God, Time and Hawking

I stand by my initial statement I made at the top of this page. One cannot dimiss a possible past just because of what is observed in the present. Sure there are those explanations that are more plausible than others. I never onced denied that. But it is ignorant to utterly dismiss one possibility just because of what one sees in the observable present.

"But that doesn't mean I have to endorse Christian creation stories as literal truths."

No is asking you to. Lol...I find it funny that you think you even have an inkling at what my faith consists of.

I have a nice life Lily....see you in another month or so when you think no one is paying attention.

"I object to the ignorance that sometimes accompanies that passion, as is - apparently - your own "problem" shall we say."

I have no problem except for the occasional scientifically ignorant person such as yourself coming on here.

"Every religion has its own 'sacred book'. They can't all be ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.."

No one has yet to claim that they all or any are absolutely correct. Oh...I'm sorry...NO ONE HAS YET TO CLAIM THAT THEY ALL OR ANY ARE ABSOLUTLY CORRECT.

"When you say you can't dismiss a "possible past" what you are doing is arguing for the EXTREMELY REMOTE POSSIBILITY that all physical science theory and data is actually leading us to false conclusions, presumably under the control of a "trickster God"."

No I'm not.

"Your claim that these two 'theories' stand on equal footing is UTTERLY ABSURD!!!!"

No it's not CAPSLOCK Lily. You don't need to scream you know. As far as the observable present is concerned...they both deserve an equal position to study from.

"There is NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER for the creation story."

From a Judeo-christian perspective...creation merely existing is evidence of the creation story.

You see, dear Kendall, I can endorse a Christian philosophy. I can endorse Christian 'beliefs' about right and wrong, the merit of service, the expression of love, the joy of charity, and regarding the folly of selfishness and overwhelming desire.

But that doesn't mean I have to endorse Christian creation stories as literal truths. That's silly. It is as silly as folks who endorse Koran stories as literal truths and just as dangerous for a pluralistic and tolerant society.

I much prefer my form of "liberal" Christianity to yours, Mr. Kendall, for a lot of reasons. These are merely SOME of them.

Have a nice life!

When you say you can't dismiss a "possible past" what you are doing is arguing for the EXTREMELY REMOTE POSSIBILITY that all physical science theory and data is actually leading us to false conclusions, presumably under the control of a "trickster God".

If that is what you believe, that's fine Kendall. But it is a stupid belief. Every religion has its own 'sacred book'. They can't all be ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, and MOST OF THEM must be MOSTLY FALSE. My assertion is simply the MOST LIKELY TRUE CONCLUSION: Most all of them are false with respect to facts and are merely metaphorical expressions of belief and human passions for 'the devine'. I don't object to people having passion for the divine dear Kendall. I object to the ignorance that sometimes accompanies that passion, as is - apparently - your own "problem" shall we say.

Really Kendall, you can't be serious here.

The "big bang" has PHYSICAL evidence to support it (namely dispersed background radiation as found by Penzias and Wilson in 1965, for which - I believe - a Nobel prize was awarded).

There is NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER for the creation story.

And just as importantly, there are lots of ways the "big bang" might be 'falsified' or partially falsified by EVIDENCE or DATA. That is the characteristic of a REAL SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

But one cannot "falsify" creation absolutely, except when the "story" has been given concrete details. In that sense, Biblical creation as a "literal truth" is ALREADY FALSIFIED by carbon dating and almost all physical chemistry, biology, and geological knowledge.

Your claim that these two 'theories' stand on equal footing is UTTERLY ABSURD!!!!

YOU ARE A COMPLETE FOOL Kendall dear!

I stand by my initial statement I made at the top of this page. One cannot dimiss a possible past just because of what is observed in the present. Sure there are those explanations that are more plausible than others. I never onced denied that. But it is ignorant to utterly dismiss one possibility just because of what one sees in the observable present. Science is the accumulation of information and maybe Lily is done gathering knowledge but the rest of us are not.

As I said before, you will note that Lily insults way more than she ever provides info to back up those insults. It's tragic really but we have gotten used to our village idiot on here.

What she is confused about is the "observable present". Lily decided to bring up some extreme foolishness about green men and other insane stuff that has nothing to do with anything.

not.

Kendall's argument is complete and utter nonsense. It isn't even "sophmoric"; it is childish.

The conclusion offered by Mr. Kendall: ("Bascially put, the Big Bang and the Creation story are on equal scientific footing no matter what the observable present seems to be.") is nonsense and DOES NOT FOLLOW from the statements that precede it.

Just because two different hypothetical events are "unobservable" (i.e., a "big bang" and a "creation story") DOES NOT MEAN they are on "equal footing".

That statement is OBVIOUSLY absurd. It is no more rational to say that the hypothesis that

"green men from Jupiter who eat stryofoam slathered with peanut butter" invented the wheel-and-axle combination and gave it to mankind

is on an "equal footing"

with the hypothesis that at some point in early time humans developed the wheel-and-axle combination because it is an efficient way to transport things.

Both are "unobservable", but one is rationally plausible given discernable facts whereas the other is

For those of you that are reading all this, plz note the amount of time Lily takes into insulting instead of defending...whatever her position really is.

The point of this thread is merely to point out that all possibilities, including the Creation story in Genesis, is on equal footing for consideration if one can only look at the observable present. Meaning, one cannot just blindly dismiss it outright. But let Lily make up her own guessing, I have learned it does little good to try and reason with her.

"I am certain Hawking would COMPLETELY disagre "

It's always so easy for fools to point out what they don't think someone means but for some reason do not really give a clear point of view of what they feel something means.

"the point is that the evidence for the Big Bang DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD KNOWN BY FAITH."

Ah, more guessing from Lily....love it.

No one, especially not I, said that the Big Bang said anything about God. Thank you for playing Lily...you may return to the sandbox now with your intellectual equals.

Lily, thank you for showing how you don't know squat.

The key wording you ignore is "observable present". You say however in a loud written manner, "NO CONSISTENT, PHYSICAL OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER"

Again, one cannot observe the past, therefor it is foolish to imply one knows what the past was. Hi there fool.

e with you!

This whole thread - which I heretofore ignored - is started from a ridiculous premise, that somehow Hawking's book IMPLIES 'equi-probability' of the predominant Christian creation myth with "the Big Bang".

I suggest that if you really think that is what Hawking meant, fool, that you ASK HIM, rather than USE his writings to create a false impression.

I am sure Stephen Hawking will tell you, Kendall (although probably in a more polite way) that you are simply full of sh*t.

The point is, Kendall dear, is not that evidence for "the Big Bang" PROVES OR DISPROVES the existence of God, the point is that the evidence for the Big Bang DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD KNOWN BY FAITH.

So sure, you can be very comfortable believing in a God by faith, Mr. Kendall. But for you to say that somehow "the creation story" and the Big Bang are on an "equal footing" because - according to Stephen Hawking, past and future represent that which is:

"indefinite and exists only as a spectrum of possibilities"

is absurd! Hawking's statement DOES NOT MEAN what YOU infer. That something might be "indefinite" does not mean any scientific or non-scientific explanation of the past is therefore "equi-probable". It only means EXACTLY what it says: "indefinite".

YOU Kendall, put in the "added meaning" to what Hawking said. I am certain Hawking would COMPLETELY disagre