An arss? That's you with your head up your ass. Don't worry about the 'give a fuck' meter. Here's one just for you. <img src=http://api.ning.com/files/x07GzeUCIAyelzWXWGA9DaGECa4giiAMophcI4WkD0z0KA-KI7lWV6ArFN8haMVqHRwPhMO7tNgAppIeHXsjJzYOBWBPiWhS/stupid_meter.gif> You still haven't presented anything intelligent for me to reply. All you do is run gibberish out your mouth. No opinion, no factual statement, no nothing. Just brainless slather dripping from you mouth. Maybe you and futurecurrents should get together and try and rub two brain cells together and come up with an original thought. The two of you are like inbred, mindless, mountain folk who we can smell coming for blocks. LOL
For someone who doesn't give a fuck you sure get your panties in a twist giving a fuck. Open minded enough to hear stuff out, but already know it's game set and match. Lol. What a goof. Lol Classic Everything is obviously gibberish with you pisspoor. Including your own sentences. I've posted what Hawking says . It is unambiguous. How many times. You have declared science and scientists, (which you then described in a version of pisspoor's 'Engrish') collectively as - " a great minds of science". So it is YOUR authority. It is what a "great minds of science" says. "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." Because that doesn't fit one bit with your god pre-conclusion , you fly off into religiously fueled rants of denial, dragging any of those other "a great minds of science" you can, to contort into something that gives you more chance of out-of-your-depth misunderstandings than is available from your Stephen Hawking authority. To call on an authority and then deny the authority you called on is laughable. But then that's you all over . Just like your let's-be-as-goddam-dumb-as-we-can buddies, you are incapable of debating the subject rationally . You all have god too far up your....... Quote from pspr: arss
That you lie your ass off and deny facts is the most troll like bullshit imaginable. Here.... you will see that the idea that gravity did it... is speculation requiring a multiverse... (a multiverse... you can see in the susskind video... is current scientific conjecture) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Design_(book) The central claim of the book is that the theory of quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity together help us understand how universes could have formed out of nothing.[11] The author writes: Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.[12] The authors explain, in a manner consistent with M-theory, that as the Earth is only one of several planets in our solar system, and as our Milky Way galaxy is only one of many galaxies, the same may apply to our universe itself: that is, our universe may be one of a huge number of universes.[11] The book concludes with the statement that only some universes of the multiple universes (or multiverse) support life forms. We, of course, are located in one of those universes. The laws of nature that are required for life forms to exist appear in some universes by pure chance, Hawking and Mlodinow explain (see Anthropic Principle).[11]
This is the science Stu. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2cT4zZIHR3s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> [/B][/QUOTE]
Look, try it in baby steps. 1. YOU called on the authority of what YOU said are "a great minds of science". 2. So "a great minds of science" states unequivocally, unambiguously, as evidenced above...... Gravity not God. 3. Then you start trying to go into a state of denial against "a great minds of science" . Against the authority YOU appealed to. You can't have it both ways. You're just being illogical and hypocritical in trying to. It's impossible to have any debate when you can't even manage to adhere to the most straightforward standards of basic reasoning. Mind you, looking back through this thread, you have a couple of prize helpers in the really ridiculous department.
only a troll like you would lie about what Hawking said and then say you cant have it both ways. Actually Hawking states we appear designed as if by an outside agency but that appearance may be explained if we are part of a multiverse. Its is what I have been telling you for the seven years you have been denying science. Lets see what hawking really said... when you put it in context. you can see the wikipedia quote above is correct. the idea that gravity created the universe is conditioned upon a multiverse. * BOOK EXCERPT * SEPTEMBER 3, 2010 By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would make lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time, people must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether they ran around banging on pots. Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reasonââ¬âwith a good dose of intuitionââ¬âto decipher their universe. Today we use reason, mathematics and experimental testââ¬âin other words, modern science. Albert Einstein said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible." He meant that, unlike our homes on a bad day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each going its own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without exception. Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not "arise out of chaos by the mere laws of nature." Instead, he maintained that the order in the universe was "created by God at first and conserved by him to this Day in the same state and condition." The discovery recently of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some back to the idea that this grand design is the work of some grand Designer. Yet the latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of the universe seem tailor-made for humans, without the need for a benevolent creator. Many improbable occurrences conspired to create Earth's human-friendly design, and they would indeed be puzzling if ours were the only solar system in the universe. But today we know of hundreds of other solar systems, and few doubt that there exist countless more among the billions of stars in our galaxy. Planets of all sorts exist, and obviously, when the beings on a planet that supports life examine the world around them, they are bound to find that their environment satisfies the conditions they require to exist. It is possible to turn that last statement into a scientific principle: The fact of our being restricts the characteristics of the kind of environment in which we find ourselves. For example, if we did not know the distance from the Earth to the sun, the fact that beings like us exist would allow us to put bounds on how small or great the Earth-sun separation could be. We need liquid water to exist, and if the Earth were too close, it would all boil off; if it were too far, it would freeze. That principle is called the "weak" anthropic principle. The weak anthropic principle is not very controversial. But there is a stronger form that is regarded with disdain among some physicists. The strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes constraints, not just on our environment, but on the possible form and content of the laws of nature themselves. The idea arose because it is not only the peculiar characteristics of our solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human life, but also the characteristics of our entire universeââ¬âand its laws. They appear to have a design that is both tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is much more difficult to explain. [W3Feature1] Stephen Youll The tale of how the primordial universe of hydrogen, helium and a bit of lithium evolved to a universe harboring at least one world with intelligent life like us is a tale of many chapters. The forces of nature had to be such that heavier elementsââ¬âespecially carbonââ¬âcould be produced from the primordial elements, and remain stable for at least billions of years. Those heavy elements were formed in the furnaces we call stars, so the forces first had to allow stars and galaxies to form. Those in turn grew from the seeds of tiny inhomogeneities in the early universe. Even all that is not enough: The dynamics of the stars had to be such that some would eventually explode, precisely in a way that could disperse the heavier elements through space. In addition, the laws of nature had to dictate that those remnants could recondense into a new generation of stars, these surrounded by planets incorporating the newly formed heavy elements. By examining the model universes we generate when the theories of physics are altered in certain ways, one can study the effect of changes to physical law in a methodical manner. Such calculations show that a change of as little as 0.5% in the strength of the strong nuclear force, or 4% in the electric force, would destroy either nearly all carbon or all oxygen in every star, and hence the possibility of life as we know it. Also, most of the fundamental constants appearing in our theories appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life. For example, if protons were 0.2% heavier, they would decay into neutrons, destabilizing atoms. If one assumes that a few hundred million years in stable orbit is necessary for planetary life to evolve, the number of space dimensions is also fixed by our existence. That is because, according to the laws of gravity, it is only in three dimensions that stable elliptical orbits are possible. In any but three dimensions even a small disturbance, such as that produced by the pull of the other planets, would send a planet off its circular orbit, and cause it to spiral either into or away from the sun. The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned. What can we make of these coincidences? Luck in the precise form and nature of fundamental physical law is a different kind of luck from the luck we find in environmental factors. It raises the natural question of why it is that way. Many people would like us to use these coincidences as evidence of the work of God. The idea that the universe was designed to accommodate mankind appears in theologies and mythologies dating from thousands of years ago. In Western culture the Old Testament contains the idea of providential design, but the traditional Christian viewpoint was also greatly influenced by Aristotle, who believed "in an intelligent natural world that functions according to some deliberate design." That is not the answer of modern science. As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going. Our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws. That multiverse idea is not a notion invented to account for the miracle of fine tuning. It is a consequence predicted by many theories in modern cosmology. If it is true it reduces the strong anthropic principle to the weak one, putting the fine tunings of physical law on the same footing as the environmental factors, for it means that our cosmic habitatââ¬ânow the entire observable universeââ¬âis just one of many. Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states. Only a very few would allow creatures like us to exist. Although we are puny and insignificant on the scale of the cosmos, this makes us in a sense the lords of creation. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...orld_MIDDLENews The paper which preceded the book. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf In fact if one does adopt a bottom-up approach to cosmology, one is immediately led to an essentially classical framework, in which one loses all ability to explain cosmologyâs central question - why our universe is the way it is. In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully fine-tuned [10] - as if prescribed by an outside agency or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation [11], which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see.
Ignoring your faulty reasoning and flooding the place with cut&paste you don't understand won't make your reasoning any less faulty, or any less pathetic for that matter. You use Hawking as authority to back up what you want to claim, but... "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. [....] It is not necessary to invoke God" That's what YOUR authority stated. But it doesn't back up your god claim. So now he's not your authority. You suddenly don't accept your own authority, the authority YOU chose. Now you choose him as your authority again. Now that you imagine he's backing up your god claim. Yet Actually Hawking -YOUR authority - states this.... "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. [....] It is not necessary to invoke God" Switching YOUR own authority on when it suits your claim and off when it doesn't , won't make your god claim work or render it any less pathetic. No you can't have it both ways. Just means you're not up to applying any basic reasoning to the subject.
You lying ass troll... you are playing the childish moronic game of taking a quote out of context... even though the quote was presented in context by me. Here is what hawking said about a two sentences from your quote... "Our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws. That multiverse idea is not a notion invented to account for the miracle of fine tuning. It is a consequence predicted by many theories in modern cosmology. If it is true it reduces the strong anthropic principle to the weak one, putting the fine tunings of physical law on the same footing as the environmental factors, for it means that our cosmic habitatââ¬ânow the entire observable universeââ¬âis just one of many."
You really are one angry sob. "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." There is nothing to take out of context. That's probably why you're getting so angry. The silly game you play trying to have scientists say what they don't say, blew up in your face. YOUR authority. That's what YOUR authority said. It's simple. If you don't agree with what YOUR "a great minds of science" said right there , then you can't rationally use YOUR "a great minds of science" statements elsewhere, as YOUR appeal to authority. No, you can't have it both ways.
I am not angry at all. You are a lying ass troll to imply that Hawking states gravity created the universe - as if it is a fact. Its is a theory based on conjecture about a multiverse. "Our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws. That multiverse idea is not a notion invented to account for the miracle of fine tuning. It is a consequence predicted by many theories in modern cosmology. If it is true it reduces the strong anthropic principle to the weak one, putting the fine tunings of physical law on the same footing as the environmental factors, for it means that our cosmic habitatââ¬ânow the entire observable universeââ¬âis just one of many. Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states. Only a very few would allow creatures like us to exist. Although we are puny and insignificant on the scale of the cosmos, this makes us in a sense the lords of creation. " http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...orld_MIDDLENews The paper which preceded the book. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf In fact if one does adopt a bottom-up approach to cosmology, one is immediately led to an essentially classical framework, in which one loses all ability to explain cosmologyâs central question - why our universe is the way it is. In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully fine-tuned [10] - as if prescribed by an outside agency or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation [11], which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see.