I'm pretty sure Mr. Garrison on south park cleared this up when he explained how land frog fishes had butt sex with monkey things and then came the human, well why should anything in existence be any different? However childlike the humor, it makes sense. Does this take God out of the equation? Heavens no. The eyes you have to see what Iv'e typed proves you are both the result of and part, of a higher intelligent being/beings. Anyway, good luck and God bless. Ron Paul 2012-2020! INFOWARS.COM !
I don't know about you guys, but I don't think anybody can help whispering when hearing McGrath speaking: " Such a smooth talking typical irish hypocrite!
This is the sort of person who can talk and talk and talk making nil sense at all.
I don't know about you guys, but I don't anybody can help whispering when hearing McGrath speaking: " Such a smooth talking typical irish hypocrite! This is the sort of person who can can talk and talk making nil sense at all.
@woyoho3 "I don't know about you guys, but I don't anybody can help whispering when.."
Is this the sort of english that makes sense to you? Perhaps if youre going to criticise someone for coherency u might consider your own first. Then you might be about to tell us exactly where Mcgrath is making nil sense?
Note how desperate all these religious institutions are - taking every opportunity and exploiting every individual imaginable to underplay and attack Science. Only this time the scapegoat is a theory in it's development and the mouthpiece is Penrose - Of course he's too smart to be fooled and that makes the stupid title of this posting even stupidier.
@woyoho3 Desperate ? hahaha Science was supposed to bury God wasnt it? Now we find that the tables have been turned and atheists are resorting to all kinds of fanciful theories to deny the design & fine-tuning of our "knife-edge" law abiding, rationally intelligible universe.
The problem isn’t about lack of evidence but simply a suppression or wilful neglect of mainstream science so as to appease a biased ideology.
@woyoho3 The title is misleading, but Penrose is a brilliant, highly respected physicist whose views on consciousness would make a lot of atheists uncomfortable. He is an atheist in the strictest sense, that of no God, not in the common sense of rejecting any sort of mind that is not restricted solely to chemical processes in the brain.
@squamish4244 Well I think anyone with a little bit of intelligence is able to realize there isn't a God watching over them. Or there isn't Angels all around. BUT the fact that there is alot of fine tuning in this universe and intelligence is quite incredible. Anyone who thinks the Human mind was made from just one random action on top of another is off their rocker. I 100% believe there was intelligence before the big bang but other then that I have no idea what it could be. I believe there
@squamish4244 there is a really good chance that Consciences actually exists everywhere in the universe. But who knows, whatever the truth is we will eventually find out !!!
Raphael Bousso: "This may seem laughable, but without the multiverse our finest theories predict that empty space should contain about 10 to the power of 123 times more energy than it actually does. This has been called the “worst prediction in the history of science” and the “mother of all physics problems.”
Until the day that M Theory is able to make some concrete, definite predictions that can be tested in the laboratory, it must be considered as pure speculation.
Modern cosmology appears to concern itself not at all with observation and rests simply on pure thought.
That is why it is most likely...tosh..wrapped in the mysteries of abstruse maths to keep the peasants quiet.
Many of the tenets of orthodox religion are the same except the practitioners dont use maths and in some case, see Rowan Williams, dont appear to believe much either.
All he does is propogate large helpings of secular humanistic non judgemental too sweet sugar.
The fact that it can be disproved is what makes it good science. It's the beliefs that hold themselves up to be beyond challenge that are the gangrene of civilization.
To my knowledge, they claim it is falsifiable because falsifying quantum mechanics would do the same for M theory, which is kind of a cop out in my opinion.
Atheists really get excited about multiverses. Makes you wonder how you can trust the things they say about it. They act as if mutliverses are actually out there and as if it's only a matter of time before we all will see it.
@209vaughn Atheists don't comprise an organization anymore than people who don't believe in unicorns. That being said, I'm an atheist and I'm not impressed (scientifically) by the multiverse. It smacks of anthropocentric thinking. However, it makes for a fun mechanic in science fiction :)
"They act as if mutliverses are actually out there and as if it's only a matter of time before we all will see it."
Religious people do the same thing with angels, demons, and gods.
The title is a total misnomer. Hawking didn't create string Theory. His new book is about the possibilities behind those theories. Thus, there is nothing to debunk because he isn't stating anything as fact. Not to mention, you can't debunk something that hasn't been tested yet. String Theory may be pointing us in the right direction, or it could be all bunk. We can't say either-or since it has no evidence for it. agree with jbourg...
Denying the reality of Man's finiteness is the nuts and bolts of the religion of A-theism, a contorted religion in which Man assumes that he is superior enough to rule out the probability that Man just does not have it in himself to be omniscient.
@csmcmillion What's so ignorant? U.S. Cort declared A-theism is a bonafide religion. And, A-theists deny reality of Hebrew Scripture naming Creator as sole authority oer mankind, and all else. What's too hard for you to see?
As far as I know, Hawking barely (if at all?) had to do with the creation of M-theory or string theory. M-theory was dubbed by Edward Witten as a collection of sorts for all the ideas about string theory floating around at the time.
@PrinceWalter Your example of the modus tollens argument as applied to scripture and physics is just plain silly. You first have to show that your 'lord' exists, the same goes for the multiverse theory. Yikes...
@PrinceWalter You can't apply logic to physics. Science is based on observation and replication. Besides, we know that physics is anything but logical (it's just plain nuts).
@pillsareyummy I think thats a huge statement you are making. Classical physics is based on mathematics pure logic and predictable. However quantum mechanics is based purely on probablistic mathematics which is "nuts" as you say. String theory and M-theory is not a scientific theory because it cannot be tested via experiments or observation. Its like having faith! Its pure nonesense in my opinion.
@give.. Science is based on observation more than 'logic'.For example,Quantum mechanics isn't very 'logical',that's why it makes no sense to us and is so counter intuitive.However,it is the most powerful theory ever created, making predictions that are accurate to a hairs length. Not to mention, some of our technology employs it as well (like your computer).With that being said,it isn't based on faith,since belief in it is suspended before evidence can be found to support it (by scientists).
&give. Further more, some of it's predictions will be tested at the LHC at CERN. If these prediction bare fruit they may also point to a possible explanation for Dark Matter. Hawking's new book is just another platform to discuss physics in general and the possible paths that it may take. There's nothing wrong with that. 'Flexing' our mental muscles is a good thing, especially in a world that is becoming increasingly bereft of intelligence (not to mention intellilect) by the popular media.
@rockstarcola100 Until someone identifies a string vacuum that reproduces the Standard Model in its low-energy limit, there's no model to verify. Falsifiability isn't my touchstone for what is or isn't science, but what experiment could conclusively rule out the existence of a graviton?
@KTK401 I was responding to the notion that we could falsify string theory by looking for, and not finding, a graviton. The technical argument is that the cross section for graviton/matter interactions, if gravitons do exist, is extraordinarily low. I certainly agree that string theory is one of several approaches to a quantum theory of gravity that show some promise.
@rockstarcola100 Not at all brother, thats probably true. Id love to encounter sentient beings from another plannet/dimension but I dont think its likey lol
@rockstarcola100 Only because of the countless benefits we reap in the growth of our understanding. I also appreciate the mysterious but mainly in the thrill of its unravelling. (I enjoy knowledge, perhaps because I lack it? lol)
@rockstarcola100 "as of yet" as in yet to be, much like the "theory of everything". When/if our understanding does reach that level the godhead will have no leg to stand on, the god equation will have no application/will be unneccessary addition to the equation in which case abscence of evidence will very much (and very reasonably) be acceptable as evidence of abscense.
As long as we have ignorance the magic theory will worm its way in, I have a little faith in science to remove this ignorance
I think its fair to state that string theory is on equal standing with the god hypothesis (rather stronger than christianity however), as it is without solid foundation/backing. Without supporting evidence, it is simply a plausibe explanation as of yet completely undemonstrable but thats not to say it wont be.
It seems to be the two leading "pre-big bang" theories are Magic and Multiverse.
The Old Lady’s TORTOISE (Hinduism) and DRAGON (Taoism) are symbols for WAVE (energy), both are analog with MAGEN DAVID (Judaism). "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" is the metaphor, and also similar with allegory of rituals Thawaf circling around the Ka'ba and Sa’i oscillating along “the sinus” Marwah-Shafa during the Hajj pilgrimage (Abraham). YIN-YANG: energy-particle . CROSS (Christian) and SWASTIKA (Buddhism) are symbols for “Balance of Nature.”
If you wish to see GOD particle, Higgs Boson see YOU TUBE VK SONAKIA.FIT-lFuture Imaging tool or Certainty tool technology developed which is GOD Particle in Human body.Based on data in biometric or biosensor of both hands where FITtechnology has blue prints of future diasters like earthquake,nuclear radiation,tsunami,Dam burst ,Hurricane, KATRINA , 9/11 2001 WTC Tragedy, 26/11 2008 mumbai serial blast.scientist welcome to see and test FIT
It’s not “Hawking’s M-Theory”. M-Theory is just a term that describes a hypothetical theory that contains all current String theories (like Heterotic, E8 etc.). These String theories (themselves not yet having led to any testable prediction or conclusion) are believed by some scientists to describe just the same thing from different perspectives and are believed to be equivalent in some unknown sense.
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
This is very typical of religion. M theory is indeed a theory. not a "collection of ideas." and they miss key points in M theory. These people try to bash science and make it seem like only ignorant people should believe that, when really, they are the ignorant people, that are trying to hide disproof of religion.
Even though atheists have the same ammount of evidence for both multiverse and leprechauns: nada, the belief in the first, implies the existance of the latter.
Oh yeah, forgot to tell you that now atheists believe in leprechauns and pink unicorns but they only say it in their humanist comic-cons
@bushfingers: Good statement. And Penroses books are a lot more honest in terms of showing that grasping these concepts is hard, hard work. Nevertheless his drawings and explanations of the hard mathematics in “Road To Reality” are a lot more enlightening than every picture Hawking has drawn in his books.
I’m no Hawking-hater but he is certainly not the be-all-and-end-all of cosmology, string theory, twistor theory, LQG and such.
Hawkings is ONLY famous because he's physically disabled and got media attention because of it. Also his work on black holes got the sci-fi community riled up.
I saw no debunking there, just a (probably correct) conclusion that M-theory is a long way from being actually proven. But even if we should agree that M-theory was debunked because it is merely a hypothesis based on hopes and aspirations, then it is pretty much on the same level as the god hypothesis...
@JarJar88forever: Witten even went back to 4-dimensional spacetime, being unsatisfied with the 26/13/11/10 dimensions of the current string theories. Penrose tells about Witten talking to him about that in one of his lectures or talks here on youtube. He also mentions that in his book “Road To Reality”.
Looking for god using physics is such a waste of intelligence! I see so many other wise intelligent people clinging to unnecessarily contrived theories to reconcile supernatural beliefs with modern reason based ideals. Its sad!
I don't necessarily believe God created the universe and don't necessarily even believe in a God. But if we consider Hawkings' theory that the universe can create things by itself, then we need to consider that there is some sort of 'intellect', some sort of 'consciousness' which the universe is tapping into. The question is what? So even if Hawkings is right, which he probably is in some ways, his theory in itself opens questions about a 'consciousness' within the universe.
@impressionsbysimon Yea I agree. Not to mention that a quantum vacuum certainly isn't "nothing" in the philisophical sense of non-being. The biggest question is why is there existence at all? Why should existence be necessary? Why does anything exist including laws and quantum vacuums? It seems to me, that the reality of existence must have its foundations in something that transcends existence. If that makes sense.
"Hawkings M- theory"? that's utterly wrong. Hawkings was merely one of the many string theorist in the 80's. The M-theory was proposed by Edward Witten, after realizing most strings theorists were talking about the same He was able to unify all string theories by asserting that strings are really 1-dimensional slices of a 2-dimensional membrane vibrating in 11-dimensional space. The model seems to work, albeit mathematically.
Not sure there should be so much a God or no God debate but more a universal or cosmic consciousness sort of debate.
It also strikes me that an ability for the universe to create itself is equally as spectacular as the idea of a creator. It's the sort of atheists version of God, in a way!
Good vid. Penrose was really honest. He said it best at the end regarding the multiverse theory - saying it was overused and an excuse for not having a good theory.
"well u meant hawking's theory as in, the theory hawking presents in the book. cmon! admit it! penrose is cunty! i love it haha."
I LOVE IT!! Anybody who makes life even the slightest bit challenging for the atheist suddenly becomes an apostate, a heretic, unworthy and a blasphemer.
Why natural selection has not yet weeded out the sheer number of dumb, lazy, emotional atheists yet is beyond me. Let's have some proper atheist philosophers, not these moping teenagers with their "A" tshirts lol!
His argument is actually ironic. See he argues that phi (the wave-function of the universe) can explain everything and so we don't need a God to do so. However he forgets that the wave-function of the universe is a Mind.
Don't believe me?
1.) The wave-function of the universe is self-collapsing (true by definition)
2.) Self-collapsing wave-functions are minds. (Roger Penrose's Orch-OR model)
Therefore, Stephen Hawking's phi is a mind: watch?v=Kj8UdHuP5l8
Stephen Hawking is not always right! Sir Roger Penrose is a highly esteemed cosmologist. He has his own theory about the origin of the universe called the "Conformal Cyclic Cosmology" model. This is starting to bear some fruits with real evidence
the trouble is most scientific theories do not negate the existence of God, merely point out that God was not crucial to things. E.g there is no need for God in evolution as nature can do it all on its own. However, the very fact that there is ANYTHING at all might well require the intervention of a God. Science does no mean no God at all, just that we don't need a God to intervene once a universe is created.
Interesting....The fact that the universe started 'out' in such an ordered state (low entropy) could also mean that 'God' (by definition) is hardwired INTO the evolving universe.
I will soon be reading 'Shadows of the Mind' (Sir Roger Penrose).
(synopsis) ......'It is also a bold speculation on the biological process that makes consciousness what it is. In this illuminating book Penrose provides powerful arguments to support his conclusion that there is something in the conscious activity of the brain that transcends computation - and will find no explanation in terms of present-day science.'
@adeworks Penrose's quantum consciousness theory actually does prove God.
In Penrose's model self-collapsing wave-functions are minds. The only other way for a wave-function to collapse however is for an outside measuring apparatus to collapse it. However there's isn't anything physical outside of the universe to collapse it's own wave-function. Thus the universe's wave-function is self-collapsed by definition and is therefore a mind: watch?v=Kj8UdHuP5l8
@JohananRaatz Yes, very. Even more interesting are some of the theories about human consciousness suggested by Penrose's colleague, Stu Hammerof, an anesthesiologist.
@thwonk121 Many probably don't. Some will. I'm sure there are those who think he's some third rate semi-theist prof who can be discounted as not really understanding how science works.
@thcollicutt - Why would anyone think of him as a 3rd rate semi-theist prof. ??? Why would anyone think of him as someone who doesn't understand science ??? 3rd graders understand how science works ... He's not a blinkered creationist ...
@MaitreyaRocket My point was that a lot of people won't know who he is, and think he mustn't be talented if he disagrees with Hawking who they likely have heard of.
And as for 3rd graders, there are a lot of high schoolers and adults who are scientifically illiterate (and being athiest does not make you scientifically literate so we can dispence with the "They must be creationists" garbage right off the bat), so you muyst be saying intellectual capacity peaks about age 10.
@thwonk121 " It just sounded like something someone would say who doesn't know anything about Penrose " ??? I don't follow your reasoning ... What criteria are you following ??? I didn't write anything untrue about Penrose ... That would be the only reason to write such a thing ... Are you saying you applied no reasoning or thought to your statement ??? That lack of reasoning sounds like you're one of those fundamentalist religious believers ...
@thwonk121 - Read through again , a little slower ... Then respond ... Grow up & admit you had no basis for such a smug question ... Is your response to being made an ass really to keep being one ??? Good luck with that ...
@thwonk121 - Why would anyone think of him as a 3rd rate semi-theist prof. ??? Why would anyone think of him as someone who doesn't understand science ??? He's not a proponent of intelligent design ... That being said, a 3rd grader knows how science works , albeit , a non-creationist 3rd grader ... To answer your question, no, I don't who "he" is ... I don't know if he likes sugar in coffee or if he has children that love him ... I only know of his theories on conscieousness & his written works
@sponsoredwalk1 I agree with all your points except that this is somehow typical of religious people. I can only speak for my own Christianity, But I know of nothing dishonst I've read from the truly great Christian thinkers like GK Chesterton, CS Lewis, George MacDonald, or Malcolm Muggeridge. They may be wrong on occasion, but not purposely so.
@gmdinformation - I direct you to Kent Hovind, Lee Strobel, Dr. Craig & Prof. Hamm of the Creation Museum, the posters of this video ... Dishonesty & blinkered madness on a stick ...
@MaitreyaRocket "I direct you to Kent Hovind, Lee Strobel, Dr. Craig & Prof. Hamm"
None of those are anywhere in the neighborhood of "great Christian thinkers." That's like calling Glenn Beck & Rush Limbaugh great republican thinkers. I mean, come on! They couldn't hold water for Russell Kirk and William F Buckley Jr.
@gmdinformation - Indeed, ... Point me to these "great Christian thinkers" ... D'Souza, Craig ??? otherwise known as Hitchens' bitches ... As for Beck & Limbaugh, I agree, neither can approack Buckley ... Nevertheless; ask the common, blinkered Tea Bagger who he/ she takes his cues from ...
@gmdinformation - Indeed, ... Point me to these "great Christian thinkers" ... D'Souza, Craig ??? otherwise known as Hitchens' bitches ... As for Beck & Limbaugh, I agree, neither can approach Buckley ... Nevertheless; ask the common, blinkered Tea Bagger who he/ she takes his cues from ...
@MaitreyaRocket Indeed thou art a most unlearned boy. GK Chesterton, Malcolm Muggeridge, CS Lewis, Charles Williams, George MacDonald for starters.
Why would I ask a tea party member anything? There's enough tatoo'ed, sissie dumbocrats around who can't keep their pants up or find the right hole if I want to talk to dolts.
@gmdinformation - " Point me to these "great Christian thinkers' ... That was a fool's errand ... From GK to Mac, there's not a new thought between them ... Nor is there any difference between any of them ... My children can refute them all within a paragraph ...
@sponsoredwalk1 Yet, Hawking cites M-theory in his book as possibly eliminating the need for a god to explain the beginning of the universe, does he not? So Penrose's comment can be seen as debunking Hawking's improper philosophical application of M-theory. I can see claiming that the title of this posted video states the matter inaccurately as "debunking M-theory," but I can't see calling that pedestrian error "dishonest."
@sponsoredwalk1 And yet, there are atheists all over the Internet crowing about how The Great Hawking has PROVED that god is not necessary. Yes, I understand that they're overselling what Hawking has said, but.. .do they? And so we conclude that, yes, there really is some debunking that needs to go on here, and that Penrose's words actually accomplish this.
Search YouTube for "Hawking m-theory god not necessary" and you'll see what I mean.
@sponsoredwalk1 BTW, in the video Penrose says more than just that M-theory is untested, he says it isn't even really a theory yet, just a collection of ideas. So, using your own standard of judgment, should I say that you're being dishonest when you represent his view as "M-theory is 'untested as of yet?'" Or have you simply stated your case somewhat inaccurately?
@sponsoredwalk1 Penrose: "What is referred to as M-theory is not even a theory. It's a collection of ideas, hopes, aspirations. [...] The book is a bit misleading in that respect. It gives you the impression that here is this new theory which is going to explain everything. It's nothing of that sort. [..]The theory is not showing us that [that the the universe can create itself out of nothing] [...] string theory which has absolutely no support from observation. [...] it's hardly science.
Penrose: "What is referred to as M-theory is not even a theory. It's a collection of ideas, hopes, aspirations. It's not even a theory. The book is a bit misleading in that respect. It gives you the impression that here is this new theory which is going to explain everything. It's nothing of that sort. []The theory is not showing us that [that the the universe can create itself out of nothing] [..] string theory which has absolutely no support from observation. [..] it's hardly science.
Penrose: "Also, the word "multiverse" means different things. There is this 10^500 or whatever it is M-theories. [..] The anthropic principle is overused. It's an excuse for not having a good theory"
Penrose on another show: "The Big Bang is not a chaotic state; it's highly ordered. This is an observational fact. It's a feature of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which tells us that the universe gets more and more random. [..] The puzzle is: why was the initial state of the universe so highly organized? One can even give a figure as to how organized that state was: at least 10^10^ 23. That's a ridiculously huge number. None of the theories that are being put forward explain that."
Oh shut your arrogant yap, Penrose is not some Dawkins/Darwin chance monger like most of the atheists on youtube including yourself.
Christians such as myself respect not only his contributions but his honesty, even as a self-proclaimed atheist.
The arrogance that reeks from some of the atheists as though they got it all figured out scientifically because they can "imagine" it happening that way is truly astonishing and at the same time pathetic.
As a rebel Christian I believe there are exceptions to the rule and I won't hesitate for a second, especially to you arrogant chance worshiping Mandelbrot set collectors.
The religious bashing followed by your nitpicking in order prove yourself right is the greatest arrogance one can spew and will be sure to attract many other arrogant assholes such as myself from the opposite table.
I dont think you understand. Mtheory is a misnomer, and isn't even a scientific theory, and your right, you cant debunk a theory that doesn't exist. Its an idea based on no evidence. Scientific theories require evidence. This has nothing to do with religion. Penrose is not a religious man and he understands and has calculated that our anthropic fine tuned universe
had a chance of coming into existence by less that 1:10^10^123.
@albedoshader Someone who agrees with me. Thats pretty rare lol.
As Paul Davies has stated before, there are many cosmologist & physicist, & not just Penrose who agrees that the universe is in many aspects FT for life. For many, this notion is unthinkable, & it's better for some to imagine many different universes such as Mverse or its counter part Mtheory, rather than accept what is an empirical observation. FT is to close to comfort to theology. Thats why its called the fine tuning problem.
@sponsoredwalk1 Denying that it is a theory at all is certainly one kind of debunking. You say "everyone's theory": according to Penrose it's no one's. Since "everyone" understands M-Theory as just that, why call it M-Theory? Maybe "M-HopesandAspirationsAsASubstituteForAProperTheory" is more accurate? (to paraphrase RP) :^)
PRadio is not being dishonest if the book is misleading in this way. The marketing of it seems to be to exploit M-T's lofty "hopes and aspirations" not its scientific value.
Let's face it, all m-theory really does is inflate the probabilistic resources to an extent that concepts such as Darwinian Evolution through random variation and cumulative natural selection, as well as abiogenesis seem more palatable. If we need such speculative concepts to make a theory more palatable, it seems quite rational to question such theories in the first place.
@brando92346 Darwinian theory perhaps, but more specifically it's aimed at the teleological use of the anthropic principle -- the claim that the universe seems fine-tuned to produce lives like ours, and therefore must have been designed for that purpose. It also affects the use of the singular explosion to support the cosmological argument -- there was a beginning, so there must be a Beginner. You're right, though; they're grasping at straws, which means they agree that science has proved God.
@philWynk Yes, that is correct. I was merely pointing out that when Darwinists face roadblocks to Darwinian theory - which is based on a priori assumptions of materialism - those roadblocks such as the issues inherent in causality, rather than resort to acceptance of theism, in some sort of Lewontian denial of the "divine foot," they often resort to speculations about a multiverse to explain away what they can't explain.
@brando92346 - Why would anyone resort to theism when they're in pursuit of scientific fact ??? Why resort to something you know raises more questions , can't be falsified, & essentially ends the process ...???
Just as a point of accuracy, Penrose didn't 'debunk' M-theory, he just argued against it. And to have the opinions of McGrath, professor of made-up-stuff, as part of the discussion is just pointless. The fact that Santa can visit every house in one single night isn't proof that the speed of light is can be exceeded.
@whollyheathan "The fact that Santa can visit every house in one single night isn't proof that the speed of light is can be exceeded." Yes, but with M-theory and the possibility of infinite universes, you have the possibility or probability that there is a universe somewhere where Santa actually exists. In an infinite universe scenario, anything is possible. It also allows for the idea that somewhere there is a universe created by God, and where Jesus died for our sins. It doesn't escape...
Hawking opens his new book by denouncing philosophy as 'dead' , (destrpyed by science) and then goes on to amazingly ignore sound scientific reasoning as he delves deeply into grandiose philosophical and metaphysical pronouncements, devoid of scientific content. This is a case of resting on his "Laurels" and making baseless philosophical claims by asserrtion, without doing the hard work of backing such claims with valid logical argument. Invoking all kinds of imaginary worlds is not scientific.
@reasonedfaith1 - "Invoking all kinds of imaginary worlds is not scientific" ... Keep repeating that ... Hawking made "0" metaphysical claims , predictions, nor pronouncements ...
God isnt real. Religious who believe here are trying to backward rationalise their bullshit beliefs and trying to integrate it into science. a fact and evidence based process. What a joke!
And yet they STILL try to argue. Poor deluded fellows.
I haven't read the new Hawking book yet, but he has always been quite open-minded about the possibility of a mind at the bottom of the well so to speak, so I doubt very much that he said anything in this book that could be construed as a negation of God and religion. In fact, I'm guessing these people are probably misunderstanding him, and that what he's saying is about the universe creating itself includes a mind in the mix, much like Chris Langan's CTMU.
I'm pretty sure Mr. Garrison on south park cleared this up when he explained how land frog fishes had butt sex with monkey things and then came the human, well why should anything in existence be any different? However childlike the humor, it makes sense. Does this take God out of the equation? Heavens no. The eyes you have to see what Iv'e typed proves you are both the result of and part, of a higher intelligent being/beings. Anyway, good luck and God bless. Ron Paul 2012-2020! INFOWARS.COM !
ciocod 4 days ago
M Theory belongs to Ed Witten
Mujahidremo 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't know about you guys, but I don't think anybody can help whispering when hearing McGrath speaking: " Such a smooth talking typical irish hypocrite!
This is the sort of person who can talk and talk and talk making nil sense at all.
woyoho3 3 weeks ago
I don't know about you guys, but I don't anybody can help whispering when hearing McGrath speaking: " Such a smooth talking typical irish hypocrite! This is the sort of person who can can talk and talk making nil sense at all.
woyoho3 3 weeks ago
@woyoho3 "I don't know about you guys, but I don't anybody can help whispering when.."
Is this the sort of english that makes sense to you? Perhaps if youre going to criticise someone for coherency u might consider your own first. Then you might be about to tell us exactly where Mcgrath is making nil sense?
Gericho49 3 weeks ago in playlist Alister McGrath
Note how desperate all these religious institutions are - taking every opportunity and exploiting every individual imaginable to underplay and attack Science. Only this time the scapegoat is a theory in it's development and the mouthpiece is Penrose - Of course he's too smart to be fooled and that makes the stupid title of this posting even stupidier.
woyoho3 3 weeks ago
@woyoho3 Desperate ? hahaha Science was supposed to bury God wasnt it? Now we find that the tables have been turned and atheists are resorting to all kinds of fanciful theories to deny the design & fine-tuning of our "knife-edge" law abiding, rationally intelligible universe.
The problem isn’t about lack of evidence but simply a suppression or wilful neglect of mainstream science so as to appease a biased ideology.
Gericho49 3 weeks ago in playlist Alister McGrath
@woyoho3 The title is misleading, but Penrose is a brilliant, highly respected physicist whose views on consciousness would make a lot of atheists uncomfortable. He is an atheist in the strictest sense, that of no God, not in the common sense of rejecting any sort of mind that is not restricted solely to chemical processes in the brain.
squamish4244 3 weeks ago
@squamish4244 Well I think anyone with a little bit of intelligence is able to realize there isn't a God watching over them. Or there isn't Angels all around. BUT the fact that there is alot of fine tuning in this universe and intelligence is quite incredible. Anyone who thinks the Human mind was made from just one random action on top of another is off their rocker. I 100% believe there was intelligence before the big bang but other then that I have no idea what it could be. I believe there
JG129 1 week ago
@squamish4244 there is a really good chance that Consciences actually exists everywhere in the universe. But who knows, whatever the truth is we will eventually find out !!!
JG129 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Raphael Bousso: "This may seem laughable, but without the multiverse our finest theories predict that empty space should contain about 10 to the power of 123 times more energy than it actually does. This has been called the “worst prediction in the history of science” and the “mother of all physics problems.”
StygianDysnomia 1 month ago
Comment removed
planetmax83 1 month ago
Disliked for incorrect title: They did not "debunk" M-theory.
pallfy20 1 month ago
Comment removed
pallfy20 1 month ago
Until the day that M Theory is able to make some concrete, definite predictions that can be tested in the laboratory, it must be considered as pure speculation.
MrRobotoToo 2 months ago
Comment removed
Gericho49 3 weeks ago in playlist Alister McGrath
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrRobotoToo If such a fanciful hypothesis came out of a religious text it would be the laughing stock of the scientific world.!!!!
Gericho49 3 weeks ago in playlist Alister McGrath
String theory yes.
M-theory.... idk about that one.....
4umy 2 months ago
Modern cosmology appears to concern itself not at all with observation and rests simply on pure thought.
That is why it is most likely...tosh..wrapped in the mysteries of abstruse maths to keep the peasants quiet.
Many of the tenets of orthodox religion are the same except the practitioners dont use maths and in some case, see Rowan Williams, dont appear to believe much either.
All he does is propogate large helpings of secular humanistic non judgemental too sweet sugar.
divvy1400yam600 2 months ago
There is no proof that god created the universe or any that he even exists
Typho0n86 2 months ago
Hawkings picks from 2 choices
Odds 1:1 Thought created the universe--a perfect logical explanation of the complexity of
the universe and conciousness. 1: in 1 with Zero problems in odds and Logic if true.
Odds 1:1 Gravity created the unfathomable complexity of the universe and
consciousness--odds 1: in every atom in the universe.(Im being gracious here because the
probability is Zero) Infinite odds and logic.
You Must need for there Not to be a creator to pick #2.
This is Reason? Its crazy
Rizzy55 2 months ago
The fact that it can be disproved is what makes it good science. It's the beliefs that hold themselves up to be beyond challenge that are the gangrene of civilization.
hisnameisfrankie 2 months ago
@hisnameisfrankie
Are you talking about m-theory?
To my knowledge, they claim it is falsifiable because falsifying quantum mechanics would do the same for M theory, which is kind of a cop out in my opinion.
ThisOneIsTaken 2 months ago
Atheists really get excited about multiverses. Makes you wonder how you can trust the things they say about it. They act as if mutliverses are actually out there and as if it's only a matter of time before we all will see it.
209vaughn 3 months ago
@209vaughn Atheists don't comprise an organization anymore than people who don't believe in unicorns. That being said, I'm an atheist and I'm not impressed (scientifically) by the multiverse. It smacks of anthropocentric thinking. However, it makes for a fun mechanic in science fiction :)
"They act as if mutliverses are actually out there and as if it's only a matter of time before we all will see it."
Religious people do the same thing with angels, demons, and gods.
quidproquo2004 3 months ago
The title is a total misnomer. Hawking didn't create string Theory. His new book is about the possibilities behind those theories. Thus, there is nothing to debunk because he isn't stating anything as fact. Not to mention, you can't debunk something that hasn't been tested yet. String Theory may be pointing us in the right direction, or it could be all bunk. We can't say either-or since it has no evidence for it. agree with jbourg...
pillsareyummy 3 months ago
I love how youtube is full of physicists, philosophers, and biologists. You'd think 90% of the population were scientists of some sort.
jbourg333 3 months ago
Denying the reality of Man's finiteness is the nuts and bolts of the religion of A-theism, a contorted religion in which Man assumes that he is superior enough to rule out the probability that Man just does not have it in himself to be omniscient.
Go figure.
claudius2u 4 months ago
@claudius2u Your ignorance is stunning, but not surprising.
csmcmillion 3 months ago
@csmcmillion What's so ignorant? U.S. Cort declared A-theism is a bonafide religion. And, A-theists deny reality of Hebrew Scripture naming Creator as sole authority oer mankind, and all else. What's too hard for you to see?
claudius2u 3 months ago
M-theory does not 'belong' to Hawking.
As far as I know, Hawking barely (if at all?) had to do with the creation of M-theory or string theory. M-theory was dubbed by Edward Witten as a collection of sorts for all the ideas about string theory floating around at the time.
RoboMusik 4 months ago 12
@RoboMusik Quite so
Realityprogramming 4 months ago
@RoboMusik I agree. Edward Witten was the first to introduce this new concept.
xXTheDeathReaperXx 4 months ago
@RoboMusik Well said.
Hawking is being totally disingenuous by misrepresenting M-Theory.
KTK401 4 months ago
Those who hold to the belief that science explains 'things' and ultimately will explain everything are just plain wrong..
Science does not explain 'things' at all .
By using reductionist methods it investigates and hypothesises.
Technology applies those hypotheses with outstanding success leading the unwary to believe that science offers explanations.
Technology uses natural forces , clarified by scientific investigation to make 'things'
At root nothing is explained.
divvy1400yam600 4 months ago
Comment removed
georgepowell 4 months ago
Denying the Consequent (valid)
If P, then Q.
Not Q.
Therefore, not P
IF multiverse theory is FALSE (P), THEN the Lord's Kingdom EXISTS FINITELY in THIS KOSMOS. (Q)
John 18:36. "My kingdom is NOT of THIS (Gr.) KOSMOS." (Not Q)
Therefore, multiverse theory is NOT FALSE. (Not P).
PrinceWalter 4 months ago
@PrinceWalter Your example of the modus tollens argument as applied to scripture and physics is just plain silly. You first have to show that your 'lord' exists, the same goes for the multiverse theory. Yikes...
pillsareyummy 3 months ago
@pillsareyummy
It is.
Two wrongs don't make a right, Multivariate theory presents no threat to my beliefs, as some suggest.
Therefore, I thought about how funny it would be to take his theory and apply a logical proof from the very text that the theory is a "threat" to.
I emailed London but they didn't answer.
PrinceWalter 3 months ago
@PrinceWalter How did "Multivariate" get in there?
I'll be back before you can say Antidisestablishmentarianism.
Anti Distinctly Minty Multiism
PrinceWalter 3 months ago
@PrinceWalter You can't apply logic to physics. Science is based on observation and replication. Besides, we know that physics is anything but logical (it's just plain nuts).
pillsareyummy 3 months ago
@pillsareyummy I think thats a huge statement you are making. Classical physics is based on mathematics pure logic and predictable. However quantum mechanics is based purely on probablistic mathematics which is "nuts" as you say. String theory and M-theory is not a scientific theory because it cannot be tested via experiments or observation. Its like having faith! Its pure nonesense in my opinion.
givemeblowjob69 3 months ago
@give.. Science is based on observation more than 'logic'.For example,Quantum mechanics isn't very 'logical',that's why it makes no sense to us and is so counter intuitive.However,it is the most powerful theory ever created, making predictions that are accurate to a hairs length. Not to mention, some of our technology employs it as well (like your computer).With that being said,it isn't based on faith,since belief in it is suspended before evidence can be found to support it (by scientists).
pillsareyummy 3 months ago
&give. Further more, some of it's predictions will be tested at the LHC at CERN. If these prediction bare fruit they may also point to a possible explanation for Dark Matter. Hawking's new book is just another platform to discuss physics in general and the possible paths that it may take. There's nothing wrong with that. 'Flexing' our mental muscles is a good thing, especially in a world that is becoming increasingly bereft of intelligence (not to mention intellilect) by the popular media.
pillsareyummy 3 months ago
@rockstarcola100 Until someone identifies a string vacuum that reproduces the Standard Model in its low-energy limit, there's no model to verify. Falsifiability isn't my touchstone for what is or isn't science, but what experiment could conclusively rule out the existence of a graviton?
acr08807 5 months ago
@acr08807 Not sure what you mean exactly, but String Theory does not say there is no Graviton, in fact it predicts it.
regards
KTK401 4 months ago
@KTK401 I was responding to the notion that we could falsify string theory by looking for, and not finding, a graviton. The technical argument is that the cross section for graviton/matter interactions, if gravitons do exist, is extraordinarily low. I certainly agree that string theory is one of several approaches to a quantum theory of gravity that show some promise.
acr08807 4 months ago
@acr08807 I agree with you!!
KTK401 3 months ago
@rockstarcola100 That would be a double edged sword if it did happen.
1. You would be satisfied to know the answers
2. But the prospect of no new puzzles would be daunting for future generations of physicists
Nevertheless, I agree with your prediction - and hope that you are right.
myrtlebox 5 months ago
@rockstarcola100 Not at all brother, thats probably true. Id love to encounter sentient beings from another plannet/dimension but I dont think its likey lol
mehico33 5 months ago
@rockstarcola100 Only because of the countless benefits we reap in the growth of our understanding. I also appreciate the mysterious but mainly in the thrill of its unravelling. (I enjoy knowledge, perhaps because I lack it? lol)
mehico33 5 months ago
@rockstarcola100 "as of yet" as in yet to be, much like the "theory of everything". When/if our understanding does reach that level the godhead will have no leg to stand on, the god equation will have no application/will be unneccessary addition to the equation in which case abscence of evidence will very much (and very reasonably) be acceptable as evidence of abscense.
As long as we have ignorance the magic theory will worm its way in, I have a little faith in science to remove this ignorance
mehico33 5 months ago
I think its fair to state that string theory is on equal standing with the god hypothesis (rather stronger than christianity however), as it is without solid foundation/backing. Without supporting evidence, it is simply a plausibe explanation as of yet completely undemonstrable but thats not to say it wont be.
It seems to be the two leading "pre-big bang" theories are Magic and Multiverse.
mehico33 5 months ago
Mcgrath just wants anything that doesnt involve his diety yhwh to be taken down.
proofandevidence 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GOD - Philosophia Perennis and Science.
The Old Lady’s TORTOISE (Hinduism) and DRAGON (Taoism) are symbols for WAVE (energy), both are analog with MAGEN DAVID (Judaism). "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" is the metaphor, and also similar with allegory of rituals Thawaf circling around the Ka'ba and Sa’i oscillating along “the sinus” Marwah-Shafa during the Hajj pilgrimage (Abraham). YIN-YANG: energy-particle . CROSS (Christian) and SWASTIKA (Buddhism) are symbols for “Balance of Nature.”
TatoSugiarto 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you wish to see GOD particle, Higgs Boson see YOU TUBE VK SONAKIA.FIT-lFuture Imaging tool or Certainty tool technology developed which is GOD Particle in Human body.Based on data in biometric or biosensor of both hands where FITtechnology has blue prints of future diasters like earthquake,nuclear radiation,tsunami,Dam burst ,Hurricane, KATRINA , 9/11 2001 WTC Tragedy, 26/11 2008 mumbai serial blast.scientist welcome to see and test FIT
vksonakia@yahoo.co.in
unified field scientist
India
vksonakia 6 months ago
It’s not “Hawking’s M-Theory”. M-Theory is just a term that describes a hypothetical theory that contains all current String theories (like Heterotic, E8 etc.). These String theories (themselves not yet having led to any testable prediction or conclusion) are believed by some scientists to describe just the same thing from different perspectives and are believed to be equivalent in some unknown sense.
albedoshader 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (DONATED) FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
Very well said @ sponsoredwalk1.
This is very typical of religion. M theory is indeed a theory. not a "collection of ideas." and they miss key points in M theory. These people try to bash science and make it seem like only ignorant people should believe that, when really, they are the ignorant people, that are trying to hide disproof of religion.
wonton5056 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Even though atheists have the same ammount of evidence for both multiverse and leprechauns: nada, the belief in the first, implies the existance of the latter.
Oh yeah, forgot to tell you that now atheists believe in leprechauns and pink unicorns but they only say it in their humanist comic-cons
IloveYOUviruses 6 months ago
Personally I think Penrose is far more intelligent and creative than Hawking.
But clearly he's a lot more honest.
bushfingers 7 months ago 17
@bushfingers: Good statement. And Penroses books are a lot more honest in terms of showing that grasping these concepts is hard, hard work. Nevertheless his drawings and explanations of the hard mathematics in “Road To Reality” are a lot more enlightening than every picture Hawking has drawn in his books.
I’m no Hawking-hater but he is certainly not the be-all-and-end-all of cosmology, string theory, twistor theory, LQG and such.
albedoshader 6 months ago
Hawkings is ONLY famous because he's physically disabled and got media attention because of it. Also his work on black holes got the sci-fi community riled up.
Penrose has more achievements under his belt.
4umy 2 months ago 2
And therefore perfectly usable as a counterargument for Kalam-like arguments such as dr. Craig's...
Boreas171270 7 months ago
I saw no debunking there, just a (probably correct) conclusion that M-theory is a long way from being actually proven. But even if we should agree that M-theory was debunked because it is merely a hypothesis based on hopes and aspirations, then it is pretty much on the same level as the god hypothesis...
Boreas171270 7 months ago
Penrose is an atheist?
*Immediately triples respect status for Penrose*
drrobertoboogie97 8 months ago
I thought Whitten not Hawking came up with M Theory.
JarJar88forever 8 months ago
@JarJar88forever: Witten even went back to 4-dimensional spacetime, being unsatisfied with the 26/13/11/10 dimensions of the current string theories. Penrose tells about Witten talking to him about that in one of his lectures or talks here on youtube. He also mentions that in his book “Road To Reality”.
albedoshader 6 months ago
who cares its all a load of crap even if there was a god or some kid of creator he or it wouldnt have started any of those stupid religions
mcdinkity 8 months ago
In order to debunk your god, you have to demonstrate that one exists. This has never been done, period.
Cootabux 8 months ago
lol 0:45 - they hear "exactly" what they want to hear :))))
mfosby8080 9 months ago
What I see is that Penrose just debunked christian radio.
Frutoses 9 months ago
Looking for god using physics is such a waste of intelligence! I see so many other wise intelligent people clinging to unnecessarily contrived theories to reconcile supernatural beliefs with modern reason based ideals. Its sad!
beyonddeadstudio 10 months ago
@beyonddeadstudio
Tell that to Isaac Newton...
logicCplusplus 9 months ago
I don't necessarily believe God created the universe and don't necessarily even believe in a God. But if we consider Hawkings' theory that the universe can create things by itself, then we need to consider that there is some sort of 'intellect', some sort of 'consciousness' which the universe is tapping into. The question is what? So even if Hawkings is right, which he probably is in some ways, his theory in itself opens questions about a 'consciousness' within the universe.
impressionsbysimon 11 months ago
@impressionsbysimon Yea I agree. Not to mention that a quantum vacuum certainly isn't "nothing" in the philisophical sense of non-being. The biggest question is why is there existence at all? Why should existence be necessary? Why does anything exist including laws and quantum vacuums? It seems to me, that the reality of existence must have its foundations in something that transcends existence. If that makes sense.
AegeanKing 8 months ago
"Hawkings M- theory"? that's utterly wrong. Hawkings was merely one of the many string theorist in the 80's. The M-theory was proposed by Edward Witten, after realizing most strings theorists were talking about the same He was able to unify all string theories by asserting that strings are really 1-dimensional slices of a 2-dimensional membrane vibrating in 11-dimensional space. The model seems to work, albeit mathematically.
rodjoe2001 11 months ago
"MASSIVE BLACKHOLES" ??????
BEEFIE2000 11 months ago
"MASSIVE BLACKHOLES" ??????
BEEFIE2000 11 months ago
Good stuff -- thanks for uploading!
1GodOnlyOne 11 months ago
this dudes just a nay sayer.
blackrogue6 1 year ago
Not sure there should be so much a God or no God debate but more a universal or cosmic consciousness sort of debate.
It also strikes me that an ability for the universe to create itself is equally as spectacular as the idea of a creator. It's the sort of atheists version of God, in a way!
impressionsbysimon 1 year ago
@impressionsbysimon ...except it's supported by evidence!
kusalaviro 1 year ago
A lot of cherry picking in this whole interview
jontycampbell 1 year ago
He says that as long as there is gravity then the universe can come from nothing...
Well what if there's no gravity? Only then would the universe truly come from "nothing" right?
It's all theoretical and I highly doubt this theory will ever truly be proven.
DownaFCFC94 1 year ago
what is this "Hawking's M-theory"?? it's WITTEN's M-theory not Hawking!
tomp2008 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Good vid. Penrose was really honest. He said it best at the end regarding the multiverse theory - saying it was overused and an excuse for not having a good theory.
GrantasaurusRex 1 year ago
the personal loving god is 100% not real fact
FIGHTFANNERD3 1 year ago
how can u take this video seriously wen christians believe the earth was created some time around 4000bc lmao
bigdaveovcov 1 year ago 2
@bigdaveovcov
How can anyone take you seriously if you can't even spell when? lol
ivlfounder 1 year ago
"well u meant hawking's theory as in, the theory hawking presents in the book. cmon! admit it! penrose is cunty! i love it haha."
I LOVE IT!! Anybody who makes life even the slightest bit challenging for the atheist suddenly becomes an apostate, a heretic, unworthy and a blasphemer.
Why natural selection has not yet weeded out the sheer number of dumb, lazy, emotional atheists yet is beyond me. Let's have some proper atheist philosophers, not these moping teenagers with their "A" tshirts lol!
Birdieupon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
His argument is actually ironic. See he argues that phi (the wave-function of the universe) can explain everything and so we don't need a God to do so. However he forgets that the wave-function of the universe is a Mind.
Don't believe me?
1.) The wave-function of the universe is self-collapsing (true by definition)
2.) Self-collapsing wave-functions are minds. (Roger Penrose's Orch-OR model)
Therefore, Stephen Hawking's phi is a mind: watch?v=Kj8UdHuP5l8
Well what do you know about that?! ;)
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
Stephen Hawking is not always right! Sir Roger Penrose is a highly esteemed cosmologist. He has his own theory about the origin of the universe called the "Conformal Cyclic Cosmology" model. This is starting to bear some fruits with real evidence
nr900 1 year ago
the trouble is most scientific theories do not negate the existence of God, merely point out that God was not crucial to things. E.g there is no need for God in evolution as nature can do it all on its own. However, the very fact that there is ANYTHING at all might well require the intervention of a God. Science does no mean no God at all, just that we don't need a God to intervene once a universe is created.
adeworks 1 year ago
@adeworks
Interesting....The fact that the universe started 'out' in such an ordered state (low entropy) could also mean that 'God' (by definition) is hardwired INTO the evolving universe.
31428571J 1 year ago
@31428571J
Look up quantum consciousness. You might find it interesting!
adeworks 1 year ago
@adeworks
Thanks;
I will soon be reading 'Shadows of the Mind' (Sir Roger Penrose).
(synopsis) ......'It is also a bold speculation on the biological process that makes consciousness what it is. In this illuminating book Penrose provides powerful arguments to support his conclusion that there is something in the conscious activity of the brain that transcends computation - and will find no explanation in terms of present-day science.'
31428571J 1 year ago
@adeworks Penrose's quantum consciousness theory actually does prove God.
In Penrose's model self-collapsing wave-functions are minds. The only other way for a wave-function to collapse however is for an outside measuring apparatus to collapse it. However there's isn't anything physical outside of the universe to collapse it's own wave-function. Thus the universe's wave-function is self-collapsed by definition and is therefore a mind: watch?v=Kj8UdHuP5l8
Cool eh?
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@JohananRaatz
Depends on how one defines a god!
adeworks 1 year ago
@adeworks True, though the idea of the universe being within a mind is intriguing if nothing else. If it looks like a duck...
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@JohananRaatz Yes, very. Even more interesting are some of the theories about human consciousness suggested by Penrose's colleague, Stu Hammerof, an anesthesiologist.
ritter89 11 months ago
@ritter89 Oh yes, I emailed him my video actually -he responded! Showed me something called the "Big Wow."
JohananRaatz 11 months ago
Isn't M Theory was introduced by Witten?
MrAsiansunite 1 year ago
This is HIGH DRAMA! Penrose says that Hawking's M-theory "isn't even a theory" at least 5 times! SHADE!
tensacross 1 year ago
@tensacross - It's not Hawkings theory ...
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago
@MaitreyaRocket well u meant hawking's theory as in, the theory hawking presents in the book. cmon! admit it! penrose is cunty! i love it haha.
tensacross 1 year ago
Ask Penrose if he subscribes to creationism or bogus "I.D." ... Post that video you dishonest hypocrite ...
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago
@MaitreyaRocket
Do you even know who Penrose is and his contributions?
thwonk121 1 year ago 10
@thwonk121 Many probably don't. Some will. I'm sure there are those who think he's some third rate semi-theist prof who can be discounted as not really understanding how science works.
thcollicutt 1 year ago
@thcollicutt - Why would anyone think of him as a 3rd rate semi-theist prof. ??? Why would anyone think of him as someone who doesn't understand science ??? 3rd graders understand how science works ... He's not a blinkered creationist ...
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago
@MaitreyaRocket My point was that a lot of people won't know who he is, and think he mustn't be talented if he disagrees with Hawking who they likely have heard of.
And as for 3rd graders, there are a lot of high schoolers and adults who are scientifically illiterate (and being athiest does not make you scientifically literate so we can dispence with the "They must be creationists" garbage right off the bat), so you muyst be saying intellectual capacity peaks about age 10.
thcollicutt 1 year ago
@thwonk121 - Based on my statement, why would you ask ??? Did I make make false statement concerning Dr. Penrose ???
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago
@MaitreyaRocket
It just sounded like something someone would say who doesn't know anything about Penrose or Hawking for that matter and their joint accomplishments.
Furthermore it sounds like a classic genetic fallacy.
It sounds like you're one of those fundamentalist atheist types, or I could be wrong.
thwonk121 1 year ago
@thwonk121 " It just sounded like something someone would say who doesn't know anything about Penrose " ??? I don't follow your reasoning ... What criteria are you following ??? I didn't write anything untrue about Penrose ... That would be the only reason to write such a thing ... Are you saying you applied no reasoning or thought to your statement ??? That lack of reasoning sounds like you're one of those fundamentalist religious believers ...
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago
@MaitreyaRocket
oh yes, the "I know you are but what am I" response.
thwonk121 1 year ago
@thwonk121 - Read through again , a little slower ... Then respond ... Grow up & admit you had no basis for such a smug question ... Is your response to being made an ass really to keep being one ??? Good luck with that ...
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago
@MaitreyaRocket
who were you originally talking about/to?
thwonk121 1 year ago
@thwonk121 - Why would anyone think of him as a 3rd rate semi-theist prof. ??? Why would anyone think of him as someone who doesn't understand science ??? He's not a proponent of intelligent design ... That being said, a 3rd grader knows how science works , albeit , a non-creationist 3rd grader ... To answer your question, no, I don't who "he" is ... I don't know if he likes sugar in coffee or if he has children that love him ... I only know of his theories on conscieousness & his written works
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago
Wow, what a bunch of arrogant crackpots.
lumajs 1 year ago
Typical dishonesty you'd expect from the religious,
first off Penrose does not "debunk" M-Theory, he
explains what the originator of M-Theory himself
says about it (and every single scientist around)
that it's untested as of yet. That is not a "debunking".
Second it's not "Hawking's M- theory" it is everyones
theory, if you want to parochially claim it's a particular
persons theory then you may as well get it right and
claim it's Ed Witten's theory.
sponsoredwalk1 1 year ago 19
@sponsoredwalk1 I agree with all your points except that this is somehow typical of religious people. I can only speak for my own Christianity, But I know of nothing dishonst I've read from the truly great Christian thinkers like GK Chesterton, CS Lewis, George MacDonald, or Malcolm Muggeridge. They may be wrong on occasion, but not purposely so.
gmdinformation 1 year ago
@gmdinformation - I direct you to Kent Hovind, Lee Strobel, Dr. Craig & Prof. Hamm of the Creation Museum, the posters of this video ... Dishonesty & blinkered madness on a stick ...
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago
@MaitreyaRocket "I direct you to Kent Hovind, Lee Strobel, Dr. Craig & Prof. Hamm"
None of those are anywhere in the neighborhood of "great Christian thinkers." That's like calling Glenn Beck & Rush Limbaugh great republican thinkers. I mean, come on! They couldn't hold water for Russell Kirk and William F Buckley Jr.
gmdinformation 1 year ago
@gmdinformation - Indeed, ... Point me to these "great Christian thinkers" ... D'Souza, Craig ??? otherwise known as Hitchens' bitches ... As for Beck & Limbaugh, I agree, neither can approack Buckley ... Nevertheless; ask the common, blinkered Tea Bagger who he/ she takes his cues from ...
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago
@gmdinformation - Indeed, ... Point me to these "great Christian thinkers" ... D'Souza, Craig ??? otherwise known as Hitchens' bitches ... As for Beck & Limbaugh, I agree, neither can approach Buckley ... Nevertheless; ask the common, blinkered Tea Bagger who he/ she takes his cues from ...
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago
@MaitreyaRocket Indeed thou art a most unlearned boy. GK Chesterton, Malcolm Muggeridge, CS Lewis, Charles Williams, George MacDonald for starters.
Why would I ask a tea party member anything? There's enough tatoo'ed, sissie dumbocrats around who can't keep their pants up or find the right hole if I want to talk to dolts.
gmdinformation 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gmdinformation - " Point me to these "great Christian thinkers' ... That was a fool's errand ... From GK to Mac, there's not a new thought between them ... Nor is there any difference between any of them ... My children can refute them all within a paragraph ...
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago
@sponsoredwalk1 Yet, Hawking cites M-theory in his book as possibly eliminating the need for a god to explain the beginning of the universe, does he not? So Penrose's comment can be seen as debunking Hawking's improper philosophical application of M-theory. I can see claiming that the title of this posted video states the matter inaccurately as "debunking M-theory," but I can't see calling that pedestrian error "dishonest."
philWynk 1 year ago
@philWynk
I'm glad you included the word "possibly" in your
response because it answers your question.
Hawking's claim is that if M-Theory is correct it will
"possibly" invalidate the need for god because we
will have deep answers to previously unanswerable
questions. At no point does he claim this is a
tested theory or anything more than a theoretical
framework at this stage. So, to repeat what I said,
there is no such thing as debunking going on here
sponsoredwalk1 1 year ago
@sponsoredwalk1 And yet, there are atheists all over the Internet crowing about how The Great Hawking has PROVED that god is not necessary. Yes, I understand that they're overselling what Hawking has said, but.. .do they? And so we conclude that, yes, there really is some debunking that needs to go on here, and that Penrose's words actually accomplish this.
Search YouTube for "Hawking m-theory god not necessary" and you'll see what I mean.
philWynk 1 year ago
@philWynk - It's DISHONEST when the technique is repeated over & over & over & over & over again , ad nauseum !!!!!!
see Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago
@sponsoredwalk1 BTW, in the video Penrose says more than just that M-theory is untested, he says it isn't even really a theory yet, just a collection of ideas. So, using your own standard of judgment, should I say that you're being dishonest when you represent his view as "M-theory is 'untested as of yet?'" Or have you simply stated your case somewhat inaccurately?
philWynk 1 year ago
@philWynk
First off you have to understand that Penrose views
Twistor theory and it's developments as being better
than String Theory (including M theory).
Second, Witten has incorporated Twistor theory into
M Theory so when Penrose criticises String Theory as
being just a bunch of ideas that includes HIS OWN work as
well so it's not a derrogatory statement in-and-of-itself.
Third, nobody has claimed String Theory has been proven
so you cannot debunk that which wasn't shown to be true.
sponsoredwalk1 1 year ago
@sponsoredwalk1 Penrose: "What is referred to as M-theory is not even a theory. It's a collection of ideas, hopes, aspirations. [...] The book is a bit misleading in that respect. It gives you the impression that here is this new theory which is going to explain everything. It's nothing of that sort. [..]The theory is not showing us that [that the the universe can create itself out of nothing] [...] string theory which has absolutely no support from observation. [...] it's hardly science.
AlloBruxelles 10 months ago
Penrose: "What is referred to as M-theory is not even a theory. It's a collection of ideas, hopes, aspirations. It's not even a theory. The book is a bit misleading in that respect. It gives you the impression that here is this new theory which is going to explain everything. It's nothing of that sort. []The theory is not showing us that [that the the universe can create itself out of nothing] [..] string theory which has absolutely no support from observation. [..] it's hardly science.
AlloBruxelles 10 months ago
Penrose: "Also, the word "multiverse" means different things. There is this 10^500 or whatever it is M-theories. [..] The anthropic principle is overused. It's an excuse for not having a good theory"
AlloBruxelles 10 months ago
Penrose on another show: "The Big Bang is not a chaotic state; it's highly ordered. This is an observational fact. It's a feature of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which tells us that the universe gets more and more random. [..] The puzzle is: why was the initial state of the universe so highly organized? One can even give a figure as to how organized that state was: at least 10^10^ 23. That's a ridiculously huge number. None of the theories that are being put forward explain that."
AlloBruxelles 10 months ago
actually it's 10^10^123
AlloBruxelles 10 months ago
@sponsoredwalk1 Its not a theory at all, its wishfull thinking to debunk God, which it really doesnt anyway.
mercy2cede 9 months ago
@sponsoredwalk1
Oh shut your arrogant yap, Penrose is not some Dawkins/Darwin chance monger like most of the atheists on youtube including yourself.
Christians such as myself respect not only his contributions but his honesty, even as a self-proclaimed atheist.
The arrogance that reeks from some of the atheists as though they got it all figured out scientifically because they can "imagine" it happening that way is truly astonishing and at the same time pathetic.
logicCplusplus 9 months ago
@logicCplusplus
You exemplify the teachings of jesus very nicely in calling me
an arrogant yap & a chance monger while completely ignoring
every single word in my comment.
sponsoredwalk1 9 months ago
@sponsoredwalk1
As a rebel Christian I believe there are exceptions to the rule and I won't hesitate for a second, especially to you arrogant chance worshiping Mandelbrot set collectors.
logicCplusplus 9 months ago
@logicCplusplus
"I believe there are exceptions to the rule", this is one of many common
justifications given by those who are about to do something drastically
opposed to the teachings they are supposedly a representative of. Any
honest person can see the hypocrisy you are embodying here:
I now see three comments from you attacking me (not my words).
As I said before, "Typical dishonesty you'd expect from the religious".
It's people like you that prove my comment right, I can't help that.
sponsoredwalk1 9 months ago
@sponsoredwalk1
The religious bashing followed by your nitpicking in order prove yourself right is the greatest arrogance one can spew and will be sure to attract many other arrogant assholes such as myself from the opposite table.
logicCplusplus 9 months ago
@logicCplusplus
In fact, please quote where I was "religious bashing", I was not bashing religion
I was bashing "the religious", not religion, the religious. Still if you read what I
said it does not include ALL of the religious people in existence by any means,
it just highlights a dishonest streak that I continually find from religious people,
which you yourself have exemplified here today. It's unfortunate tbh...
sponsoredwalk1 9 months ago
@sponsoredwalk1
I dont think you understand. Mtheory is a misnomer, and isn't even a scientific theory, and your right, you cant debunk a theory that doesn't exist. Its an idea based on no evidence. Scientific theories require evidence. This has nothing to do with religion. Penrose is not a religious man and he understands and has calculated that our anthropic fine tuned universe
had a chance of coming into existence by less that 1:10^10^123.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@benthemiester: Good to see someone else also read “The Road To Reality”? :)
albedoshader 6 months ago
@albedoshader Someone who agrees with me. Thats pretty rare lol.
As Paul Davies has stated before, there are many cosmologist & physicist, & not just Penrose who agrees that the universe is in many aspects FT for life. For many, this notion is unthinkable, & it's better for some to imagine many different universes such as Mverse or its counter part Mtheory, rather than accept what is an empirical observation. FT is to close to comfort to theology. Thats why its called the fine tuning problem.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@sponsoredwalk1 Penrose debunked M-theory in the moment he explained that it is not even a theory.
But if you refer to M-hypothesis, then you are right, Penrose didn't debunked that hypothesis
IloveYOUviruses 8 months ago
@sponsoredwalk1 Denying that it is a theory at all is certainly one kind of debunking. You say "everyone's theory": according to Penrose it's no one's. Since "everyone" understands M-Theory as just that, why call it M-Theory? Maybe "M-HopesandAspirationsAsASubstituteForAProperTheory" is more accurate? (to paraphrase RP) :^)
PRadio is not being dishonest if the book is misleading in this way. The marketing of it seems to be to exploit M-T's lofty "hopes and aspirations" not its scientific value.
horsie111 8 months ago
Let's face it, all m-theory really does is inflate the probabilistic resources to an extent that concepts such as Darwinian Evolution through random variation and cumulative natural selection, as well as abiogenesis seem more palatable. If we need such speculative concepts to make a theory more palatable, it seems quite rational to question such theories in the first place.
brando92346 1 year ago
@brando92346 Darwinian theory perhaps, but more specifically it's aimed at the teleological use of the anthropic principle -- the claim that the universe seems fine-tuned to produce lives like ours, and therefore must have been designed for that purpose. It also affects the use of the singular explosion to support the cosmological argument -- there was a beginning, so there must be a Beginner. You're right, though; they're grasping at straws, which means they agree that science has proved God.
philWynk 1 year ago
@philWynk Yes, that is correct. I was merely pointing out that when Darwinists face roadblocks to Darwinian theory - which is based on a priori assumptions of materialism - those roadblocks such as the issues inherent in causality, rather than resort to acceptance of theism, in some sort of Lewontian denial of the "divine foot," they often resort to speculations about a multiverse to explain away what they can't explain.
brando92346 1 year ago
@brando92346 - Why would anyone resort to theism when they're in pursuit of scientific fact ??? Why resort to something you know raises more questions , can't be falsified, & essentially ends the process ...???
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago
Just as a point of accuracy, Penrose didn't 'debunk' M-theory, he just argued against it. And to have the opinions of McGrath, professor of made-up-stuff, as part of the discussion is just pointless. The fact that Santa can visit every house in one single night isn't proof that the speed of light is can be exceeded.
whollyheathan 1 year ago
@whollyheathan "The fact that Santa can visit every house in one single night isn't proof that the speed of light is can be exceeded." Yes, but with M-theory and the possibility of infinite universes, you have the possibility or probability that there is a universe somewhere where Santa actually exists. In an infinite universe scenario, anything is possible. It also allows for the idea that somewhere there is a universe created by God, and where Jesus died for our sins. It doesn't escape...
brando92346 1 year ago
@brando92346 - you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the hypothesis ...
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago
@whollyheathan ...that possibility. This is what makes the concept patently absurd on it's face. You can then explain anything as possible.
brando92346 1 year ago
Hawking opens his new book by denouncing philosophy as 'dead' , (destrpyed by science) and then goes on to amazingly ignore sound scientific reasoning as he delves deeply into grandiose philosophical and metaphysical pronouncements, devoid of scientific content. This is a case of resting on his "Laurels" and making baseless philosophical claims by asserrtion, without doing the hard work of backing such claims with valid logical argument. Invoking all kinds of imaginary worlds is not scientific.
reasonedfaith1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@reasonedfaith1 - "Invoking all kinds of imaginary worlds is not scientific" ... Keep repeating that ... Hawking made "0" metaphysical claims , predictions, nor pronouncements ...
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago
God isnt real. Religious who believe here are trying to backward rationalise their bullshit beliefs and trying to integrate it into science. a fact and evidence based process. What a joke!
And yet they STILL try to argue. Poor deluded fellows.
stepchangeable 1 year ago
@stepchangeable indeed
FIGHTFANNERD3 1 year ago
I haven't read the new Hawking book yet, but he has always been quite open-minded about the possibility of a mind at the bottom of the well so to speak, so I doubt very much that he said anything in this book that could be construed as a negation of God and religion. In fact, I'm guessing these people are probably misunderstanding him, and that what he's saying is about the universe creating itself includes a mind in the mix, much like Chris Langan's CTMU.
gmdinformation 1 year ago