tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post7051527284304596105..comments2023-03-24T05:41:17.603-07:00Comments on OutsideTheBox: Where did the Stephen Hawking post go?Cliff Martinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08342566023774158670noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-24559253055672618662010-09-13T12:21:10.541-07:002010-09-13T12:21:10.541-07:00Pretty decent response here on confusing "tem...Pretty decent response here on confusing "temporal beginnings with origins" - http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/09/1571Toddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17089839235274113901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-17177992249222366892010-09-12T19:05:29.415-07:002010-09-12T19:05:29.415-07:00Thanks Tom.
What did you think of that article? I...Thanks Tom.<br /><br />What did you think of that article? Is the headline, <i>Why God Did Not Create the Universe</i> supported in the text?<br /><br />Hawking's quite tentative and suppositional statements, such as,<br /><br /><b>“Our universe seems to be one of many ...”<br />“As recent advances in cosmology suggest ...”</b><br /><br />led to his conclusion,<br /><br /><b>“It is not necessary to invoke God ....”</b><br /><br />How do we get from there to "God Did Not Create the Universe."<br /><br />A bit overreaching, wouldn't you say?<br /><br />Does it strike you, as it does me, that there are certain folks primed and ready to jump on any bit of science that supports their foregone conclusion and hyperbolize it all of proportion?<br /><br />No doubt, this tendency exists on every side of every debate. It is blatant in the many press releases I've seen about Hawking's new book.Cliff Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08342566023774158670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-66414533651850307472010-09-12T18:38:43.983-07:002010-09-12T18:38:43.983-07:00Here is a recent article by Hawking.
http://onlin...Here is a recent article by Hawking.<br /><br />http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704206804575467921609024244.htmlTomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462218340570164741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-28637007878085403762010-09-12T14:54:50.612-07:002010-09-12T14:54:50.612-07:00Agreed.
Yes, the "recent comments" feat...Agreed.<br /><br />Yes, the "recent comments" feature is a third-party widget, and it is not editable as far as I can tell. We just have to keep piling on new comments to purge those non-existent ones.Cliff Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08342566023774158670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-63814739671767696052010-09-12T13:49:40.626-07:002010-09-12T13:49:40.626-07:00I was wondering. Taking down the post didn't ...I was wondering. Taking down the post didn't also remove the references to the comments, which is a bit confusing.<br /><br />"<i>But his search for natural laws keep leading him to rely less and less on science that appears to demand such a Creator.</i>"<br /><br />Can "science demand...a Creator"? Wouldn't that place "science" in the authoritative position of making the demands? I think of "science" simply being a tool for mankind, a systematic method that is used by people exploring just how this creation works. Science can neither demand that a Creator exists, nor prove non-existence of one that would, by definition exist 'outside' of our dimensions.Rich G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04666075844805615545noreply@blogger.com