I covered the point. But, judging by the delay, you had to run to a bookstore to leaf through the book to "prove" you actually had the book (i.e., page 129). Remember? So it was fun knowing you had to work to cover your tracks.
No you didn't cover it. You showed you have absolutely ZERO understanding. Which you pathetically tried to obfuscate by badgering me about what's on page 129, just like you're trying to do now to hide your ignorance. Because the only meaningful test of having read a book is being able to discuss it. Which you could not and can not do. Having a copy on hand means NOTHING. Ever hear of libraries? Of course you have. But you're just trolling. "Run to a bookstore"? ROFLMAO!!!
Funny how these same theologians also have been incapable of observing one, just one almighty, omnipotent, omniscient being. If you'd like to debate with me, please try to avoid any logical fallacies. I'd be happy to have an intelligent conversation. Knowing... What is knowing? What do you know? What do you think you know? In reality, there is NOTHING you can know, with 100% certainty, other than the fact that you exist. I think, therefore I am. Do you KNOW that you are anything but a brain in a vat, being stimulated with neuro-electric impulses? No. You don't. But for all intents and purposes, you might as well rule out that possibility. What effect does it have on your existence, whether you are a brain in a vat or not? Let us then consider science. Science... we form hypotheses based upon what we observe. When we realize these observations are consistent, that the results we obtain are reliable and repeatable, we form a theory. We use these theories to explain why things happen. Unsurprisingly, parts of these hypotheses and theories are disproven over time. These ideas are refined, to take into account whatever they didn't encompass before. This continuous process results in very well formed theories, that can explain almost every piece of existence! Is it possible that these theories are wrong? Perhaps. But we can use them repeatedly, and they will generate the same results time and time again. They are reliable. We can predict the result of an event with an INCREDIBLE degree of accuracy. Do we KNOW, with 100% certainty, that we are correct? Of course not. If an omnipotent being were to in fact present itself, that would present evidence contrary to all existing theories that must then be accepted. However, saying that the theories are worthless because there is a hypothetical scenario that something may happen is ridiculous. In analogy, that would be akin to saying that gravity is false because 'if we started floating all of a sudden, how could you explain that!' Well. We couldn't. But that isn't the case, so why should we even consider altering our rules for that scenario? It makes no sense to incorporate a god simply because we haven't solved EVERYTHING yet. The probability that this god exists is extremely low. Take into account all the deities that have existed since the dawn of time, 99.999% of them have been rejected. What do you think the odds are that Christians just happened to have the right god, when everyone else was wrong? While a god appearing is surely a possible hypothetical scenario, with such a low probability it is of no use to consider. Just like it is possible that you are a brain in a vat.
Let me be perfectly clear. I have no problems with belief in some creator, or god. Believe whatever you like. I have a very, very large problem when people use that belief in an attempt to hinder and discredit scientific progress.
Yes you are a troll. Hawking may well have written it , but you like a sheep to slaughter , picked it up from some religious website, who will have intended it to be misunderstood, and so you do. Then itâs trolled around like only a religious closed mind can , and anyone who doesn't agree with the twisted false dichotomy of a pre-conclusion you cling so hard to, is ignoring "the science". Though actually it boils down to being another version of religious pseudoscience. In his top down approach Hawking proposes a superposition, the essence of which does not call upon the need of a Multiverse which you keep banging on about. So you don't even understand what is being said , never mind the argument itself. didn't you say evolving universes "signify" the values? No I didn't. You can't understand a simple sentence but you think you know what Hawking says by isolating a tiny part of his explanation. I said: Evolving universes signify the values of cosmological constants would be inevitable not impossible. The only way for you as a creationist is it seems, to adulterate some science, draw totally misleading conclusions from that, and then accuse everyone of not understanding science. It is really very very dumb of you, which is putting it politely.
In fact stu, you are such an utter moron troll... you did not even read the intro to the paper on the first page of the link. What do you think the string landscape is... you tool / twit/ liar. "alternate histories" On top of that you imbecille read the title of the paper... Populating the Landscape: A Top Down Approach S.W. Hawking 1 and Thomas Hertog 2 http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf "We put forward a framework for cosmology that combines the string landscape with no boundary initial conditions. In this framework, amplitudes for alternative histories for the universe are calculated with final boundary conditions only. This leads to a top down approach to cosmology, in which the histories of the universe depend on the precise question asked"... and finally the paper comes from the cornell university library... http://arxiv.org/
Finally this is the troll comedy.. stu... claims that when I wrote... "evolving universes signify the values" _it is somehow different from - when he wrote "evolving universes signify the values" ----------------------------------------------------------------- if evolving universes signify their values --- any way, one still has to explain why those values are so fine tuned for life... if you do not have a theory of everything. --
I've said before and I'll say again. I think most of his "following" has more to do with sympathy for his physical condition than his intellect. On a lighter note he does do a mean Peter Frampton impersonation. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/y7rFYbMhcG8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>