Stephen Hawking

  • Thread starter Thread starter TotusTuusForever
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
webmasterpdx said:
To derive the mathematics of the orbital for the hydrogen atom (our simplest atom) took me 15 years of education and oodles of very complex math (schroedinger’s equations) to get to the point where I could do that.
Click to expand...
Wow. I learned how to do that by Googling it, dude. 😉 🤣
 
From what I see, this guy is pretty butthurt on God, thus he will do anything to “attack” God and his followers.
PS look at his family life and you will see a total disaster.
 
We should pray for Stephen Hawking, that he may grow in faith, hope, and love.
 
Last edited:
I’m certainly no way near as smart as Mr. Hawking, but it seems to me that if you accept cause and effect then there must be an initial cause - and that would be God. I don’t think much about it though because my Faith requires no proof.
 
Last edited:
HCTC said:
I’m certainly no way near as smart as Mr. Hawking, but it seems to me that if you accept cause and effect then there must be an initial cause - and that would be God. I don’t think much about it though because my Faith requires no proof.
Click to expand...
Mr Hawking is a great scientist but also a very poor philosopher.
 
Last edited:
I don’t see how Grigori Perelman is related to this discussion about Stephen Hawking? Was there some reason for mentioning his work?
 
I’ll answer you honestly out of candor, towards peace in appreciation of the mannerly way in that you placed the question : The soul conjecture is nowadays used by some pantheists as a way to claim proof of the immortality of the soul. In the sense, that those who have forgotten or have who had no contact at all with the church search in exact science for answers about eternal life, and the soul conjecture is perhaps the closest thing to that these days.

Again, it’s relevance is also by contrast: in that some celebrated scientist are given an exaggerated place in the spotlight for their atheist views (which is beyond their competence and makes them a political tool in anti-clerical propaganda agendas), while some other no less celebrated scientist are forgotten for they were “strong in their faith”. Hawking is constantly echoed as if an “authority” on religious matters due to his works on the big bang, while Perelman having proved the soul conjecture escapes and refuses the spotlight…(And you have to appreciate him for that, for the counter example.)

I was going to evoke Newton, Tesla, Pascal, or even Einstein (among many others who never failed to profess their faith in God) as to contrast their scientific authority against Hawkings and with it: their difference in faith not deriving authority on faith from recognized scientific competence.

[And, once more, it’s a classic example (subtext not requiring a footnote): The answer is hard to elaborate while the question is easy to place. This all goes without saying… Merits on positive definition in the affirmative. Merry Christmas AINg, and cheerio 👨‍🎓👨‍🏫🎅🎅🎅 ]
 
Last edited:
adgloriam said:
The soul conjecture is nowadays used by some pantheists as a way to claim proof of the immortality of the soul.
Click to expand...
However, I don’t see the connection between the philosophical soul conjecture and the mathematical soul conjecture.
Grigory Perelman proved the mathematical soul conjecture which says:
“Suppose (M, g) is complete, connected and non-compact with sectional curvature K ≥ 0, and there exists a point in M where the sectional curvature (in all sectional directions) is strictly positive. Then the soul of M is a point; equivalently M is diffeomorphic to Rn. “
 
Closest thing possible in mathematics if you’d want to model man in full. (Couldn’t use Monoid from set theory since a part of man isn’t discrete.) All parts being, complete, connected, non-compact, with positive curvature, and having a point where all comes together. I’d have to find something more adequate in alternative…(in pure mathematical sense, allowing modeling.)
 
adgloriam said:
Closest thing possible in mathematics if you’d want to model man in full. (Couldn’t use Monoid from set theory since a part of man isn’t discrete.) All parts being, complete, connected, non-compact, with positive curvature, and having a point where all comes together. I’d have to find something more adequate in alternative…(in pure mathematical sense, allowing modeling.)
Click to expand...
Mathematically speaking a human is a compact manifold. Humans cannot be non-compact since they have boundaries and are finite beings. So I don’t see how the hypothesis of the mathematical soul conjecture is satisfied by taking the human as the manifold in question.
 
Good point, yet by definition: emotions (for example) or love are quasi-boundless. In the sense, that emotions are more beyond words than within them. 😜 classic 😝

One could argue that we somehow partake in deiforme, hence some boundlessness. Or, alternatively, that within a given bound and almost unlimited real analyses is possible…But hey, for these reasons I prefer set theory, it’s discrete after all.
 
Last edited:
adgloriam said:
Good point, yet by definition: emotions (for example) or love are quasi-boundless. In the sense, that emotions are more beyond words than within them.
Click to expand...
How would you measure the sectional curvature of an emotion and then show that it is never negative?
 
I believe he would get government funding being a devout Catholic only if he did not mix his religious beliefs with “science.”
 
Alot of main stream atheists who push their position as the most rational are usually very bitter about God. Why can’t they just be indifferent?
 
Let’s be fair. Catholic believers are not indifferent. We push our position because we do believe in God. Most people use whatever support they can get to push their positions.

I admit I do the same with some things, but on this topic, I put a lot of stock in Faith. I accept that God cannot be proven or disproven by science and that’s OK with me. I heard a great homily once where the priest, who was a great speaker, said that certainty is the opposite of Faith and Faith is the greater gift.

Atheists are all about their perception of “rationality.” It’s all they have. We have rationality too, but we also have Faith. We should no begrudge them their rationality. We should pity them for their lack of Faith.
 
jfz178 said:
Let’s be fair. Catholic believers are not indifferent. We push our position because we do believe in God. Most people use whatever support they can get to push their positions.
Click to expand...
Its true. And that’s my point. Lets all agree that what ever position we are pushing we have an emotional investment too, not just a rational one. Thats my problem with people who speak for atheism. They talk as if they have no emotional investment and they have simply calculated the non-existence of God as the most plausible truth. I don’t believe it.
 
I agree with that. I think (and this is me pushing my position based on no evidence!) that atheists are searching for the Faith they are missing, but don’t realize it. That is what gives them the emotional investment.

I also think they are mad because “Atheists Don’t Have No Songs”

 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top