Gravity just because

@moonbus said
“Gravity is not a force.” was, I think, KJ’s feeble attempt to prop up his belief that science doesn’t really know what’s going on, that science is merely an alternative belief system with a god-shaped hole in it. The video does no such thing. It does however raise the point that thinking of gravity as if it were a force, something similar to magnetism (which IS a force), is ...[text shortened]... ther threads, KJ can’t abstract; he takes everything literally. Viz the talking snake in The Garden.

If you would bring to the front the science you think runs counter to what I say do so. I have asked you to but you don’t. As I see your arguments the main thrust is what you accept does not agree with anything that could agree with anyone’s religious beliefs as if that alone is proof. Positive reasoning you have not been giving as a means to refuting anything.

@KellyJay said
If you would bring to the front the science you think runs counter to what I say do so.

But you haven’t actually said anything in this thread KellyJay!

Do you accept the scientific explanation of gravity as detailed in your OP video?

@KellyJay said
If you would bring to the front the science you think runs counter to what I say do so. I have asked you to but you don’t. As I see your arguments the main thrust is what you accept does not agree with anything that could agree with anyone’s religious beliefs as if that alone is proof. Positive reasoning you have not been giving as a means to refuting anything.

Word salad.

Gravity, whether it is imagined to be a force or a curvature of space in the vicinity of massive objects, has nothing to do with people’s religious beliefs. Why is this even in the SF? There is nothing to discuss in the video to which your OP linked.

@moonbus said
Word salad.

Gravity, whether it is imagined to be a force or a curvature of space in the vicinity of massive objects, has nothing to do with people’s religious beliefs. Why is this even in the SF? There is nothing to discuss in the video to which your OP linked.

And?

@moonbus said
Word salad.

Gravity, whether it is imagined to be a force or a curvature of space in the vicinity of massive objects, has nothing to do with people’s religious beliefs. Why is this even in the SF? There is nothing to discuss in the video to which your OP linked.

Explaining everything reducing it all down to material conditions and constraints, with only material conditions and constraints to work with, makes this one more phenomenon explanation wanting, let alone identifiable.

@KellyJay said
And?

The “and” needs to come from you KellyJay .

@KellyJay said
Explaining everything reducing it all down to material conditions and constraints, with only material conditions and constraints to work with, makes this one more phenomenon explanation wanting, let alone identifiable.

By “material conditions and constraints” do you mean the science in your OP video?

And by “makes one more phenomenon explanation wanting, let alone identifiable” do you mean that you DON’T accept the scientific explanation of gravity in the video?

(More waffle and word salad upcoming … or more petulant ignoring)

🙂

@KellyJay said
Explaining everything reducing it all down to material conditions and constraints, with only material conditions and constraints to work with, makes this one more phenomenon explanation wanting, let alone identifiable.

No serious scientist thinks gravity explains „everything“, and the person in the video to which your OP linked certainly didn‘t claim it does either. You‘re barking up the wrong tree (for the umpteenth time).

@moonbus said
No serious scientist thinks gravity explains „everything“, and the person in the video to which your OP linked certainly didn‘t claim it does either. You‘re barking up the wrong tree (for the umpteenth time).

Stephen Hawking: 'Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.'

He didn't even say because there was gravity, but the law of it, you don't think Hawking was serious? I ask you again can you produce something you call science to show me my errors in all of the different talks we have had, anything that is factual and not simply some inference that matches your worldview?

I think science lines up much closer to my views than yours.

@KellyJay said
Stephen Hawking: 'Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.'

He didn't even say because there was gravity, but the law of it, you don't think Hawking was serious? I ask you again can you produce something you call science to show me my errors in all of the different talks we have had, anything that is factual and not si ...[text shortened]... ference that matches your worldview?

I think science lines up much closer to my views than yours.

You’re quoting one sentence of pop-science (science for non-scientists) out of context. What Hawking meant is that the God hypothesis is not needed to explain the origin of the material universe. He certainly did not mean that a law of gravity explained his choice of fish and chips shops in the High Street.

You might also take a look at this, it’s a short read:

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/03/spontaneous-creation-meyer-on-stephen-hawkings-category-error/

Not everyone agrees with Hawking.

@moonbus said
You’re quoting one sentence of pop-science (science for non-scientists) out of context. What Hawking meant is that the God hypothesis is not needed to explain the origin of the material universe. He certainly did not mean that a law of gravity explained his choice of fish and chips shops in the High Street.

You might also take a look at this, it’s a short read:

https:// ...[text shortened]... /spontaneous-creation-meyer-on-stephen-hawkings-category-error/

Not everyone agrees with Hawking.

I'm quoting Hawkins from his book "A Brief History of Time" Put it in context and explain it away! How exactly does a law start a universe where the principal thing the law covers isn't even in existence yet, because the universe isn't in existence yet? You don't think Hawkins is a serious scientist?

You either have all the parts of the equation or you do not, if you think you can explain away or ignore the origin of the universe and life you have no clue what is and is not important or why. You can claim you have science backing you up, but if you cannot show anything produced by science that isn't conjecture you just have stories nothing more.

What we do see in nature runs counter to the principles that are claimed in natural selection being able to start forms and specific functionally complex integrated systems these are seen so they are evidential, you got what, rocks in the ground that have stories made up about them? Without the full picture, you don't have any claim you can back up, you say you don't even need to see the beginning. Quite handy when all you want to do is make it mean anything you want, that is not proof, that is imagination.

@KellyJay said

I think science lines up much closer to my views than yours.

Well what exactly are “your views” on the video in your OP?

You’ve been asked several times and you don’t seem to want to discuss it.

@KellyJay said
I'm quoting Hawkins from his book "A Brief History of Time" Put it in context and explain it away!

The “context” you seek is the rest of the book.

Have you read it?

@KellyJay said
I'm quoting Hawkins from his book "A Brief History of Time" Put it in context and explain it away! How exactly does a law start a universe where the principal thing the law covers isn't even in existence yet, because the universe isn't in existence yet? You don't think Hawkins is a serious scientist?

You either have all the parts of the equation or you do not, if you th ...[text shortened]... y when all you want to do is make it mean anything you want, that is not proof, that is imagination.

I haven't read Hawking's book, so I do not know what he meant by "the law of gravity." He was writing for an audience of non-physicists, so he may have been expressing himself in a colloquial style. Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as the law of gravity, in the sense in which there are Maxwell's equations.

A law does not start a universe, you are right about that. A law merely describes observed phenomena. This however does not vitiate his main points, which are 1) that the God hypothesis is not necessary to explain the material phenomena we observe, and 2) we do not observe the Hand of God moving molecules around.

I agree that Hawking's proposal is not logically compelling, but a self-created universe is neither more nor less plausible than a self-created God.

@moonbus said
I haven't read Hawking's book, so I do not know what he meant by "the law of gravity." He was writing for an audience of non-physicists, so he may have been expressing himself in a colloquial style. Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as the law of gravity, in the sense in which there are Maxwell's equations.

A law does not start a universe, you are right abou ...[text shortened]... compelling, but a self-created universe is neither more nor less plausible than a self-created God.

You are proposing a category error, God did not self-create, an eternal being didn't get created, neither did He create Himself.