hurricanes, Eclipses, Landslides, Earthquakes, Thunderstorms, Sunlight, Moonlight, Volcanic Eruptions, ect, Then monitor/record each.

Tools: Pen/Paper/Keyboard/Abacus 

 

5. Analyze Data: No intelligible CODE.

6. Hypothesis: VALIDATED: No Intelligible CODE originated.

7: Report Results: Information "CODE" is the sine qua non of life = GOD.

 

Supplemental-- does DNA/RNA/"Functional Proteins" (The Hardware) spontaneously form "naturally" from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Amino's respectively?

Lit Review (Metric Tons): Laughingly...."NOPE". GOD!!

Supplemental: --can Matter/Energy create itself? That would require it EXISTING prior to it's EXISTENCE  

Lit Review: 1LOT: Laughingly....."NOPE". GOD!!

The End.

 

In the same Genre:  (Source: http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29 ); Abel, DL., Trevors, JT., Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric; Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling 2005, 2:29;  doi:10.1186/1742-4682-2-29) ...

 

Science has often progressed through the formulation of null hypotheses. Falsification allows elimination of plausible postulates. The main contentions of this paper are offered in that context. We invite potential collaborators to join us in our active pursuit of falsification of these null hypotheses.

 

Testable hypotheses about FSC [Functional Sequence Complexity]

What testable empirical hypotheses can we make about FSC that might allow us to identify when FSC exists? In any of the following null hypotheses [137], demonstrating a single exception would allow falsification. We invite assistance in the falsification of any of the following null hypotheses:

 

Null hypothesis #1

Stochastic ensembles of physical units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

Null hypothesis #2

Dynamically-ordered sequences of individual physical units (physicality patterned by natural law causation) cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

Null hypothesis #3

Statistically weighted means (e.g., increased availability of certain units in the polymerization environment) giving rise to patterned (compressible) sequences of units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

Null hypothesis #4

Computationally successful configurable switches cannot be set by chance, necessity, or any combination of the two, even over large periods of time.

 

We repeat that a single incident of nontrivial algorithmic programming success achieved without selection for fitness at the decision-node programming level would falsify any of these null hypotheses. This renders each of these hypotheses scientifically testable. We offer the prediction that none of these four hypotheses will be falsified.

 

 

So as we can see, the "GOD of the gaps" mantra is woefully and feebly contrived and collapses under the mere whisper of scrutiny.

 

 

Pioneer of Quantum Mechanics, Nobel laureate Physics...

 

" The first gulp from the glass of natural science will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you." ---- Werner Heisenberg

[SavedOnebyGrace]

Topic One

Science is dead. Science will always have no power to describe the physical universe. Here's a very brief why.

 

In his "End Of Physics" lecture (2010), physicist Stephen Hawking declared that because of the very eminent mathematician Kurt Gödel's "Incompleteness Theorem", physics (and science) can never  understand the laws that govern our universe.

 

Professor Kurt Gödel's discovery is considered the most important discovery in mathematics.

Albert Einstein, who taught at the same college, said he was in absolute awe of Gödel's intelligence. It was Einstein who helped Dr.Godel attain his U.S. citizenship.

 

The renowned physicists Roger Penrose and Freeman Dyson, and others, have also stated that because of the Gödel's  theorem science can never comprehend the universe.(By the way physicist Sean Carroll showed in 2013, that there probably is no "Multiverse" - but is it of importance? Since science is just a bunch of ever-changing-fallible-peer-reviewed opinions that can never be fact, let alone Truth.

 

And we can prove this because of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem.

 

Why do you think the truly great scientists/mathematicians such as Michael Faraday, Leonhard Euler, Bernhard Riemann, and many others, ( whose science and mathematics scientists of today use for their theories) believed Jesus of Nazareth was the Truth.

They knew science was always going to be extremely limited in its ability to describe and understand, what Jesus Christ  and the his Father, created.

 

Now we can emphatically and objectively show - thanks to Gödel - science will always be utterly powerless and wrong in comprehending, and explaining the physical universe.

 

What do you think?

Thanks for reading this.

I found the following Godel quote interesting:

 

"I like Islam, it is a consistent idea of religion and open-minded."

• Kurt Gödel as quoted by Hao Wang in "A Logical Journey: From Gödel to Philosophy", Hao Wang. The MIT Press. 1996.

Seems like Godel was not so smart afterall, IMHO.

[Lighty]

 

Topic One

Science is dead. Science will always have no power to describe the physical universe. Here's a very brief why.

 

In his "End Of Physics" lecture (2010), physicist Stephen Hawking declared that because of the very eminent mathematician Kurt Gödel's "Incompleteness Theorem", physics (and science) can never  understand the laws that govern our universe.

 

Professor Kurt Gödel's discovery is considered the most important discovery in mathematics.

Albert Einstein, who taught at the same college, said he was in absolute awe of Gödel's intelligence. It was Einstein who helped Dr.Godel attain his U.S. citizenship.

 

The renowned physicists Roger Penrose and Freeman Dyson, and others, have also stated that because of the Gödel's  theorem science can never comprehend the universe.(By the way physicist Sean Carroll showed in 2013, that there probably is no "Multiverse" - but is it of importance? Since science is just a bunch of ever-changing-fallible-peer-reviewed opinions that can never be fact, let alone Truth.

 

And we can prove this because of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem.

 

Why do you think the truly great scientists/mathematicians such as Michael Faraday, Leonhard Euler, Bernhard Riemann, and many others, ( whose science and mathematics scientists of today use for their theories) believed Jesus of Nazareth was the Truth.

They knew science was always going to be extremely limited in its ability to describe and understand, what Jesus Christ  and the his Father, created.

 

Now we can emphatically and objectively show - thanks to Gödel - science will always be utterly powerless and wrong in comprehending, and explaining the physical universe.

 

What do you think?

Thanks for reading this.

I found the following Godel quote interesting:

 

"I like Islam, it is a consistent idea of religion and open-minded."

• Kurt Gödel as quoted by Hao Wang in "A Logical Journey: From Gödel to Philosophy", Hao Wang. The MIT Press. 1996.

Seems like Godel was not so smart afterall, IMHO.

 

lol!

 

Being a Muslim, I know what you mean haha perhaps he was looking at it from a scientific viewpoint or something? Rather than the obvious thing we have in mind. I'm opening a thread on the relationship between the genesis and evolution, I would love it if you posted there since I like many of your posts Nobody-2441. You seem to be understanding the relationship between religion and science much the same way I do, from your intepretation of Noah's ark to a lot of other things.

Edited January 24, 2015 by Lighty

[rontiger]

All praise for Jesus Christ: You are the Almighty God. You have given the immeasurable, unimaginable gift of becoming, forever, the very children of your Dad, God the Father, for only all those who believe in you, Jesus, as their Savior and God, and also have a deep personal relationship with you and your Father, through the Holy Spirit(Book of John, in The Bible). 

 

Kurt Gödel gave absolute written testimony of his deep faith in Jesus Christ, by writing that he was a "BAPTIZED LUTHERAN" Christian.

[(1) Hao  Wang, 1996: From Gödel to Philosophy;pages 27,112(MIT Press)]  

[(2) Hao Wang,1987: Reflections On Kurt Gödel;p.18 (MIT Press)]

 

Also Adele Gödel (Kurt's wife) affirmed Gödel's deep conviction(belief in and trust) for Jesus as Savior, by saying he was religious and read the Bible regularly!

[(1)Hao Wang,1987,1990 : Reflections on Kurt Gödel;page 70(MIT Press)]

[(2)Hao Wang,1996:From Gödel to Philosophy; pages 27, 51]

 

Gödel was a gentleman and recognized worldwide, so he would give extremely polite answers to questions and said he liked a wide range of things. However he only loved his wife Adele and Jesus Christ.

 

Kurt Gödel was widely accepted as one of the best logicians in all human history, and one of the very top mathematicians in history( as well as the first winner of the prestigious Albert Einstein Award for natural science -this award was stopped in 1979- and the National Medal of Science).

 

Though Leonard Euler(he believed in the inerrancy of the Bible) is easily the most scientifically/mathematically intelligent human, ever created by our Jesus Christ.

 

Born-again Christian Leonard Euler's mathematics and physics are used in quantum mechanics  (a main branch of physics/science - I am explaining for the youth who are reading)and string theory and untold of future technological(science is a mere forever inaccurate tool/technology) discoveries. Euler is the Mozart of math/science.[W.Gautchi,2007,Euler] 

 

Sadly Euler became partially blind at 23 and totally blind when he was 49 years old.

 

All of todays non-Christ believing physicists are SECOND rate at best - though the general public think they are first rate because of media hype. We must all recognize that ALL of today's physics is based on the work of the ultra-genius, born-again TRUE Christians, such as James Maxwell, Michael Faraday and the already mentioned Euler. 

 

But remember, science is dead. All of the good scientists always realized science was dead: science is ultimately powerless to explain the Universe/Multiverse without Jesus. Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems just  formally proved this! 

 

Even the best scientists in history are absolutely zero in their intelligence, when compared to our God Jesus. 

 

     Thank you for reading, and thanks for all your replies Worthy CF .Thanks also to the moderators.

Cool Heisenberg quote Enoch2021. In Heisenberg's last letter to Einstein(shortly before Einstein died), he wrote only " the Lord God" can truly know the laws of the Universe and what the Universe really is. 

However I dislike another saying possibly linked to W.Heisenberg.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SavedOnebyGrace]

 

lol!

 

Being a Muslim, I know what you mean haha perhaps he was looking at it from a scientific viewpoint or something? Rather than the obvious thing we have in mind. I'm opening a thread on the relationship between the genesis and evolution, I would love it if you posted there since I like many of your posts Nobody-2441. You seem to be understanding the relationship between religion and science much the same way I do, from your intepretation of Noah's ark to a lot of other things.

 

Be happy to contribute as much as I'm able.

[standing_alone]

Rontiger, very interesting topic. And I agree: “Science will always have no power to describe the physical universe.”

 

Your reasoning is correct, although incomplete (please excuse the unintended pun). Basically, it comes down to this: one has to already believe that he knows, in order to claim that he knows.

 

However, (purely theoretical) science is dead not only for the reason you mentioned, but, ironically, for finding God at the end of their wild speculations. Speculations that, also ironic, in the end proclaim the death of science by themselves.

 

And by the way, if you use scientific tools, such as “Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem”, to claim science is dead, then you obviously can’t claim science is dead. I think we Christians should avoid paradoxes.

 

I also think we should make a distinction between actual science (applied science) and the fantasy world of endless theoretical speculations (and any theory regarding the past belongs unavoidably solely to this category), so that we don’t confuse anyone.

[standing_alone]

It seems to me that "God" is simply used as an explanation for that which we can't grasp.

 

 

 

It seems to me that evolution is simply used as an (convenient) explanation for that which they (you) can't (won't) grasp. Other than that, nice to meet you and looking forward for an actual dialogue.

[standing_alone]

You only have 2 choices as to "How" we are here: Random Chance (Nature) or Intelligent Design (GOD). 

 

 

Sorry to correct a valiant Christian, but actually there is only one. Those who claim differently (all the atheists in the world) would have to show me where exactly in nature is chance and chance alone, because I surely can’t find it. Ironically, atheists themselves rely on the absence of chance, otherwise they couldn’t possibly come up even with their wrong science (their speculative science), such as big bang. No descriptive mechanism could be possible, hence no theory whatsoever.

[standing_alone]

Alphaparticle, the topic was about the universe. Not about Earth – although the formal science is also dead in regard to the creation of Earth too…

 

By the way, I’m not sure how atheists, unlike you, could miss that “The growth of our knowledge is currently exponential”, since this too confirms the Bible (another fulfilled prediction). Of course, as long as by “knowledge” we mean something actually verifiable, something leading to concrete results, not speculations about so distant or so past things.

 

And sorry but no, science doesn’t work “pretty well at what it is meant to do- understand the workings of the physical universe”. Actually, it’s because of a blind faith in science (cosmology, in this case) that people, especially the believers in big bang, don’t understand “the workings of the physical universe.” Think about most of its contents, for example.

 

As for “whether or not one acknowledges God as the ultimate source of natural order doesn't stop them from making discoveries”, well, he (they) may not acknowledge God explicitly, but they do so implicitly. Otherwise each every claim, scientific or not, is excused from possibly being true.