Re: Eickmeier fails to stop Hammond
- From: TMG <TMG@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 23:44:09 -0400
George Hammond wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:hbxde.41394$5f.27978@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You are once again trying to slither out of answering me. If you don't answer me, there is no point in going on with this.
From my earlier post:
Nothing and no one can "create himself."
[Hammond] LIAR! Stephen Hawking says on page 85 of his book _The Nature of Space and Time_ that:
"... one couldn't say that the ...universe was created out of a field of energy.... Instead, it would be quite literally be created out nothing....... not just out of the vacuum, but out of ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL" (Stephen Hawking, ibid 1996, pg 85)
No - that isn't what Hawking writes. There words are on the page, let's look at them:
"Instead, it would be quite literally be created out of nothing."
Those words do NOT mean an entity created itself. To think otherwise is grasping at straws. It means matter/space/time/energy arose from NOTHING - as the quote clearly states. There is no agent or driver. There is nothing but the Null Void, and then everything. Hawking is drawing from NULL, not invisible mojo.
I understand it's a disquieting theory to you, but it's really the way the universe works.
IF/WHEN it all collapses in on itself (the mass jury is still out on that), ALL of the structure (large and fine grain), cosmology, rules of physics, and information gathered in this cycle is all lost. And you can never know how many cycles there are, AND - you're always (by definition) in the first cycle.
So clearly, HAWKING says "something can be
created out of nothing"....
Yes.
which means it is "self created" (since there is "nothing" a priori to creat it).
No - see above for a basic lesson. "Self Created" is different and unique from "Created from NOTHING". One requires an a priori "self", and the one Hawking describes does not. Even you can understand the logical distinction. NULL is different than "a spooky invisible god". Hawking specifically means NULL.
So therefore, Stephen Hawking believes YOU ARE A LIAR........ AND SO DO I.
Or, you misunderstood his point.
That is a preposterous statement.
[Hammond] Go tell it to Stephen Hawking about it... he's the world's leading physicist.
Yep - and he isn't making basic mistakes.
Besides which, this would go against your theory. You have said that God is a manifestation of our brain growth deficit. Now you say he created us AND the brain growth deficit. So now you have to decide:
[Hammond] BOTH statments are TRUE, and they are NOT IN CONFLICT.. so therefore there is nothing to "decide". This is they are both idioms which apply to two different disciplines:
1. "God is caused by the brain growth deficit" is a PHYSICS idiom, and only true within the context of PHYSICS.
Physics does not define "brain growth deficit" outside your tautological world.
2. "God created the brain" is a THEOLOGICAL/PSYCHOLOGICAL idiom and only true within the context of Theology/Psychology.
None of which is "Science"
You have a "grasping at straws" based on as "I wish it were true". That isn't science.
You can't "MIX METAPHORS" by taking the
idiom of one discipline (Physics) and compare it
to the idiom of another discipline (Theology)
hoping to produce a logical paradox....
Science does not allow for "metaphors". That's a basic problem - you continue to "think" that this is open to "metaphors and conjectures". It isn't.
<snip a fair amount of ranting>
[Hammond] Get real Gary.... it's becoming quite apparent that you are just an aggrevated dispu;tationalist who thinks he can elevate himself to "bigshot status" by using "mixed metaphors" to try and produce a "logical paradox".
And yet he's right - not *quite* as he's posting, but very, very close.
It is CRYSTAL CLEAR that you can't do it, and that HAMMOND'S EXPLANATION OF GOD is absolutely correct.
Yeah - says you. Again. Alone.
Let this be a lesson to you not to try and harrass a qualified scientist with your "doorstoop philawsephy strategy"..... it's now a thing of the past...ITS FUTILE!
Meaning that [Hammond] just can't be educated.
It's now been demonstrated that you are NO MATCH for HAMMOND, that you are not sincere, that you are nothing more than another "run of the mill heckler".
Alas, you can't learn.
Looks like I'm getting rid of two hecklers in one
day... first you (exposed as a argumentative fraud),
and "TMG" who has been exposed as one
Jeffrey J. McGuire...
I still tell you that you're flat out wrong. If you're going to subject J.J.McGuire to your abuse, you do it at your own risk - and with your counsel. He doesn't have the slightest thing to do with your "spat" with USENET (at least as far as I know).
All I can do is tell you that you're "wrong". If you don't want to follow that counsel - OK. But a responsible person - a "reasonable" person - would use great care before interfering with an individual you've specifically been told isn't involved. A reasonable person would be very, very, careful.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: O'Barr comments (globarr):
- Next by Date: Re: My new physics hero...
- Previous by thread: Space-time (vs. "space-space") visualization by embedding in 3-D space
- Next by thread: Beam me up - trying to get a basic understanding of GR
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
