God says, "Ooops, sorry pope, but it had to be done, don't ask why 'cause you won't get an answer either"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30072098/

Is it normal to take a phyciatric evaluation? They said it was just a test! Should I look at the bigger picture and run in the other direction.

Thomas Ashby (4/6, 0926) wrote, "Stephen Hawkings theory of the "big bang" does not allow for a creator...."  It also doesn't allow for time as we know it.  So, according to the venerated Dr. Hawking, as long as there is no time, there is no God.  I'll agree.  But I believe in time.
The atheistic world view makes perfect, scientific sense.  As long as time isn't real.  I'll look forward to your thoughts tomorrow.  Unless there is no tomorrow.  But if there is no tomorrow I'll have to agree with you.  So if tomorrow never comes then I'll become an atheist tomorrow.  And I stand by that statement.

From the Great Universal Mind
Emanates the Eternal, Infinite Void
Into which ever expands the
Ideolon for apparent solipsistic reality
Perceived as the time/space,
Energy/Matter, Life/Mind continuum,
Which continues to unfold satisfactorily,
And proceeds to progress perfectly.

Thomas Ashby and Others
"The" theory of the "big bang" came before S. Hawking. Also< T. Ashby says, "... a universe that is finite but boundless has no beginning or end point and no need for a creator."  T. Ashby might have been closer to the truth if he had said said ".... no ROOM for a FINITE creator." Science has not shown that our universe is finite (our observagle universe is finite due to the finite speed of light), but science is not capable of showing that our universe is not infinite (it, again, has shown that our observable universe is not infinite). Science, as currently defined and self- limited, may suggest that our universe is infinite, but has no way of scientifically showing it to be infinite (not finite) and never will be able to do so while staying strictly within the self-imposed bounds (use of electromagnetic observations not, e.g. ESP or reigous revelations) of science. If the big bang theory coupled with inflation theory is correct, then there may exist, at sufficiently great distances from us, regions that are expanding at faster than the maximum speed of light; hence, light (electromagneticinformation) of such regions can never get to us (we can, therefore, never scinetifically know of them or anything in them. We have scientific evidence for the invisible "dark matter" in our "sphere" of possible scientific observation and, perhaps, even possibly the mysterious "dark energy". When and if science gets its hands around these observable mysteries or their observable effects, it may be able to take a stronger position concerning the possiility that our scientifically observable universe has other, say, galaxies ad infinitum outside our observable universe, but scientific demonstration will still be impossible. It might be logical; it might be philosophically elegant, but it must remain outside the limited realm claimed for themselves by bona fide scientists.
 The big bang theory of science has problems that are not resolved and may not be resolvable because,possibly, there is an error in the basic idea that will be discovered by future science. There are infinities (singularities; scientists try to avoid talking about infinity because it is outside the domain of strict science other than to show something is wrong with a theory) in the big bang theory and strring theory has avoided some infinity problems by replacing points (the source of some infinities) with finite lengh strings. Incientally, it just might be because of these unresolved problems that the wise S. Hawking has not denied the possibility for some, currently, mystical source. S. Hawking, like A. Eistein is too wise to say there is nothing absolute (or everything is relative) because they can see the self-contradictiion therein (the statement "There is nothing absolute." is claiming to be an absolute, no exceptions). It seems amusing that those claiming that Einstein's Special Relativity was self-contradictory made a self-contradiction in their arguments which some never admitted in their lifetime. Of course, Einstein, like all humans, was subject to self-contradiction, but in his finished Special Relativity any self-contradictions that might have arisen were all removed.
 Bona fide scientists agree that infinite things, God, etc. can neither be proved or disproved by true and proper science. Valid science can't scientifically prove that the counting numbers go on forever, are infinite and leave it to mathematicians to deal with such things. There are bona fide scientists that can hold, scientifically, that they have no "need" (like in T. Ashby's "---no need for God") for the infinity of decimal places in the irrational numbers they use, (like pi, 3.14159-----) and may even say that they do not exist, but that should not be allowed to (and does not) deter mathematicians from discovering the many mathematical beauties, exciting and interesting things that can be seen by using their going on forever properties. Therefore, tolerant scientists do not want to deny those who are religious from similar beauties. exciting and interesting things their religion brings to them. Pointing out errors in their logic should be done in a spirit of helping them to see more clearly rather than in the spirit of trying to completely destroy their things. Tolerant mathematicians do not try to destroy science thrills because they are scientifically true rather than mathematically true and tolerant scentists do not try to destroy mathematical thrills because they are not scientific.

"Those who know in part prophesize in part"

Carlton:  "There are bona fide scientists that can hold, scientifically, that they have no "need" (like in T. Ashby's "---no need for God")"

Yes and Stephen Hawking is one of them. I'm not. I was paraphrasing what Hawking understands....oh and I must say, I have little idea of what it is you are trying say. Maybe you should just say it rather than writing a small essay.

Tim Rommes. ..and I surely have no idea what you are trying to say.

T> Ashby,
 PG Oblaf's comment, between your and my latest, says what I am trying to convey. Further, we all have a tendancy to not understand that which we don't want to hear or understand. Anyway, I do go on and on, sorry, and PG's BRIEF and CLEAR comment shows how wordy I am,in comparison, by making the point concisely, again, that we all have only partial knowledge with my, now, adding knowing of one's having only partial knowledge (NOT BEING A KNOW IT ALL), like Hawking and Einstein, fosters tolerance which the world always needs. Incidentally, I did not see T. Rommes saying what you said of him and the indications I have seen in his comments, in Alan';s space, (as well as your own) would not have him joining your "Tim Rommes, and I surely have no idea of what you are trying to say." The "surely have no idea" does not apply to either of you, even if you would like it to apply to yourself. Even you display SOME idea rather than "no idea". Finally, another point I try to make is that all humans are subject to self-contradiction sooner or later and would be well advised to emulate Einstein's humility and tolerance even when one knows a lot. Einstein and Bohr,in ther great debates about quantum theory, probably felt like saying, to each other, "I have no idea what you are talking about.", but it seems their basic humility (probably with some basis in their knowing that they did not know it all) kept them in check. Just look at some of the problems the U.S. has gotten into by thinking it knew it all or claiming to not have any idea of what others were saying. If you, Thomas, still have "no idea" what I am talking about, try asking Tim (or read, again, PG's one liner). I'll spare you and others my ever trying once again in Alan's column.

Carlton,
My last post was completely convoluted.  On purpose.  Thomas was making two statements.  First he had little idea what you were saying.  Second, and completely about my post, he had no idea what I was saying.

Thomas,
Hawking and some other distinguished scientist developed that no need for God scenario.  To do it they used a manifold of space time.  A manifold being a simplified model.  Simplified models have limitations.  We live on a mostly roundish planet.  If I want to fence off my back yard I use Euclidean geometry.  As long as I only fence off my back yard that's fine, in that small space my back yard closely resembles a plane.  If we assume the earth to be a sphere and I extend beyond my back yard so that I'm fencing off a round area with a radius of one foot less that the half circumference of the earth then the amount of fencing I really need is about a yard.  In Euclidean geometry it would be a little more than a yard.  In fact it would be more than the half circumference radius I was using, not less.  That manifold, like all manifolds, breaks down beyond a very (relatively) small local area.  While it applies the math is a lot easier, and it's very practical.  As you extend past it's applicability it just gets more and more ridiculous.  Consider the often used representation of a gravity well.  Looks like a net stretching down where a mass is.  Works very well as long as you stay within it’s limitations.  However, for it to work there must be a gravity working perpendicularly to the plane it represents, and everything must be in that plane.  First, in real time-space, gravity tends to operate toward those massive bodies, not perpendicular to them, so it’s really a fake, invented, science fiction gravity.  Second, if the gravity well is a planet add a moon orbiting that planet and unless it’s coplanar the whole thing pretty much unravels.  Add in relative motion because the moon is in orbit and the math to stay in that frame gets harder than the real math it was a substitute for.  Leave the very tight restrictions that kept it working and it’s completely BS.  Extend Hawking’s universe out to where it doesn’t require a creator and time isn’t what time is anymore.  It’s more like that mystery gravity.  Completely invented and not based on reality.  When your personal paradigm isn’t based on reality you have no need of a creator.  Within the right limits all these things are great.  I’ll continue to use the same geometry I learned in 10th grade to figure out how much fencing I need.  I just won’t try to fence off most of the planet.  No more than one hemisphere, I think.  The convoluted statements you couldn’t follow are funny if you’re able to keep up.  I made a joke because I thought it humorous that after all you ranting about scientific method and all the smartass comments you have about religion having no basis in reality that this is the ground you would choose to make a stand on.

Tim Rommes,
 So happy to see that we are still on the same page that T. Ashby seems to refuse to find. If you read my last post (just above yours), you will see what I mean. We all have "limitations", but some of us can not or will not see our own. :-)
 I do hope many read your comment because it makes clear other important points ignored, unknown, or missed by so many; thereby, causing errors of many. It does seem that many who display the I- know-it-all (or there-is-nothing-worth-knowing-if-I-don't-know-or-acknowledge-it) syndrome are extremely set on destroying any mystery in our universe and life. Both Hawking, Einstein, and many other great minds show how they appreciate the mystery and would, therefore, strongly resist its destruction. The mystery of how mathematics can expose, say, the workings of quantum and gravitational phenomena, as often mentioned in their writings are among the favorites of Einstein and Hawking. The last paragraph of Hawking's "A Brieffer History of Time" may be seenas a specific example. Here it s for those who have not read Hawking's book.
 "If we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the untimate triumph of human reason---for then we would know the mind of God."

Carlton,
Thank you.  I think that's the highest praise you've given me.  I hope I made clear the fact that I don't disagree with what Hawking's theories say.  I can't say that I fully agree, either, but that's most likely because I'm not in his class.  He draws from a much deeper well than I do and when I'm not able to agree you may read that I'm not *able* to agree.  Another quote, that I'm not able to make so I'll summarize, by Hawking, I think, has to do with our possible inability to comprehend a complete ToE, but only to take it in parts.  When I read it my mind immediately rested on Aesop's six blind men and an elephant.  Each examines a part and comes up with a theory about what an elephant is like.  All are somewhat right for the part they examine, but all are completely wrong on the broader scale.  It's how I invision science today.  Dedicated men and women doing great work to describe their particular field and nobody gets the whole picture.  Could you get it all and stay sane?

Hopefully Hawkign's and other's elegant hypotheses and theories will be put to the test by future generations of able minded scientists to the benefit of all.

And I agree, you get a bit wordy.  A few words suffice when addressing people who already understand what you're talking about.  I am often impressed that you desire to make things more accessable to the varied people who read here.  For that, many words are necessary.

adam and eve =]

read the bible!

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):