Someone Else

It would be a bit hypocritical of me to criticise belief in God under this post, given it's overall message of togetherness...

I'm wondering whether that's enough to stop me.

@RoboChloe: Does God offend you?

@Pfuzylogic: some differences can not be reconciled.

@Pfuzylogic: Why would something that doesn't exist offend me? :)

@RoboChloe: You don't control the existence of God through your mind. You just act on that you don't need God. It is called being proud.

@Pfuzylogic: I don't claim to control the existence of God. I claim to know that God doesn't exist.

@RoboChloe: You have no basis for that claim. You can't even control the color of your own hair.

@HoosierDaddy: That which is asserted without evidence (The existence of a God) can be dismissed without evidence.

I dyed it blue last week.

@RoboChloe: The evidence of creation can not be easily dismissed.

Blue! Did it penetrate the scalp?

@Pfuzylogic: There is no viable evidence for creationism.

However, that doesn't mean you can't believe in it. You believe in it because of faith, and that's fine. But don't confuse faith with evidence.

@RoboChloe: I did not limit God to a science.

Science has its own presumptions that contradict its own limitations.

It make a poor container for belief yet many believe it.

@Pfuzylogic: Science isn't belief. It's theory. You make a theory that best fits the available data and then you test it, and crucially, if you're wrong, you adjust or replace your theory to fit with the new data and knowledge. Science isn't something you believe in, it's the collection of all human knowledge that has sufficient evidence, and the search for more evidence. The limitations of science are the limits of human knowledge.

Faith, and specifically faith in God, is not within the realm of science. It is not part of human knowledge, but belief. They are two fundamentally separate things. A belief in God doesn't mean that you have to invalidate all of human knowledge.

The very device you are writing your messages on relies on countless scientific principles. The water that comes from your tap. The food you eat. The building you live in. Almost everything around you wouldn't be here without human exploration of science. Don't denounce science when you don't have to. It is the most beautiful thing our race has ever taken part in.

@RoboChloe: Science is built on the knowledge that man creates. Some is so accurate that it can be applied to devices.

Man can also corrupt what is accepted as fact.
Note the fiascos of "Lucy" and "life on Mars" for the corruption of desired funding; scientists quickly deceived the public.

Stephen Hawking even embarrassed his fellow physicist with his thermodynamic theory of the Big Bang and they had to tell him to keep to himself and not scare the public with his nihilism.

Stephen recently tried acting as a "high priest" at the U2 concert in Paris after the Terrorist attack. You must have missed it. When there is a Void; man loves to create imagination not observations to fill the void up.

@Pfuzylogic: I'm very sorry, but did you just quote a film and tv show as a basis for real science? If souls were real, mine would be aching. Do not judge the science done in universities and research institutions by real scientists, by watching science created by screenwriters. News flash: Screenwriters are not scientists. 🤦

Everything you said about Stephen Hawking I have not been able to find a single reference to. Suffice it to say, it's just not true.

N.B. Science is not built on creation, but discovery.

@RoboChloe: It doesn't surprise me you are not familiar with your heroes writings.

Suffice it to say that you personally know little else that you impose as fact.

@Pfuzylogic: Stephen Hawking is not my hero. I don't have heroes. That's an exercise in futility.

I did research and found no references. If you would provide them, then I would be grateful. Forgive me if I doubt you'll be able to do that.

Don't you dare tell me what I do or don't know. I have worked incredibly hard to be where I am and will continue to do so. And I will not take that level of disrespect from someone who believes that real scientists treat Life on Mars as a textbook.

I did my very best to not be rude (Maybe not successfully, but I tried). And then I get your response, filled with no attempt to converse and debate and only with disrespect and rudeness. Well, this is what you get back. If you want to debate and exchange ideas and opinions, let's debate. But if you want to argue and insult, I'm done.

@RoboChloe: A very thin skin not to point out the insults that you endure.
Okay, The fellow physicist was Primrose and it happened in the 60s.
If you need more clues for your science let me know.

@Pfuzylogic: Why, exactly, do you feel the need to insult me? Yes, I have a thin skin, but you know what, you don't know my life story and maybe you could consider for one second that I'm a human being with emotions who doesn't particularly like being insulted based solely on the fact that [i]I don't agree with you.[/i]

I don't know why I thought you'd know what a reference is. My fault. Unless you are referring to Roger Penrose, One of Hawking's associates during and after the 70's, you still haven't given me a reference. Let me help you:

Reference: the use of a source of information in order to ascertain something.
To reference: provide (a book or article) with citations of sources of information.

[i]Give me a reference.[/i] I see now why you don't like science. You have a particularly hard time backing up your claims.

@RoboChloe: My mistake in recall, yes it was Penrose. It was before the 70s and it has to do with the structure of spacetime in the supposed fiction of the "big bang".
Don't trouble yourself though. I can tell this is a headache for you.

@Pfuzylogic: Yes, it's a headache! I'm genuinely trying to find this and you are literally the least helpful person. I thought you wanted me to see this, but apparently not, because you flat out refuse to point me in any kind of direction. Do you or do you not want me to find this?

The closest thing I can find is in 1966 they both won the Adams prize for similar work on the structure of spacetime, but I can find no reference to your statement:

[quote]Stephen Hawking even embarrassed his fellow physicist with his thermodynamic theory of the Big Bang and they had to tell him to keep to himself and not scare the public with his nihilism.
[/quote]

That which can be asseted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. You have provided no evidence and I have done my best to find it, to no avail.

@RoboChloe: It is all about the "rubberband theory" of the big bang . The thing that people believe in when they reject the living God. When the rubberband is stretched all the way out then gravity takes over and then we all know what happens to the spacetime structure, at least the scientists do.

@Pfuzylogic: You don't have to reject science to believe in God. You only have to reject science to believe in Religion.

The rubber band theory is a colloquialism created to help people understand dark energy and quantum physics, and does no justice to the underlying physics.

@RoboChloe: You don't have to reject science to believe in God!
Just recognize the limitations of what we have as tools as opposed to our imagination.

@Pfuzylogic: I refuse to believe in God not because of science but because God is about as credible to me as fairies. A ridiculous idea that belongs in children's fairytales. But that's just what I believe.

Our tools are only limited by our imagination to create them. Our understanding of the Universe is only limited by the tools with which we study it. Ipso facto, the limits of our understanding are the limits of our imagination. We have limits. That doesn't imply there's a God to easily explain away anything we can't comprehend.

@RoboChloe: I don't believe in fairytales either. I do believe a Messiah came to Earth to witness the truth, hence my response to your post.