subject:"\[FairfieldLife\] Re\: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God \| Mail Online"

The big bang is only theory. 


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@ wrote:
 
  Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. A law of physics.
 
 
 There's a theory called Quantum Cosmology which states that the universe 
 started out as a quantum wave function.  MMY favored this theory when he was 
 alive.  The theory presupposes that there is an observer in the imaginary 
 world for the wave function to exist.
 
 This wave function then collapsed or manifested into the real world as the 
 Big Bang.  Thus, matter, time and space was created.
 
 
  
  But God can create or destroy matter.
 
 I agree with this.
 
  
  
  
  Steven Hawking's statement may have been the most profound thing he has 
  said in his career.
 
 IMO, it's very dumb, or that he just made it to sell his books.  In that 
 regard, he may be shrewd. 
  
  He should resign for having an opinion that is different than someone else??
 
 Yes, for the reasons given above.
 
 
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
  
   This article is insightful.  Hawking is past his prime.  He should resign 
   from his tenured position in Oxford or whatever university he is 
   associated with.
   
   
   
   
   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote:
   
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-
explain-universe-God.html#ixzz1cMJFSYon

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@ wrote:
 
  Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. A law of physics.
 
 
 There's a theory called Quantum Cosmology which states that the universe 
 started out as a quantum wave function.  MMY favored this theory when he was 
 alive.  The theory presupposes that there is an observer in the imaginary 
 world for the wave function to exist.
 
 This wave function then collapsed or manifested into the real world as the 
 Big Bang.  Thus, matter, time and space was created.
 
 
  
  But God can create or destroy matter.
 
 I agree with this.

Then again, matter cannot be created nor destroyed. A law of physics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Vw2CrY9Igs

 
  
  
  
  Steven Hawking's statement may have been the most profound thing he has 
  said in his career.
 
 IMO, it's very dumb, or that he just made it to sell his books.  In that 
 regard, he may be shrewd. 
  
  He should resign for having an opinion that is different than someone else??
 
 Yes, for the reasons given above.
 
 
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
  
   This article is insightful.  Hawking is past his prime.  He should resign 
   from his tenured position in Oxford or whatever university he is 
   associated with.
   
   
   
   
   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote:
   
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-
explain-universe-God.html#ixzz1cMJFSYon

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online

2011-11-01 Thread curtisdeltablues

-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@... wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-
explain-universe-God.html#ixzz1cMJFSYon

Hawking also thinks that the potential existence of other lifeforms in the
universe undermines the traditional religious conviction that we are living on
a unique, God-created planet. But there is no proof that other lifeforms are
out there, and Hawking certainly does not present any.

ME: Correct, it is a probability but there is not direct proof. His
establishing this as a critical criteria will be useful below.

It always amuses me that atheists often argue for the existence of
extra-terrestrial intelligence beyond earth. Yet they are only too eager to
denounce the possibility that we already have a vast, intelligent being out
there: God.

ME: Deceptive presentation. First of all I have only heard people say that it
is likely or probably that this is not the only planet in the universe that
could support life. And that is a fact. There is no reason that there are not
many planets with conditions to support life in the universe. But then he
makes his error worse by comparing this to the God idea. The big difference is
that we already have proof that life exists. And we know what conditions are
needed for carbon based life. So it is a small leap to assume that on one of
the likely planets with similar conditions, other life forms have developed.
We even understand the mechanism of how life developed here. We just don't
definitively now how it started.

No one is saying that God is not possible. This is a typical staw man
switchero. Atheist say we lack evidence to support the belief now, which was
coincidentally a criteria he was more than happy to apply to the lack of direct
evidence for other life forms in the universe.

We have a mystery, how did life begin? Religious people rename this mystery
God, and add nothing to our understanding. They offer us conflicting texts
of God's communication with man, and actually kill each other over who has the
right God instructions. Renaming the mystery of life God is like renaming
short people vertically challenged. Maybe it makes a few people feel better,
but they still aren't getting on the basketball team or pulling the hottest
chicks. (Unless they balance their lack of height with wallet thickness or
fame. Yeah, I'm talking to you Tom short stack Cruise.)

Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-explain-universe-God.html#ixzz1cSu1bLfj

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@... wrote:

 The big bang is only theory.  The scientists are still puzzled why their 
 equations break down at the singularity point.  Another professor opined that 
 the Quantum Cosmology Theory eliminates the problems at the singularity 
 point.  So, there you have it.


This is true.  But it's the best theory around to describe the universe for now.

 
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
 
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@ wrote:
  
   Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. A law of physics.
  
  
  There's a theory called Quantum Cosmology which states that the universe 
  started out as a quantum wave function.  MMY favored this theory when he 
  was alive.  The theory presupposes that there is an observer in the 
  imaginary world for the wave function to exist.
  
  This wave function then collapsed or manifested into the real world as the 
  Big Bang.  Thus, matter, time and space was created.
  
  
   
   But God can create or destroy matter.
  
  I agree with this.
  
   
   
   
   Steven Hawking's statement may have been the most profound thing he has 
   said in his career.
  
  IMO, it's very dumb, or that he just made it to sell his books.  In that 
  regard, he may be shrewd. 
   
   He should resign for having an opinion that is different than someone 
   else??
  
  Yes, for the reasons given above.
  
  
   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
   
This article is insightful.  Hawking is past his prime.  He should 
resign from his tenured position in Oxford or whatever university he is 
associated with.





--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote:

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-
 explain-universe-God.html#ixzz1cMJFSYon

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@ wrote:
 
  The big bang is only theory.  The scientists are still puzzled why their 
  equations break down at the singularity point.  Another professor opined 
  that the Quantum Cosmology Theory eliminates the problems at the 
  singularity point.  So, there you have it.
 
 
 This is true.  But it's the best theory around to describe the universe for 
 now.
 

  If theory only exists, then how do we know if God or god created anything?  
The best theory, is still a theory. 

The definition of what God or god is, is still to be defined by what is actual. 
Presence, can have more influence of knowing what was, by what is.

  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
  
   
   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@ wrote:
   
Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. A law of physics.
   
   
   There's a theory called Quantum Cosmology which states that the universe 
   started out as a quantum wave function.  MMY favored this theory when he 
   was alive.  The theory presupposes that there is an observer in the 
   imaginary world for the wave function to exist.
   
   This wave function then collapsed or manifested into the real world as 
   the Big Bang.  Thus, matter, time and space was created.
   
   

But God can create or destroy matter.
   
   I agree with this.
   



Steven Hawking's statement may have been the most profound thing he has 
said in his career.
   
   IMO, it's very dumb, or that he just made it to sell his books.  In that 
   regard, he may be shrewd. 

He should resign for having an opinion that is different than someone 
else??
   
   Yes, for the reasons given above.
   
   

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:

 This article is insightful.  Hawking is past his prime.  He should 
 resign from his tenured position in Oxford or whatever university he 
 is associated with.
 
 
 
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote:
 
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-
  explain-universe-God.html#ixzz1cMJFSYon

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
 
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@ wrote:
  
   Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. A law of physics.
  
  
  There's a theory called Quantum Cosmology which states that the universe 
  started out as a quantum wave function.  MMY favored this theory when he 
  was alive.  The theory presupposes that there is an observer in the 
  imaginary world for the wave function to exist.
  
  This wave function then collapsed or manifested into the real world as the 
  Big Bang.  Thus, matter, time and space was created.
  
  
   
   But God can create or destroy matter.
  
  I agree with this.
 
 Then again, matter cannot be created nor destroyed. A law of physics.
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Vw2CrY9Igs


The Big Bang Theory states that there was no time, space and matter before the 
universe began. That means these were created at the singularity of the Big 
Bang.

The phenomenon of black holes suggests that matter gets destroyed at the 
singularity within the black hole.  We can only speculate as to what happens on 
the other side of the black hole.  Some scientists say that a small baby 
universe may be created.  But nobody can prove this idea to be a scientific 
fact at the present time.



 
  
   
   
   
   Steven Hawking's statement may have been the most profound thing he has 
   said in his career.
  
  IMO, it's very dumb, or that he just made it to sell his books.  In that 
  regard, he may be shrewd. 
   
   He should resign for having an opinion that is different than someone 
   else??
  
  Yes, for the reasons given above.
  
  
   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
   
This article is insightful.  Hawking is past his prime.  He should 
resign from his tenured position in Oxford or whatever university he is 
associated with.





--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote:

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-
 explain-universe-God.html#ixzz1cMJFSYon

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online

  
 
   If theory only exists, then how do we know if God or god created anything?  
 The best theory, is still a theory. 
 
 The definition of what God or god is, is still to be defined by what is 
 actual. 
 Presence, can have more influence of knowing what was, by what is.
 

To answer the existence of God, one can use an ontological argument, like the 
Kalam Cosmological Argument, to determine the logical answer.  Also, one can 
derive the existence of a Creator by understanding the significance of natural 
laws.  These laws are consistent everywhere in the universe.  As such, there 
must be an Observer which makes these laws function the way they do.  
Otherwise, there would be no order, life forms or human beings in the universe. 
 For that matter, there would be no space, time and matter.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjI6D84ExvU

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote:

   
  
If theory only exists, then how do we know if God or god created 
  anything?  The best theory, is still a theory. 
  
  The definition of what God or god is, is still to be defined by what is 
  actual. 
  Presence, can have more influence of knowing what was, by what is.
  
 
 To answer the existence of God, one can use an ontological argument, like the 
 Kalam Cosmological Argument, to determine the logical answer.  Also, one can 
 derive the existence of a Creator by understanding the significance of 
 natural laws.  These laws are consistent everywhere in the universe.  As 
 such, there must be an Observer which makes these laws function the way they 
 do.  Otherwise, there would be no order, life forms or human beings in the 
 universe.  For that matter, there would be no space, time and matter.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online

2011-11-01 Thread Yifu

A refutation of the Ontological argument (first articulated by St. Anselm 
10-33-1109) will be offered through Dr. Rebecca Newberger Goldstein later today 
or tomorrow.
...
A refutation of the need for an Outside Observer will be presented through the 
help of New Scientist, 29 Oct 2011: Begone, quantum voyeur... in a nutshell 
stating The idea allows the wave function to collapse without needing to 
involve an observer. Article by editor David Shiga based on the work of 
physicist Daniel Bedingham.
...
Bedingham's theories have gained support from some other physicists: It would 
be the first modification to quantum mechanics since its conception in the 
1920's.
...
...
http://www.krislewisart.com/images/annunciation.html



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote:

   
  
If theory only exists, then how do we know if God or god created 
  anything?  The best theory, is still a theory. 
  
  The definition of what God or god is, is still to be defined by what is 
  actual. 
  Presence, can have more influence of knowing what was, by what is.
  
 
 To answer the existence of God, one can use an ontological argument, like the 
 Kalam Cosmological Argument, to determine the logical answer.  Also, one can 
 derive the existence of a Creator by understanding the significance of 
 natural laws.  These laws are consistent everywhere in the universe.  As 
 such, there must be an Observer which makes these laws function the way they 
 do.  Otherwise, there would be no order, life forms or human beings in the 
 universe.  For that matter, there would be no space, time and matter.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online

2011-11-01 Thread Denise Evans

The bottom line, John, is that you choose to believe.  You can't prove an 
observer...the word is inherently personal.  Steve Jobs chose to believe in 
God as well, before he died.  Nothing wrong with it(the comment by the 
cosmologist on the irony of the fact that there must be an observer in order 
to know or create the finite or infinite universe wasn't proof as I 
recall...it was just a comment.)  It's all very fascinating stuff, but there is 
no proof necessarily that all of us, currently limited by our physical 
presence, can know for ultimate surety.  

I choose to believe in something greater than myself as well and I personalize 
it to some degree...I can't reconcile the cold laws of physics with the warmth 
of believing in a larger God/energy that has the characteristics of love and 
compassion, for example.  But, life works better when I believe and makes 
more sense in terms of my soul and energetic presence on the planet, and that's 
all that really matters to me.  I retreat to the idea that consciousness just 
IS



From: obbajeeba no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 12:01 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the 
universe without God | Mail Online


  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjI6D84ExvU

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote:

   
  
If theory only exists, then how do we know if God or god created 
  anything?  The best theory, is still a theory. 
  
  The definition of what God or god is, is still to be defined by what is 
  actual. 
  Presence, can have more influence of knowing what was, by what is.
  
 
 To answer the existence of God, one can use an ontological argument, like the 
 Kalam Cosmological Argument, to determine the logical answer.  Also, one can 
 derive the existence of a Creator by understanding the significance of 
 natural laws.  These laws are consistent everywhere in the universe.  As 
 such, there must be an Observer which makes these laws function the way they 
 do.  Otherwise, there would be no order, life forms or human beings in the 
 universe.  For that matter, there would be no space, time and matter.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online

2011-11-01 Thread authfriend

You guys might want to watch this series, which begins
tomorrow (Wednesday) on Nova on PBS. The four hour-long
episodes deal (in order) with space, time, the quantum
world, and the realm of other universes. From the series
Web site:

The Fabric of the Cosmos, a four-hour series based on the book by renowned
physicist and author Brian Greene, takes us to the frontiers of physics to see
how scientists are piecing together the most complete picture yet of space,
time, and the universe. With each step, audiences will discover that just
beneath the surface of our everyday experience lies a world we'd hardly
recognizea startling world far stranger and more wondrous than anyone expected.

Brian Greene is going to let you in on a secret: We've all been deceived. Our
perceptions of time and space have led us astray. Much of what we thought we
knew about our universethat the past has already happened and the future is
yet to be, that space is just an empty void, that our universe is the only
universe that existsjust might be wrong.

Interweaving provocative theories, experiments, and stories with crystal-clear
explanations and imaginative metaphors like those that defined the
groundbreaking and highly acclaimed series The Elegant Universe, The Fabric
of the Cosmos aims to be the most compelling, visual, and comprehensive
picture of modern physics ever seen on television.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/fabric-of-cosmos.html?gclid=CO7D7f26lKwCFYmI5godqywUrQ

http://tinyurl.com/3nbe3mj

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Denise Evans dmevans365@... wrote:

 The bottom line, John, is that you choose to believe. Â You can't prove an 
 observer...the word is inherently personal. Â Steve Jobs chose to believe 
 in God as well, before he died. Â Nothing wrong with it(the comment by 
 the cosmologist on the irony of the fact that there must be an observer in 
 order to know or create the finite or infinite universe wasn't proof as I 
 recall...it was just a comment.) Â It's all very fascinating stuff, but there 
 is no proof necessarily that all of us, currently limited by our physical 
 presence, can know for ultimate surety. 

Denise,

The proof is that we as human beings are conscious and are able to rationalize 
the natural laws around us.  If we did not have this faculty, we would not be 
able to have a civilization and technology that we have today.

Similarly, the mechanisms to operate the universe from the quantum level to the 
galactic levels are very complex and awe inspiring.  One cannot simply 
rationalize these mechanisms to be a random act of nature.  Specically, why is 
there time, space and matter?  If there was no Observer, these things will not 
and cannot exist or make sense.  We know this to be true because we are 
conscious and are the observers as well.
  
 
 I choose to believe in something greater than myself as well and I 
 personalize it to some degree...I can't reconcile the cold laws of physics 
 with the warmth of believing in a larger God/energy that has the 
 characteristics of love and compassion, for example. Â But, life works better 
 when I believe and makes more sense in terms of my soul and energetic 
 presence on the planet, and that's all that really matters to me. Â I retreat 
 to the idea that consciousness just IS
 

Your point is well taken.  It is logical and very human to believe that since 
we love and have compassion, the Observer of this universe must have these 
qualities as well.  This is the reason why the enlightened teachers of the past 
have taught that the Divine has incarnated into the world in the form of a 
human being, or as both human and divine.

You're correct in saying that consciousness IS.  MMY has said this many times 
over in the past--the very essence of Being.

  



 From: obbajeeba no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 12:01 PM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the 
 universe without God | Mail Online
 
 
 Â  
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjI6D84ExvU
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
 

   
 If theory only exists, then how do we know if God or god created 
   anything?  The best theory, is still a theory. 
   
   The definition of what God or god is, is still to be defined by what is 
   actual. 
   Presence, can have more influence of knowing what was, by what is.
   
  
  To answer the existence of God, one can use an ontological argument, like 
  the Kalam Cosmological Argument, to determine the logical answer.  Also, 
  one can derive the existence of a Creator by understanding the significance 
  of natural laws.  These laws are consistent everywhere in the universe.  As 
  such, there must be an Observer which makes these laws function the way 
  they do.  Otherwise, there would be no order, life forms or human beings in 
  the universe.  For that matter, there would be no space, time and matter.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online

Judy,

Thanks for the heads up on this Nova episode.  I'm familiar with Brian Greene's 
work through the video clips available in YouTube.  He is very good at 
communicating to the general public complex ideas in physics into 
understandable language.  But he tends to be a dreamer in that he believes that 
there is a way to prove, through scientific observation, the existence of the 
Multiverse.

Nonetheless, I will be looking out for this show.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote:

 You guys might want to watch this series, which begins
 tomorrow (Wednesday) on Nova on PBS. The four hour-long
 episodes deal (in order) with space, time, the quantum
 world, and the realm of other universes. From the series
 Web site:
 
 The Fabric of the Cosmos, a four-hour series based on the book by renowned 
 physicist and author Brian Greene, takes us to the frontiers of physics to 
 see how scientists are piecing together the most complete picture yet of 
 space, time, and the universe. With each step, audiences will discover that 
 just beneath the surface of our everyday experience lies a world we'd hardly 
 recognizea startling world far stranger and more wondrous than anyone 
 expected.
 
 Brian Greene is going to let you in on a secret: We've all been deceived. Our 
 perceptions of time and space have led us astray. Much of what we thought we 
 knew about our universethat the past has already happened and the future is 
 yet to be, that space is just an empty void, that our universe is the only 
 universe that existsjust might be wrong.
 
 Interweaving provocative theories, experiments, and stories with 
 crystal-clear explanations and imaginative metaphors like those that defined 
 the groundbreaking and highly acclaimed series The Elegant Universe, The 
 Fabric of the Cosmos aims to be the most compelling, visual, and 
 comprehensive picture of modern physics ever seen on television.
 
 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/fabric-of-cosmos.html?gclid=CO7D7f26lKwCFYmI5godqywUrQ
 
 http://tinyurl.com/3nbe3mj

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online

This article is insightful.  Hawking is past his prime.  He should resign from 
his tenured position in Oxford or whatever university he is associated with.





--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@... wrote:

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-
 explain-universe-God.html#ixzz1cMJFSYon

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online

2011-10-31 Thread obbajeeba

Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. A law of physics.

But God can create or destroy matter. 


Steven Hawking's statement may have been the most profound thing he has said in 
his career. 

He should resign for having an opinion that is different than someone else??

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote:

 This article is insightful.  Hawking is past his prime.  He should resign 
 from his tenured position in Oxford or whatever university he is associated 
 with.
 
 
 
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote:
 
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-
  explain-universe-God.html#ixzz1cMJFSYon

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@... wrote:

 Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. A law of physics.


There's a theory called Quantum Cosmology which states that the universe 
started out as a quantum wave function.  MMY favored this theory when he was 
alive.  The theory presupposes that there is an observer in the imaginary world 
for the wave function to exist.

This wave function then collapsed or manifested into the real world as the Big 
Bang.  Thus, matter, time and space was created.


 
 But God can create or destroy matter.

I agree with this.

 
 
 
 Steven Hawking's statement may have been the most profound thing he has said 
 in his career.

IMO, it's very dumb, or that he just made it to sell his books.  In that 
regard, he may be shrewd. 
 
 He should resign for having an opinion that is different than someone else??

Yes, for the reasons given above.


 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
 
  This article is insightful.  Hawking is past his prime.  He should resign 
  from his tenured position in Oxford or whatever university he is associated 
  with.
  
  
  
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote:
  
   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-
   explain-universe-God.html#ixzz1cMJFSYon

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online

2011-10-31 Thread Yifu

So, you're appealing to the The Mahareeshee says so argument. Interesting 
parallel to the Bible Says So tactic:
http://www.scottgbrooks.com/2009_10.html
...
The notion that the universe needs an outsider observer is an outmoded 
corollary to the Copenhagen quantum viewpoint; but not at all necessary in the 
Many Worlds (or Multiverse) hypothesis as currently expounded by David Deutsch.
...
Besides, if you're saying there's an outside observer, is that a Personality? 
or simply some aspect of the relative but impersonal? What is the nature of 
that outside observer and why doesn't this lead to an infinite regress (needing 
another outside observer to observe that entity, and so on;turtles all 
the way down).
...
The God of the gaps tactic is unsustainable (the notion that a God is 
needed to shore up supposed shortcomings in somebody's hypothesis).  The Many 
Worlds/Multiverse hypothesis in recent decades has more or less supplanted the 
Cophenhagen viewpoint among many if not most physicists; and this viewpoint by 
no means needs an outside observer since the Multiverse is it's own Observer. 
 




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@ wrote:
 
  Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. A law of physics.
 
 
 There's a theory called Quantum Cosmology which states that the universe 
 started out as a quantum wave function.  MMY favored this theory when he was 
 alive.  The theory presupposes that there is an observer in the imaginary 
 world for the wave function to exist.
 
 This wave function then collapsed or manifested into the real world as the 
 Big Bang.  Thus, matter, time and space was created.
 
 
  
  But God can create or destroy matter.
 
 I agree with this.
 
  
  
  
  Steven Hawking's statement may have been the most profound thing he has 
  said in his career.
 
 IMO, it's very dumb, or that he just made it to sell his books.  In that 
 regard, he may be shrewd. 
  
  He should resign for having an opinion that is different than someone else??
 
 Yes, for the reasons given above.
 
 
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
  
   This article is insightful.  Hawking is past his prime.  He should resign 
   from his tenured position in Oxford or whatever university he is 
   associated with.
   
   
   
   
   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote:
   
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-
explain-universe-God.html#ixzz1cMJFSYon

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@... wrote:

 So, you're appealing to the The Mahareeshee says so argument. Interesting 
 parallel to the Bible Says So tactic:
 http://www.scottgbrooks.com/2009_10.html
 ...
 The notion that the universe needs an outsider observer is an outmoded 
 corollary to the Copenhagen quantum viewpoint; but not at all necessary in 
 the Many Worlds (or Multiverse) hypothesis as currently expounded by David 
 Deutsch.

I don't believe the multiverse theory can be proved.  The current technology in 
the world is not able to make any telescopes that can go beyond our universe.



 ...
 Besides, if you're saying there's an outside observer, is that a Personality? 
 or simply some aspect of the relative but impersonal? What is the nature of 
 that outside observer and why doesn't this lead to an infinite regress 
 (needing another outside observer to observe that entity, and so 
 on;turtles all the way down).

Yes, the observer would a Personality of a divine order.  The Personality is 
not an aspect of the relative, nor is it impersonal.


 ...
 The God of the gaps tactic is unsustainable (the notion that a God is 
 needed to shore up supposed shortcomings in somebody's hypothesis).  The Many 
 Worlds/Multiverse hypothesis in recent decades has more or less supplanted 
 the Cophenhagen viewpoint among many if not most physicists; and this 
 viewpoint by no means needs an outside observer since the Multiverse is 
 it's own Observer. 


How can the multiverse be it's own observer?  Nobody has proved the scientific 
fact that the multiverse exists.  You're arguing from the viewpoint of 
incorrect logic.

 
 
 
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
 
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@ wrote:
  
   Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. A law of physics.
  
  
  There's a theory called Quantum Cosmology which states that the universe 
  started out as a quantum wave function.  MMY favored this theory when he 
  was alive.  The theory presupposes that there is an observer in the 
  imaginary world for the wave function to exist.
  
  This wave function then collapsed or manifested into the real world as the 
  Big Bang.  Thus, matter, time and space was created.
  
  
   
   But God can create or destroy matter.
  
  I agree with this.
  
   
   
   
   Steven Hawking's statement may have been the most profound thing he has 
   said in his career.
  
  IMO, it's very dumb, or that he just made it to sell his books.  In that 
  regard, he may be shrewd. 
   
   He should resign for having an opinion that is different than someone 
   else??
  
  Yes, for the reasons given above.
  
  
   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
   
This article is insightful.  Hawking is past his prime.  He should 
resign from his tenured position in Oxford or whatever university he is 
associated with.





--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote:

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-
 explain-universe-God.html#ixzz1cMJFSYon

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online

2011-10-31 Thread Yifu

You're saying nobody can prove this and that. True, such hypothesis are based 
largely on string theory and have no experimental evidence to back up the 
hypotheses. So what's the evidence for GOD?
...
But don't appeal to the Argument from Ignorance (i.e. possible flaws in 
position A support position B - the God hypothesis). The God hypothesis is 
equally unproven and unsupportable; and the Multiverse vp doesn't need God to 
shore it up; anymore than evolutionary theory needs God to fill in supposed 
gaps in the fossil record.
...
The notion of an outside observer (again) is not at all needed in the 
Multiverse hypothesis.  When you say How can.; one could equally say How 
can to the outside observer hypothesis. Neither position is more true than 
the other on the face of it; except that the Multiverse hypothesis does quite 
well without the need for an outside observer.

   The Multiverse is its own Observer - that's the position of those supporting 
that hypthesis. The notion of an outside Observer arose as a consequence of 
some shortcomings of the Copenhagen viewpoint, not supported by Einstein, in 
which he made fun of the idea that the moon wasn't there (going back to 
Bishop Berkeley) if nobody was looking at it. 
...
But for the sake of discussion, let's say there is a GOD who is the Outside 
observer.  Tell me more about this God.  What's the Name of that GOD? Pray 
tell. If there's an Outside Observer, how do you know which GOD it is? The 
Scientology God Xenu?
...
In a nutshell, you're appealing to the Argument from Ignorance: (assertion A 
may have some flaws in it, so one must appeal to cause B - in this cause the 
GOD.) Although the Multiverse hypothesis can't be proven, you haven't 
disproven it; but the God argument is on even more thin ground.
...
Last but not least, the Multiverse hypothesis is fully compatible with an 
ever-existing entension throughout and beyond time itself, not needing an 
original cause behind it. If there were B as a cause behind A, what is the 
cause of C...; and so on - again, infinite turtles all the way down.
...
So who is the Outside Observer of your Outside Observer? 

http://www.carrieannbaade.com/cuteandcreepy/artists/scottgbrooks.html


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@ wrote:
 
  So, you're appealing to the The Mahareeshee says so argument. Interesting 
  parallel to the Bible Says So tactic:
  http://www.scottgbrooks.com/2009_10.html
  ...
  The notion that the universe needs an outsider observer is an outmoded 
  corollary to the Copenhagen quantum viewpoint; but not at all necessary in 
  the Many Worlds (or Multiverse) hypothesis as currently expounded by David 
  Deutsch.
 
 I don't believe the multiverse theory can be proved.  The current technology 
 in the world is not able to make any telescopes that can go beyond our 
 universe.
 
 
 
  ...
  Besides, if you're saying there's an outside observer, is that a 
  Personality? or simply some aspect of the relative but impersonal? What is 
  the nature of that outside observer and why doesn't this lead to an 
  infinite regress (needing another outside observer to observe that 
  entity, and so on;turtles all the way down).
 
 Yes, the observer would a Personality of a divine order.  The Personality is 
 not an aspect of the relative, nor is it impersonal.
 
 
  ...
  The God of the gaps tactic is unsustainable (the notion that a God is 
  needed to shore up supposed shortcomings in somebody's hypothesis).  The 
  Many Worlds/Multiverse hypothesis in recent decades has more or less 
  supplanted the Cophenhagen viewpoint among many if not most physicists; and 
  this viewpoint by no means needs an outside observer since the Multiverse 
  is it's own Observer. 
 
 
 How can the multiverse be it's own observer?  Nobody has proved the 
 scientific fact that the multiverse exists.  You're arguing from the 
 viewpoint of incorrect logic.
 
  
  
  
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
  
   
   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@ wrote:
   
Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. A law of physics.
   
   
   There's a theory called Quantum Cosmology which states that the universe 
   started out as a quantum wave function.  MMY favored this theory when he 
   was alive.  The theory presupposes that there is an observer in the 
   imaginary world for the wave function to exist.
   
   This wave function then collapsed or manifested into the real world as 
   the Big Bang.  Thus, matter, time and space was created.
   
   

But God can create or destroy matter.
   
   I agree with this.
   



Steven Hawking's statement may have been the most profound thing he has 
said in his career.
   
   IMO, it's very dumb, or that he just made it to sell his books.  In that 
   regard, he may be shrewd. 

He should resign for

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online