Musician Forum - Band Discussion Board - BandMix

Maybe his celebrity has gotten the best of him?


I'll have to read the book, but the various articles quote him as saying that because of "laws" like gravity, a Creator is unnecessary, because the universe has the ability to create "itself" from nothing.


Which is complete absurdity.


How does ANYTHING create "itself" from nothing?


Hawking's answer? Because of "laws" that allowed such a possibility. So, "laws" pre-existed the ahem... self-creation of the universe? Then was it really the UNIVERSE creating itself, or was it "LAWS" creating the universe? Because... the universe that allegedly "self-created" it's own existence, is nevertheless BOUND by the laws which then GOVERN it's existence? That sure makes sense! And how can something "create ITSELF"? This defies even the most basic of logic, as the DECISION to create, and the METHODOLGY to "create" something, MUST predate, the CREATION of the object itself. In fact, THAT THING must exist BEFORE "thought" can exist, before "desire" can exist, before "plans" can exist, etc... Anything proceeding FROM an object (purpose, motivation, plans) requires the object TO EXIST, in order for ANYTHING to then proceed from that object.

The famous philosophical statement, that... "All I can know for certainty, is that I am... I exist" is proposed, because, whether there may be deceptions or illusions to anything else I "perceive" in this existence, the ONE THING, I can know FOR SURE... is that "I exist"... I can "think", therefore I exist.

I am a conscious being!

But that most basic of truths, gets turned on it's head by Hawking, because apparently CONSCIOUSNESS can PRE-EXIST... EXISTENCE!

Hawking's brilliance is absent on this particular matter.

Perhaps the universe IS god, & that's why ppl can say he's part of everything.

I have no idea how it all works. I'm not that brilliant. I just hope this ain't it.

The guy's just mad cause he's so weird looking...haha!

But seriously, how do people like this with their made up theories actually sell this kind of garbage? Has he visited other planets in a magic spaceship?

If evolution, or anything like that were true, it would have to be an ongoing process, but tadpoles don't climb out of the water, turn into apes, and then wallah...a fully clothed human is made!

Procreation is the only way a life will ever be in existence. We are fearfully, and wonderfully made. Every life on this planet was made to depend on another life to keep generations of species going.

How is it that everything is aligned so well? That we have gravity? That we have air to breathe? That we have the same emotions in our souls? I could go on and on, but hey, truth is truth whether you want to accept it or not.

Well...considering the vastness of the universe...there Is the 'law of averages,' since we're talking laws & such...

CraigMaxim wrote:The famous philosophical statement, that... "All I can know for certainty, is that I am... I exist" is proposed, because, whether there may be deceptions or illusions to anything else I "perceive" in this existence, the ONE THING, I can know FOR SURE... is that "I exist"... I can "think", therefore I exist.

ah, one the most famous fallacious statements of all time! I think therefore I am! Presupposing the I, of course!

I therefore I

An equally valid tautology is "I stink, therefore I am!"

I am a conscious being!

But that most basic of truths, gets turned on it's head by Hawking, because apparently CONSCIOUSNESS can PRE-EXIST... EXISTENCE!

Which of course flies in the face of the Atheist's god - Ayne Rand, who says existence must precede identity. Oh the irony!

Hawking's brilliance is absent on this particular matter.[/b]

+1

Craig, you might find this interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/user/gregbahnsen ... W4LXxTZ0S4

SirJamsalot wrote:

CraigMaxim wrote:
I can "think", therefore I exist.

ah, one the most famous fallacious statements of all time! I think therefore I am!

What's fallacious about self-awareness?


If I am AWARE of my own thoughts... if I am THINKING... if I am CONSCIOUS, it would be IRRATIONAL to assume that I DO NOT exist, would it not be? You could suggest that I am merely being DELUDED into believing that I am actually thinking, but... if I am being deluded, then again, I can rationally assume that I EXIST in order to even be ABLE to be deluded. And if I EXIST (even in order to be deceived) then the true fallacy, would be that I don't really exist.

Consciousness VERIFIES my existence.


Try again.

What's fallacious about self-awareness?

I think, therefore I exist.

The argument presupposes the conclusion.

SirJamsalot wrote:
The argument presupposes the conclusion.

The argument does not presuppose the conclusion. The argument "IS" the conclusion! "I am CONSCIOUS, therefore I exist."

The conclusion is SIMULTANEOUS, not pre-supposed.

It is an inescapable REALITY that... if I am CONSCIOUS, I MUST exist! "I am THINKING, I am AWARE of MY OWN thoughts... who is thinking? The only answer possible... "I" am.

CraigMaxim wrote:

SirJamsalot wrote:
The argument presupposes the conclusion.

The argument does not presuppose the conclusion. The argument "IS" the conclusion! "I am CONSCIOUS, therefore I exist."

The conclusion is SIMULTANEOUS, not pre-supposed.

It is an inescapable REALITY that... if I am CONSCIOUS, I MUST exist! "I am THINKING, I am AWARE of MY OWN thoughts... who is thinking? The only answer possible... "I" am.

The statement I think therefore I am is a textbook example of presupposing the conclusion - circular reasoning. A fallacy does not mean that the conclusion is false, but you wouldn't want to support all of your arguments using it - otherwise you could argue anything to be true.

http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/ ... cular.html
http://www.truthmapping.com/viewtopic.p ... 92&crits=1

The conclusion may be "obvious", but the method is all I'm pointing out.

relax man, we agree on existence!

SirJamsalot wrote:

I think, therefore I exist.

The argument presupposes the conclusion.

Again, I would suggest that the conclusion is nearly simultaneous.

"Hey... I'm THINKING!"

Who's thinking? "I" am!

The thought itself, begins with "I"... "I" am thinking! "I" am conscious! "I" exist!

Maybe it's semantics, but you almost seem to be saying...

"When I dove into the pool, I IMMEDIATELY realized I was WET." And then you begin questioning whether you were indeed WET in REALITY, because the immediate awareness of being WET, somehow pre-supposed the conclusion, and is therefore TAINTED as a personal experience.

That just doesn't seem to fly, IMO.

And particularly so, with EXISTENCE, because with the pool scenario, we could have been dreaming, and only PERCEIVED that we were wet. Whereas, with SELF-AWARENESS... EXISTENCE ITSELF, the mere act of THINKING or even DREAMING, the mere act of CONSCIOUSNESS, immediately validates that... "I" am... "I" exist!

I'm thinking... I'm PERCEIVING... I must EXIST, in order to have ANY such experiences!

CraigMaxim wrote:

SirJamsalot wrote:

I think, therefore I exist.

The argument presupposes the conclusion.

Again, I would suggest that the conclusion is nearly simultaneous.

"Hey... I'm THINKING!"

Who's thinking? "I" am!

The thought itself, begins with "I"... "I" am thinking! "I" am conscious! "I" exist!

Maybe it's semantics, but you almost seem to be saying...

"When I dove into the pool, I IMMEDIATELY realized I was WET." And then you begin questioning whether you were indeed WET in REALITY, because the immediate awareness of being WET, somehow pre-supposed the conclusion, and is therefore TAINTED as a personal experience.

That just doesn't seem to fly, IMO.

And particularly so, with EXISTENCE, because with the pool scenario, we could have been dreaming, and only PERCEIVED that we were wet. Whereas, with SELF-AWARENESS... EXISTENCE ITSELF, the mere act of THINKING or even DREAMING, the mere act of CONSCIOUSNESS, immediately validates that... "I" am... "I" exist!

I'm thinking... I'm PERCEIVING... I must EXIST, in order to have ANY such experiences!

Well, basically yeah - I was referring to the form of the statement, so it was completely based on semantics. I wasn't saying we can't know if we exist. It's a classic textbook example of circular reasoning - I heard it in class, and find it amusing is all.

I've got bad news for you all...you are all just part of some twisted dream that I am having. Yes, you exist, but only in my warped dreamworld. When I awaken, all this will cease to exist-of course, that includes me-in this imaginary form (I'm really a three-eyed goldfish floating upside-down in a sewage pond).


I'm never eating Taco Bell right before bedtime again.

Hawkin needs attention, attention = money. Create a little controversy, get everyone arguing their theories, way to go, Steve.

Chaeya