The fool has said in his heart ...

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

There's a reason why Psalm 14 v 1 and Psalm 53 v 1 say, "The fool[*1] says in his heart, “There is no God.” "

Watch Stephen Hawking Explain What Came Before Big Bang[*2]

It's one of the biggest brainteasers out there: If the Big Bang created everything we know about, what the heck was around before the big bang? No one knows for sure, but everyone has a favorite theory—everyone including renowned British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, of course.

He offered his theory to Neil de Grasse Tyson in a video clip published by Popular Science on Friday. "Nothing was around before the big, big bang," Hawking begins his answer.

The Big Bang theory is the idea that the entire universe began as a pinprick that has been expanding ever since—essentially, that the only reason the universe feels so vast is because it's had 13.8 billion years to get that way. The idea itself has held up pretty well, although scientists still aren't quite sure what force is driving all that growth.

And of course, the theory itself doesn't do anything to explain where precisely that first dot of the universe came from in the first place, hence the brainteaser. And we do mean it when we say brainteaser—Hawking's explanation includes this excellent line: "Ordinary real time is replaced by imaginary time, which behaves like a fourth direction of space."

But don't let that scare you off; his main point is surprisingly easy to grasp: Hawking approaches the problem by offering a detailed analogy, comparing space-time to any other continuous, curved surface, like the surface of the Earth. "There is nothing south of the South Pole," Hawking says. The same principle holds with the universe: "There was nothing around before the Big Bang."

[*1]The Hebrew words rendered fool in Psalms denote one who is morally deficient.

[*2]https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/watch-stephen-hawking-explain-what-came-before-big-bang/ar-BBJPrl7

[Stranger]

There's a reason why Psalm 14 v 1 and Psalm 53 v 1 say, "The fool[*1] says in his heart, “There is no God.” "

Where?

Strikes me that the real fools are those that claim that an answer to an unknown (how come this universe?) is to make up, without any evidence or reasoning, something equally unknown (how come this god?).

 

[SteveH]

Most atheists are neither fools nor morally deficient. It is difficult to hold on to belief in an objectively-existing God, in the face of all the counter-evidence.

[SusanDoris]

Most atheists are neither fools nor morally deficient. It is difficult to hold on to belief in an objectively-existing God, in the face of all the counter-evidence.

Why, then, do you think that so many people hold on to that totally unevidenced* belief?

*I refer, of course, to the objective, rational, falsifiable, etc sort of evidence.

[wigginhall]

How does the Hawking quote lead to any particular conclusion?   As far as I can see, physicists don't have a clue as to the beginning of the beginning, or even if there is such a thing.   I don't see how 'don't know' leads to any particular position, unless one has one ready and pre-prepared.  'Oh I know, let's stick God in there'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Where?

Strikes me that the real fools are those that claim that an answer to an unknown (how come this universe?) is to make up, without any evidence or reasoning, something equally unknown (how come this god?).

 

That's rich from someone who recently revived the teleological argument when trying to justify Tyson De Grasse.

[Stranger]

That's rich from someone who recently revived the teleological argument when trying to justify Tyson De Grasse.

Wow - so much drivel crammed into so few words. Tyson's speculation is not about god and it is not a teleological argument anyway.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

How does the Hawking quote lead to any particular conclusion?   As far as I can see, physicists don't have a clue as to the beginning of the beginning, or even if there is such a thing.   I don't see how 'don't know' leads to any particular position, unless one has one ready and pre-prepared.  'Oh I know, let's stick God in there'.

I doesn't - it's just god of the gaps: "Here's a question science can't answer, therefore - TA-DAAA!!!! - god!"

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wow - so much drivel crammed into so few words. Tyson's speculation is not about god and it is not a teleological argument anyway.

It suggests a purpose for the universe therefore it is a teleological argument. You are talking bollocks.

[Stranger]

It suggests a purpose for the universe therefore it is a teleological argument. You are talking bollocks.

The teleological argument "or physico-theological argument, also known as the argument from design, or intelligent design argument is an argument for the existence of God or, more generally, for an intelligent creator based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world." [my emphasis]

The NdGT speculation is not based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world - it is you who is talking bollocks.

And BTW, I don't recall trying to "justify" NdGT's speculation in the first place.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The teleological argument "or physico-theological argument, also known as the argument from design, or intelligent design argument is an argument for the existence of God or, more generally, for an intelligent creator based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world." [my emphasis]

The NdGT speculation is not based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world - it is you who is talking bollocks.

And BTW, I don't recall trying to "justify" NdGT's speculation in the first place.

What else is a simulation if not a universe with a purpose. Bad Luck.

[Stranger]

What else is a simulation if not a universe with a purpose. Bad Luck.

What part of

The teleological argument "or physico-theological argument, also known as the argument from design, or intelligent design argument is an argument for the existence of God or, more generally, for an intelligent creator based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world." [my emphasis]

The NdGT speculation is not based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world - it is you who is talking bollocks.

are you finding difficult to understand?

[Walter]

Mr Privates

how many straws do you think are left for you to grasp at ? just pack it in and do yourself a favour.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What part of

The teleological argument "or physico-theological argument, also known as the argument from design, or intelligent design argument is an argument for the existence of God or, more generally, for an intelligent creator based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world." [my emphasis]

The NdGT speculation is not based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world - it is you who is talking bollocks.

are you finding difficult to understand?

It's an argument from purpose. The purpose being simulation. Sorry to micturate on your conflagration.

[Stranger]

It's an argument from purpose.

No, it isn't an argument from purpose.

For the hard-of-thinking: the teleological argument claims that there is evidence of purpose (design) in the universe and then concludes that it has an intelligent designer. Hence it's an argument from (supposed) design to the conclusion of a designer. In contrast, NdGT doesn't suggest that there is any evidence for design in our universe at all - its starting point is an extrapolation of our technological abilities.

You make a total plonker of yourself every time you go near this 'argument' - why do you keep doing it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, it isn't an argument from purpose.

For the hard-of-thinking: the teleological argument claims that there is evidence of purpose (design) in the universe and then concludes that it has an intelligent designer. Hence it's an argument from (supposed) design to the conclusion of a designer. In contrast, NdGT doesn't suggest that there is any evidence for design in our universe at all - its starting point is an extrapolation of our technological abilities.

You make a total plonker of yourself every time you go near this 'argument' - why do you keep doing it?

Looks like i'm going to have to rub your nose in it again.

The universe seems to operate in a way that’s very similar to the way our simulations of the universe operate.

 https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/04/26/we-have-a-term-for-that-neil-degrasse-tyson-intelligent-design/#ixzz58oKQVvF4

and here is what PZ Myers finds offensive about what was said:

''The universe seems to operate in a way that’s very similar to the way our simulations of the universe operate.''

You make a total plonker of yourself every time you go near this 'argument' - why do you keep doing it?

[Stranger]

and here is what PZ Myers finds offensive about what was said:

''The universe seems to operate in a way that’s very similar to the way our simulations of the universe operate.''

You make a total plonker of yourself every time you go near this 'argument' - why do you keep doing it?

Oh, Vlad - you had me literally laughing out load!

This is what it says in the link you posted: "The universe seems to operate in a way that’s very similar to the way our simulations of the universe operate. Isn’t that circular? Have they considered that they have the arrow of causality going the wrong way?" [my emphasis]

Stop digging!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh, Vlad - you had me literally laughing out load!

This is what it says in the link you posted: "The universe seems to operate in a way that’s very similar to the way our simulations of the universe operate. Isn’t that circular? Have they considered that they have the arrow of causality going the wrong way?" [my emphasis]

How does that help you and your idea that simulated universes isn't an intelligent design/teleological argument when it's intelligent design/teleological argument writ large? You seem to be horrendously confused.

[Stranger]

How does that help you and your idea that simulated universes isn't an intelligent design/teleological argument when it's intelligent design/teleological argument writ large?

Except that it quite obviously isn't.

The simulated universe argument does not rest on the notion of apparent design or purpose in this universe, which is what the teleological argument is about: from the link: "an argument ... based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world."

No part of the simulation argument involves any such "perceived evidence of deliberate design" in our universe.

If you want to carry on making a total arse of yourself, be my guest...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Except that it quite obviously isn't.

The simulated universe argument does not rest on the notion of apparent design or purpose in this universe, which is what the teleological argument is about: from the link: "an argument ... based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world."

No part of the simulation argument involves any such "perceived evidence of deliberate design" in our universe.

If you want to carry on making a total arse of yourself, be my guest...

All the evidence you are ever going to need on whether the simulation conjecture is an intelligent design/teleological/god hypothesis argument is here everybody.

 https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/04/26/we-have-a-term-for-that-neil-degrasse-tyson-intelligent-design/#ixzz58oKQVvF4

[Stranger]

All the evidence you are ever going to need on whether the simulation conjecture is an intelligent design/teleological/god hypothesis argument is here everybody.

https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/04/26/we-have-a-term-for-that-neil-degrasse-tyson-intelligent-design/#ixzz58oKQVvF4

I do encourage anybody who has any doubts to follow the link and see that it isn't a god hypothesis of any sort and neither is it an argument from design (the teleological argument)...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I do encourage anybody who has any doubts to follow the link and see that it isn't a god hypothesis of any sort and neither is it an argument from design (the teleological argument)...

Only someone completely deluded could interpret a link entitled

https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/04/26/we-have-a-term-for-that-neil-degrasse-tyson-intelligent-design/#ixzz58oKQVvF4

as not demonstrating there is an argument from design going on here.

No doubt we can expect a folie a deux here as well

[Stranger]

Only someone completely deluded could interpret a link entitled

https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/04/26/we-have-a-term-for-that-neil-degrasse-tyson-intelligent-design/#ixzz58oKQVvF4

as not demonstrating there is an argument from design going on here.

It's really quite difficult to argue with somebody who seems to have so little grasp of reality. I can't believe I'm having to explain this...

You do understand that every argument for gods or designers ends up with... err... a designer and an intelligent design, don't you? However, said arguments are not all referred to as arguments from design or teleological arguments - that would be rather pointless and confusing. Hence we have the ontological argument, the first cause argument, and so on. Arguments are classified according to their structure or starting point.

As I have already pointed out the teleological argument is "...an argument for the existence of God or, more generally, for an intelligent creator based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world." [my emphasis]

In contrast, the simulated universe argument (which seems to have originated with Nick Bostrom) is based on the idea that one of three propositions must be true (from the link):

• "The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage (that is, one capable of running high-fidelity ancestor simulations) is very close to zero", or
• "The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero", or
• "The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one"

Which is quite clearly not an argument based on "perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world".

Vlad's original post:

That's rich from someone who recently revived the teleological argument when trying to justify Tyson De Grasse.

is utter nonsense for three reasons:

• Tyson's support for the simulated universe has bugger all to do with any god(s).
• It isn't a teleological argument.
• I didn't try to justify it.

And I've wasted far too much time on this idiocy - I have no more to say on the subject.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The argument boils down to universes have been partly simulated. This universe could be a sophisticated simulated universe.

How is that different from Paley's argument that complicated mechanisms have been made. This universe could be a sophisticated simulated universe.

The argument is therefore a teleological/intelligent design argument.

[Stranger]

The argument boils down to universes have been partly simulated. This universe could be a sophisticated simulated universe.

How is that different from Paley's argument that complicated mechanisms have been made. This universe could be a sophisticated simulated universe.

The argument is therefore a teleological/intelligent design argument.

Whatever...