Search This Blog

Thursday, October 03, 2013

Atheist False Hopes----Another One Bites The Dust! You cannot get everything from nothing.

The blogger is ill and will be blogging sporadically for a time.

What Part of "Nothing" Does Lawrence Krauss Not Understand?

Editor's note: ENV is pleased to welcome James Barham as a contributor. He blogs at of which he is general editor and where this article is cross-posted.
A Universe from Nothing.jpgThe latest in a series of book trumpeting a supposed solution to the mystery of existence, Lawrence Krauss's A Universe from Nothing (Free Press, 2012) is basically a superior and accessible rehashing of the concept of the "landscape." Also known as the "multiverse," that is the idea that our universe is embedded within an ensemble of other universes.
Though according to this hypothesis our universe is a "part" of the landscape in some sense, it has no spacetime connection with any of the other universes. This means that they can have no causal influence on us, or we on them.
That makes it tough to gather evidence that these other universes actually exist -- but let that pass.
I won't go into the details of the arguments for and against the landscape hypothesis here. There is no lack of popular books covering this material.1
The point of greatest interest is the extent to which the proposal is ad hoc speculation -- as opposed to a genuine inference from hard facts -- and on this point, expert opinion is divided.
In any event, it's irrelevant to Krauss's extravagant principal claim in the book -- that the problem of the mystery of existence has been solved (more on that in a moment). With respect to this claim, it is pretty obvious that the landscape (if it exists) is no closer to being nothing than the visible universe we observe around us. Rather the contrary, I'd have thought.
But more to the point, the landscape idea as such is not even directed at the mystery-of-existence question. Rather, it is directed at the fine-tuning problem.
This is the problem of explaining why there seems to be no good reason why a large number of physical constants take the exact values that they do. What makes this problem more interesting is the fact that if the values in question had been only slightly different, then various conditions necessary for the presence of life would not have been fulfilled.
This leads, naturally enough, to the idea that the universe is a "put-up job," in the memorable words of the late Fred Hoyle, a distinguished astrophysicist who valued plain speaking.
The reason why the landscape idea seems to solve the fine-tuning problem is that it makes room for the thought that the values of the physical constants of all the different universes are set as they are at random.
In that case, it is hardly surprising that we find ourselves living in the universe with the values that make our existence possible. So, the theory does seem to address the fine-tuning problem -- assuming, that is, the landscape exists and the random-constant concept makes sense (and those are big assumptions).
But none of this has anything to do with Krauss's principal claim about science's now having explained the mystery of existence. So, let's take a look at that.
If you haven't encountered it before, the idea can be a little elusive. Indeed, it seems to have eluded Krauss.
The basic idea is traceable to Antiquity. More specifically, it is one of those respects in which Athens had to go to school to Jerusalem, for it was only in the highest reaches of the monotheistic tradition of thought -- Augustine, al-Farabi, Ibn Sina, Anselm of Canterbury, Maimonides -- that the problem of the mystery of existence finally became clearly articulated.
In a nutshell, it's this: There is no contradiction involved in supposing that the universe never existed.
In other words, while I cannot consistently imagine a square circle, I can consistently imagine that nothing at all ever existed.
This means the universe is what philosophers call "contingent" (meaning not logically necessary).
This means that, since the universe apparently did not have to exist, we are entitled to ask why it does in fact exist.
Note that it does not help to say that the universe had to exist according to the laws of nature -- by physical necessity as opposed to logical necessity -- because the concept of natural law already assumes the existence of nature. Or, if one prefers to take a Platonist view of natural law, then one can simply move the question to that plane and inquire into the reason for the existence of Plato's heaven. Therefore, invoking the laws of nature in this context is question-begging.
As an aside, one might well wonder: How is God an improvement over the laws of nature, in this respect?
Theologians speak of God's mode of being as "necessary," unlike the world's, which is contingent, as we have seen. So, it is a crude mistake simply to ask, as atheists are wont to do: "Who made God?"
However, it is not clear (to me, at any rate) that the concept of necessary being is fully intelligible. The question is: What sort of necessity are we really talking about? It certainly seems like we can imagine that God doesn't exist without contradicting ourselves. But if that is so, then all really existing things -- not just the universe, but God as well -- turn out to be contingent.
There are several ways to go here, for the theist. One is to distinguish a third type of necessity, stronger than physical necessity, but weaker than logical necessity. Another is to distinguish among different modes of being. For instance, one might argue that God -- as the source of Being (upper case) itself -- must be distinguished from all individual beings (lower case), including the universe as a whole. And if that is right, then it is easier to see how the former can be necessary, whereas the latter are contingent.
This is a vast subject. Luckily, though, it need not detain us further here. For, I am not defending the claim that God is a sufficient solution to the mystery of existence.
What I am doing is attacking Krauss's claim that science provides such a solution.
To return, then, to the main thread of my argument: It seems a perfectly coherent question to ask why the universe exists, and if that is so, then we evidently have every right to seek an answer to the question.
The late-antique and medieval Christian and Islamic thinkers who first clearly saw all this liked to express the point slightly differently: Creator and creation are two radically distinct things.
As Robert Sokolowski, a distinguished philosopher at the Catholic University of America, has put it:
[T]he Christian understanding introduces a new horizon or context for the modes of possibility, actuality, and necessity . . . [it] distinguishes the divine and the world in such a way that God could be, in undiminished goodness and greatness, even if everything were not.2
The idea received its classical modern statement in a little essay by Leibniz called "On the Radical Origination of Things" (1697). Here is how he put the problem:
For a sufficient reason for existence cannot be found merely in any one individual thing or even in the whole aggregate and series of things. Let us imagine the book on the Elements of Geometry to have been eternal, one copy always being made from another; then it is clear that though we can give a reason for the present book based on the preceding book from which it was copied, we can never arrive at a complete reason, no matter how many books we may assume in the past, for one can always wonder why such books should have existed at all times; why there should be books at all, and why they should be written in this way. What is true of books is true also of the different states of the world; every subsequent state is somehow copied from the preceding one (although according to certain laws of change). No matter how far we may have gone back to earlier states, therefore, we will never discover in them a full reason why there should be a world at all, and why it should be such as it is.3
In modern parlance -- following Leibniz's lead -- the problem of the mystery of existence is most often expressed by means of the formula: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" This phrase also forms the subtitle to Krauss's book.
Put like that, the idea does not seem so difficult to grasp. In fact, it can be reduced to three little words:
Why not nothing?
Nevertheless, Krauss doesn't get it. He titles one of his chapters "Nothing is something." What does he mean by this?
Just the familiar idea that according to quantum field theory, the vacuum state has complex properties such that matter can be created through quantum fluctuation events. As Krauss puts it in the title of another chapter: "Nothing is unstable."
But the properties of the quantum vacuum are simply irrelevant to the question under discussion -- the reason for the existence of anything at all -- which Krauss has brazenly claimed to have solved in the title of his book. For, in spite of his protestations to the contrary, the quantum field is obviously not nothing in the relevant sense.
What, then, is the final verdict on Dr. Krauss's latest book?
Yet another example of a perfectly good scientist out of his philosophical depth.4

References cited:
(1) Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design (Bantam, 2010); Lee Smolin, The Life of the Cosmos (Oxford, 1997); Leonard Susskind, The Cosmic Landscape (Little, Brown, 2005); Alex Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One (Hill and Wang, 2006).
(2) Robert Sokolowski, The God of Faith and Reason (University of Notre Dame, 1982); p. 41. See, also, Lloyd P. Gerson, God and Greek Philosophy (Routledge, 1990).

(3) Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Philosophical Papers and Letters, ed. by Leroy E. Loemker (Kluwer Academic, 1989); p. 486.

(4) For further discussion, see John Leslie, Universes (Routledge, 1990); Milton K. Munitz, The Mystery of Existence (Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1965); and Robert Nozick, Philosophical Explanations (Harvard, 1981).
Photo credit: Michael Foley Photography, Flickr.


highboy said...

I've actually been debating the "life from nonlife" nonsense lately a lot. Its funny, because when I ask for an example, I'm confronted with a scoff and a "any decently equipped laboratory is doing it every day". So the atheist example of life forming from nonlife with no controller is to point to scientists CONTROLLING the entire concept in a laboratory. That's their definition of "science" people.

WomanHonorThyself said...

hope u feeling better~

Anonymous said...

LOL at a faith-loving biblical literalist like hb asking for evidence. Also, it looks like you're attempting to use the common creationist tactic of moving the goalposts mid-game. At first the creationist statement was "life cannot come from non-life" and now that science is close to proving this statement false (and maybe it already has, I haven't checked the research in this area lately), you guys change it up and now say "life cannot come from nonlife with no controller". Classic.

How is life, Tim? You any less angry these days? I just checked your website and your recent posts are interesting. Ironically, it appears that we may share a passion for Mixed Martial Arts. That said, I clearly have a different take on the outspoken christianity of some of the fighters in the UFC. To me christianity is a very attractive philosophy to successful high level fighters that plays to their egos (as you know self-belief plays a big role in winning fights). In that it tells them that they have been given special abilities from "God" and even that he often even picks them to win. These are not humble christians, IMHO, they are guys (and gals) that attribute their success to "god given talent" and believe that this god, their omnipotent omnipresent deitiy, chose them specifically and made them special. To me their brand of christianity seems quite different from yours (but I may be wrong). Wouldn't you agree that Henderson is a touch obnoxious in his religious displays? Or how about this one from Diego Sanchez a few years ago?

The Power of Christ Compels You!... to loose a unanimous decision. LOL.

I prefer to quote Frank Mir, "Religion is the retarded version of philosophy" (sorry about the use of the "r" word - blame Frank).

Out of curiosity, who you got for the fights this weekend?

Oh and it looks like Radar is "ill". Hope you're feeling better soon and I also hope it's not too serious (although the fact that you're not blogging, something you're clearly passionate about, indicates that it might be). Also, if you're eligible, I hope you've taken advantage of this offer from your government,

Apparently it can be quite helpful depending on your situation,


Anonymous said...

Looks like I blew the Frank Mir quote apparently he said that "Religion is the retarded stepchild of Philosophy".


radar said...

Yes, I am not well. I am thankful I am alive and can move all four limbs. I was in some terrible accidents and have had several operations and much nerve damage. Recently the nerve damage has made life very hard and I am concentrating mostly on family and work. May blog again soon but not as much.

Life will NEVER come from non-life whether in labs or in the wild. Period. No one has done it or come close to it. If anyone claims to have done it, when his research will be checked I know it will not be done by anyone else because it will be a fraud.

You scan the skies for one tiny bit of information and would proclaim it proved there was life on other planets somewhere, yet ignore the massive amount of information in each and every living cell? Foolishness of the God-deniers is shown to be massively illogical. If you are willfully ignorant how much more will you regret when you know the truth?

highboy said...

Once again Canucklehead amazes me with his ability to basically get everything wrong and almost stick his chest out proudly while doing so. A lot of wrong to cover so I'll just do it like this for ol' canucklebear:

1. Yes, we asked for evidence that life formed from nonlife. Why? Because that is YOUR assertion. Get it yet? Christians claim to live by faith and acknowledge that its faith, though evidence that can support, not prove, but support Christian beliefs have been shoved in your face ad nauseum. YOU on the other hand assert that there is no god, no creator. Fine. Prove how life formed from non life without one. You can't. So it didn't happen. That's how the scientific method works.
2. Not one person moved the "goalposts". The argument has been and has always been that life cannot form from nonlife by itself. That's it. Period. That has never changed once. And no, science isn't even close to proving such a thing and in fact, it can't. The very concept of living organisms recreating conditions they speculate could have existed in which life could form is the exact opposite of proving life can form from nonlife from nothing.
3. I like mixed martial arts and still watch the UFC, but the more I train in muay thai, boxing, and my son's BJJ the more I start to dislike MMA, mainly because its being overrun by people who don't ever learn martial arts. I do not have the balls to try and pick between Cain and JDS because both fights so far have been totally unpredictable. Suffice to say I love both fighters and let the best man win.
4. It may amuse you to know that my favorite fighter of all time, is GSP.
5. Not one fighter in the UFC to my knowledge in all my years of watching professional combat sports have ever claimed God gave them a victory. While you can and Frank Mir, who is a nobody has been that can't win a fight to save his life now, continue to scoff at the concept of God, you are in no position to refute their claim or belief either. Lots of evidence to support the reliability of the Bible coupled with cold hard logical thought process that leads most human beings in this world to rightly believe in a Creator have been presented to you ad nauseum. Your response thus far has been to simply stick your fingers in your ears while screaming "la la la idiots". Sadly though, derision isn't an argument, science can't prove or disprove god, so I fail to see where else you have to go with this debate.
6. You got me with the Diego Sanchez gif. I have no where to hide, nothing to say. lol.

highboy said...

Btw, Canucklehead, isn't working, and when it does, while it will "cover" radar's preexisting condition, it hasn't made it in the least bit affordable. All Obamacare has done is forced insurance companies to "cover" these people but it has done nothing about the price. For example, a Type 1 diabetic opting into the Silver plan has a deductible of about $14,000 and premiums of over $500 per month, which of course is astronomical. The single payer system will never work in the U.S. It works every well in Norway however, but they do it in a very keen way. Instead of using federal money, they fund it through local municipalities. It also helps that they are all the same body type basically with a very young and strong workforce. There is certainly more than one way to skin a cat. I have my own theories about what would fix the U.S. healthcare system but that is for another discussion.

While I'm at it, are you watching this season of TUF? Please tell me you're not one of those guys who hates WMMA? I told my wife I'm leaving her for Rousey the minute Ronda accepts my wedding proposal. I'm still waiting for the reply.

To answer your original question: I'm far less angry these days. The internet pissing contests are old and tired, which is why I've blogged far less. My blog is more based on devotionals and discussion on philosophical matters, the existence of God, etc. I have no problem and even invite disagreement and discussion as long as its civil. (I also plan to talk about sports too like MMA, muay thai, boxing) The mean spirited arguments and ad hominem for which I'm just as guilty as any? I'm over that crap and I try to avoid even engaging with people like that. If you want to talk and discuss that's cool with me.

Anonymous said...

Ha. It appears that we amaze each other in almost exactly the same way, hb. Because that's some pretty idiotic chest-thumping of your own up there, bro.

First off, apparently you're still a dick. Too bad. Not at all surprising, mind you, but it's too bad nonetheless.

I didn't make any assertions. Here comes one though... For me, especially when you consider the complete lack of evidence for a creator god, the evidence for life coming from non-life is staring you in the face when you look in a mirror. I mean, it has happened at least once. Oh and for the record, currently unanswered scientific questions are in no way proof of the existence of "god". In the same way that the once misunderstood natural phenomena of lightening and thunder do not, in any way, prove the existence of a god or gods.

And yes you have "moved the goalposts" on the issue of life from non-life by adding the "with no controller" qualifier. I mean, Radar even points out that he's still working with the old goalposts immediately above your last comment.

Now lets get back to MMA and fighters. It looks like you're interpreting those post fight speeches a little differently than me but I would argue that making sure to thank, first and foremost, god/jesus after you win a fight seems to be giving him/it a little credit in the victory. Good thing skydaddy wasn't listening to the prayers of his/her vanquished foe.

I also like how you deride Frank Mir as being a "nobody has been" in response to the quote I posted and then go on to say that derision is not an argument a few sentences later. Hypocrite. Also, while you may still be able to say that "most people" on the planet believe in a creator god, saying that that has anything to do with evidence or logic is completely ridiculous. You can claim that stat only because of continued childhood religious indoctrination in much of the globe. Education is the antidote of religion and the most studied and reasoned people on the planet abandon theism once their eyes have been opened. Even christians that attempt study the bible in an honest academic light often end up turning away from their childhood mythology in light of all the evidence, and eventually abandon their faith.

As for the main event this weekend, like many, I think the second fight was a much better indication of how the fight on Saturday goes. I also like both fighters but if I had to put money down I would put it on Cain. I think Cardio and wrestling win the day on Saturday but this time I have a feeling that Cain might go for the sub and actually finish it in the later rounds. That said, I've been wrong on this stuff before which is why I don't actually bet real money.

It indeed does amuse me that your all time fave fighter is none-other than the great GSP. Perhaps unsurprisingly, being a Canuck, I too have GSP at the top of my favorite fighter list. Maybe we can be friends, after all. LOL, just kidding, I still think you're a dick. Actually, understanding that this may make you hate me a little more, in a stroke of good luck and timing I'm actually heading to Vegas next month to see GSP live in the 20th anniversary show. Still doesn't really seem real that I'll be attending that show to be honest. Very excited.

Here are a few more great gif's of Diego, for your amusement.

Man, I had forgotten how crazy that Guida fight was. How do you think he does against Melendez on Saturday?

Oh and, coincidentally, I too own a couple Jesus Didn't Tap T-shirts (the one with jesus armbaring the devil is my fave). Although I wear them ironically.


Anonymous said...

Just read your "Btw" post hb. Bit shocked. Tone is tough to figure on the net.

That said, please take my above post as a guy mostly just busting balls. Although I am passionate about these subjects and can come across as pretty snarky myself, for the most part I'm trying to go for chuckles. Well, if I'm being honest I'm trying make a point while pissing you guys off with a smile on your face (and mine).

Now lets talk some WMMA. If Im being honest, I have to say that at first I was skeptical of the Women. Especially with the mismatches that Strikeforce was putting on in the early days (I almost quit watching the girls entirely when Cyborg beat the shit out of my girl Gina). That was, until Rhonda burst onto the scene. I honestly feel like the title fight she had with Misha was one of the most exciting fights I've ever watched. Also, coincidentally, it just so happened that the family and I were in Anaheim for 157 back in Feb and so I was able to watch Rhonda's first fight in the UFC in my first live UFC event. It was from the nose bleeds but it was awesome. The crowd went nuts for her that night. Huge star and I'm a big big fan.

Now, when it comes to this season's TUF, I have to say that Rhonda's demeanor has got me rooting for Misha a little (despite her prick BF Caraway). I don't respect Rhonda any less as a fighter (she is still a beast and will keep the belt for a while IMO) but I think she is a bit high strung and hasn't come across well on the show. I will also say that she episode with her mom went a long way to explain Rhonda's mindset.


Anonymous said...

hb, regarding your post about, isn't expensive coverage still better than an uncovered situation that would very likely result in bankruptcy or even death (if the person opted to not get treatment at all)?

I'm not advocating the particular system Obama has enacted, I just believe very strongly that when it comes to providing healthcare for citizens of the globe, profitability should never enter into the equation. In my mind, access to healthcare is a human right and medical bankruptcies should never happen. Anywhere.

Oh and sorry for spelling the name of your second fiancee's name wrong throughout my comment above. My bad. ;) What MMA Blog to you go to for your MMA news?


radar said...

MMA is organized street fighting. I have seen this happen in bars for years until I became a Christian and quit hanging out in that kind of bar.

As a former student of Tae Kwon Do, the idea is that offense is the best defense. We focused on the direct strike to disable or the indirect to confuse or take down the opponent (a backfist or sweep) but the direct strike to the nose, throat, heart or groin was first line of defense...well, actually taking a stance sometimes cooled someone down. My best teacher knew some submission holds I did not follow up on, I just liked the kicks and punches and the nunchuka aka "numchucks."

If the first attack is not successful the important thing is getting the guy to the ground and if you are on top you hold down one arm and punch with your other arm until he gives up. So tackle the guy and whomp him until he quits or is so bloody and goofy he is safe to walk away from and let others deal with him. If you know how to reverse him and put the arm across the throat that works fast as well but if you are angry yourself you usually wanted to get a couple of punches in. Thank God I am miles and years away from all that now.

I watched a couple of MMA matches and thought to myself that Chuck Norris or Bruce Lee would win one these fights in about three or four minutes. Lots of wrestling techniques and some boxing but rarely do I see someone with decent kick and close strike skills. I suppose banning throat strikes is wise since that could kill someone. But how often do you see a sweep or a good kick combination? Did I just watch a couple of duds? Where are the good kickers in the sport?

radar said...

Obamacare raised costs in advance 30-50% in my area for medical treatment. Once it is in force, the cost of healthcare will skyrocket, more companies will lay off full time staff and hire part timers so they do not qualify for health care. it is going to be a giant freaking disaster and already some doctors are quitting or leaving the US.

Idiots who voted in Obama? The real unemployment is about 11% and the debt is growing like a ponzi scheme but who will pay in the end? Will we be taking buckets of dollars to the grocery store to buy milk? What a farce, the Obama election was possibly the greatest tragedy this country has faced since WWII...

radar said...

Thanks to you who wished me well. I am recuperating. Sometimes exercise and rest is great, sometime even exercise is harmful. I have been told to shut it down for a time, not even riding an exercise bike. Blah.

highboy said...

"That said, please take my above post as a guy mostly just busting balls."

Its all good. I have an atheist friend I work with every day and all we do is talk trash, even though we're best of friends.

"What MMA Blog to you go to for your MMA news?"

The site, though those forums are a cluster of teenagers just swearing at each other.

"Now, when it comes to this season's TUF, I have to say that Rhonda's demeanor has got me rooting for Misha a little (despite her prick BF Caraway). I don't respect Rhonda any less as a fighter (she is still a beast and will keep the belt for a while IMO) but I think she is a bit high strung and hasn't come across well on the show. I will also say that she episode with her mom went a long way to explain Rhonda's mindset."

I'm completely biased so take what I say with a grain of salt, but Miesha really is just fake. Seriously. She even said in an interview that the first episode scene that she purposely waited to tell Ronda what was going on in order to get the "full reaction" in her words.

As for Cain, on paper your analysis makes sense. Problem is, this is fighting so I can't say for sure. JDS only needs one shot. I can see Cain destroying him for another 5 rounds but I can also see JDS blasting him into oblivion again in the first.

As for healthcare, I agree to disagree. Its a fundamental difference in philosophy so we'll never agree, so I really see no point in going into it save just get on each other's nerves.

Now for radar:

"I watched a couple of MMA matches and thought to myself that Chuck Norris or Bruce Lee would win one these fights in about three or four minutes. Lots of wrestling techniques and some boxing but rarely do I see someone with decent kick and close strike skills."

I hate to break it to you, but you're way behind radar. The fact you call it "organized street fighting" is mindboggling. For example, GSP, the guy Canucklehead and I are referring to, has a black belt in Kyushokin Karate, a black belt in Brazillian Jiu Jitsu, is a muay thai specialist, boxer, and now maybe the best wrestler in the business. Most MMA fighters at that level are some of the best if not the best martial artists in the world. You saying you've never seen "decent" kick or close strike skills leave me asking just how much you actually watched and who was fighting. If it was in a bar, they probably weren't even martial artists. But if you think you've seen better kicks than Anderson Silva, or better "close strike skills" than Jon Jones than you're literally training with superheroes.

Tae Kwon Do practitioners, along with tang soo do and other forms, can't even make it in professional fighting. They get wrecked. Muay thai is reknown all over the world as easily the best and most effective form of standup in the world, and BJJ is known not only as the top all around base for professional fighting but also the most effective form of self defense in the world. People aren't literally lining up outside Korea trying to learn TWD, they're in Brazil. Chuck Norris wouldn't last a second. My wife and I just watched a 5 time world karate champion get knocked out in the second round against a very mid tier level muay thai fighter.

The Big 4 as is known around any professional gym are muay thai, boxing, wrestling, and BJJ. You have to know at least one of those to be successful in professional fighting.

highboy said...

Radar: yeah some of the guys I worked with who have preexisting conditions and could actually get far enough into the application process saw what their premiums were going to jump to and realized they were better off without.

castemF F19

highboy said...

Sorry to take the thread off topic radar, and I'm all for continuing the discussion, I'm just worn out with the mean spirited bitterness that comes with bickering over the internet. I know that's nuts because I've in the past been one of the biggest culprit's but I think we can still discuss things passionately while treating each other like human beings.

Anonymous said...

See hb? See how Radar can make bold completely uneducated statements on topics about which he demonstrably knows nothing? Instead of just asking questions. Can you see how frustrating that might be?

Radar, the sport of MMA has really evolved, over the last couple decades, in fact, back when you were watching, it would have been tough to really call it a sport at all. In that there were essentially no rules for the first UFC (although I think fishhooking wasn't allowed, but that might have been one of the only rules back in 1993).

Essentially the rules and the fighters have been getting better and better ever since. There are many ways to win an MMA match and many different styles and combinations of styles that add up to victory in the UFC (including "kickers", LOL). There are also many many things that aren't allowed anymore due to concerns over fighter safety. I guess to answer your question, I'd say you potentially watched a couple duds although the sport isn't for everyone and it may be that you just don't like it. The next free fights go down on FOX Sports 2 on October 26th, so you may want to check those out (although off the top of my head I'm not sure how strong that card is so you may have to commit to watching a couple cards to see if you actually like it).

And no, Chuck Norris or the legendary philosopher and fighter Bruce Lee wouldn't stand a chance against any top 10 modern MMA fighter in their respective weight classes. Although I would say that Bruce Lee would likely have done well in MMA had he had access to today's coaches and training techniques. As UFC president Dana White says, "Martial arts has evolved (great choice of words by Dana BTW) more in the last 10 to 20 years than it had in the past 10,000 years".


radar said...

Canucklehead, I trained with a black belt in TKD, my undefeated grandpa taught me the basic combinations in boxing at age five and I worked out with champion boxer Angel Manfreddy, did you? So do not say I do not know what I am talking about when I am discussing fighting. I am too badly hurt to be dangerous for more than the first two minutes now but once I was continually training and sparring. It was fun and great exercise and gave me the option to walk away from trouble with a clear conscience because I didn't need to prove myself to anyone. If you are yourself a trained fighter you understand what I mean. The confident man can walk away, the coward will run, the fool will always jump in when challenged. I only fought to protect someone else or to protect actual danger to myself. So if someone kept trying to punch me I would knock them down, get in control of them and make sure they were ready to give up and then I would let them up.

That being said, Norris won multiple titles without defeat and also Bruce Lee, although most of the matches were not sanctioned because Lee's style was not officially recognized. Look up their history before you casually say they would be defeated by a modern fighter, I do not buy it for a moment. Would Joe Louis be unable to stand up to Mike Tyson assuming both in their prime? Would Muhammed Ali? Would you say that Ali in his prime would be defeated easily by some random Klitchko? I think not...

But I will try to catch that October 26th broadcast and see where the sport is now. Maybe it has truly come a long way. I must admit I have not watched the sport since it first came out, so will give you a benefit of doubt and take a look.

radar said...

Now I am gone for awhile, have a wonderful weekend all!

highboy said...

Radar I know you're going away for a while to rest but thought I'd comment for when you're available to read:

Training with a black belt in TWD is all well and good, but the fighters you are trying to discredit have their own black belts in multiple disciplines from all over the world, and are training with multiple black belts in multiple disciplines all over the world, and those black belts are at the highest level in any martial art. I have a serious problem believing you watched legitimate MMA, particularly at the UFC level, and came away thinking someone like Bruce Lee or Chuck Norris would stand a chance. If you knew anything about the martial arts backgrounds of the fighters in professional MMA you seriously would not take that view with a straight face. I train muay thai, and my muay thai coach has a black belt in TKD himself. He'll tell you personally if you wish to converse with him that TKD, karate, tang soo do, hapkido, are only used sparingly as supplemental forms of combat, no fighter would ever get in the cage if that's all they had. We have guys all the time that come from those disciplines, and look stunning with their crescent kicks and their form, and than a mid tier purple belt in BJJ has them submitting in literally, just seconds.

highboy said...

I'll add before I go that Norris and Lee's matches weren't all fights, not even most of them. They were the traditional models of martial arts competitions, often with just a point system. It wasn't a fight.

Anonymous said...


Seriously though, if you've been reading this blog for a while you'd know that Radar is a genius, an exceptional athlete, and sings like the angels. But he is not religious. Oh, no. But he is right about anything he says and will defend it no matter how absurd he looks.

For real seriously, feel better Radar. If prayer worked, I'd pray for you. Instead, I'll send positive thoughts to the midwest for you.


radar said...

"Anonymous said...

Seriously though, if you've been reading this blog for a while you'd know that Radar is a genius, an exceptional athlete, and sings like the angels. But he is not religious. Oh, no. But he is right about anything he says and will defend it no matter how absurd he looks.

For real seriously, feel better Radar. If prayer worked, I'd pray for you. Instead, I'll send positive thoughts to the midwest for you.


I was a very good athlete but age and injuries have put an end to that. I did receive a combination athletic/academic scholarship upon graduating high school and passed the Presidential fitness test while in high school and maxed out the physical fitness scores in basic training after being drafted into the Army. I did play on organized teams in basketball, baseball, football and won some tournaments in tennis and badminton and ping pong and foosball. I finished third in the only PPA event I entered which gave me a year's pass and a special ball and a few other toys.

On the other hand, I played against actual junior college all-americans in football and basketball, which proved to me I would never be close to an elite athlete. I had great hand-eye coordination and 20-10 vision but at 71 inches I was not all that tall and definitely not fast enough to be a professional at any sport...other than PPA which I probably could have been a top five member of the tour but that would not have been lucrative enough to pursue.

I did test out third in the entire county on the SAT despite not studying for it (didn't worry about it). I also tested 99 percentile on the ACT as well as the SAT. I was identified as a genius by the public schools in third grade and sent to a special class for enriched curriculum for the remainder of grade school and junior high.

On the other hand, a true genius is not someone with a 160+ IQ and a Mensa membership. I am very good at taking tests and I focus well. But in no way am I a genius in any discipline. In fact I do not care much for math beyond arithmetic. My joy was in compiling knowledge in multiple areas and reading zillions of books. So I know a lot about the things I care about but do not qualify as an expert on many things beyond the Bible and the IT industry. A genius is someone who is absolutely exceptional in an area, such as Einstein or Maxwell. I would not be in their league and I know it.

I am actually a baritone and I would think an actual tenor would be someone who sings like an angel. I used to sing like someone like Steve Perry or Gary Puckett and in recent years have lost a little bit of the high range but then most singers lose a bit of the high range after age 60.

I am smart, used to be an athlete and can still sing well enough to front a rock band or a church band. God blessed me with many gifts, including being very good with people in real life. I just like people and get along with pretty much everybody.

You are being sarcastic and that is fine. You think I am an egoist and I think I am just being honest. If anything, I am smart enough to have realized Jesus Christ is my only hope for salvation and, on my own, I could never be good enough or kind enough or smart enough to ever come close to meeting the standards of God. Are you smart enough to realize you are NOT enough? That is the real question.

radar said...

BTW the sarcasm made me smile. I do not feel particularly good so smiles are always welcome and I enjoyed meeting your expectation with my reply as well :-) Thanks, Lava!

Brad maddox said...

Trading is the Best Business Ever in the World.. All News updates about Forex Business, Latest Currency news updates, latest forex trading business updates, trading updates, forex trading latest news, forex brokers directory, forex brokers list, Dollars news affairs, Stock Markets, stock market news, stock market analysis, technology news, international forex markets, international forex business news and all updates about Forex Trading

Ahmed Qasim said...

Just for Laugh Lols, where you can every thing is lol and Funny, Troll Images, Funny Vidoes, Prank Peoples, Funny Peoples, Prank Images, Fail Pictures, Epic Pictures, Epic Videos, Prank Videos, Fail Videos and Much More Fun and Entertainment, Lols and Gags, Lol Pictures, Lol Videos, Funny Pictures, Lol is the Laugh out of Laugh where you can Fun Unlimited and Laughing Unlimited.

Tauheed Sohail said...

Lol and Funny, Troll Images, Prank Peoples, Funny Peoples, funny planet, funny facts, funny cartoons, funny movies pics, iphone funny, funny jokes, Prank Images, Fail Pictures, Epic Pictures, Lols and Gags, Lol Pictures, Funny Pictures, Lol is the Laugh out of Laugh where you can Fun Unlimited and Laughing Unlimited.

Muhammad Asim said...

Top Ten Classified Website List, Pakistani Classified Sites, USA Classifieds, Indian Classifieds, Entertainment Articles, Entertainment News, Entertainment Pictures, Bollywood, Hollywood and Lollywood Pictures and Videos, Entertainment Latest updates, Hot Entertainment News and Pictures Funny Entertainment Pictures, lol Pictures, Funny Pictures and every thing you want...

rashid omer said...

All Latest and Current Affairs, News updates about Forex Business. Latest Currency news updates, latest forex trading business updates, trading updates, forex trading latest news, forex brokers directory, forex brokers list, Dollars news affairs, Stock Markets, stock market news, stock market analysis, technology news, international forex markets, international forex business news and all updates about Forex Trading

fariya khan said...

Lol is the Laugh out of Laugh where you can Fun Unlimited and Laughing Unlimited. The Best Lol n Troll Network with the Name of Lols Gag... Troll Images, Prank Peoples, Funny Peoples, funny planet, funny facts, funny cartoons, funny movies pics, iphone funny, funny jokes, Prank Images, Fail Pictures, Epic Pictures, Lols and Gags, Lol Pictures, Funny Pictures.

nida khan said...

Make Money Online is very easy now, In Internet system we have now best earning system without any work, Just Invest some Money into your Business and Make Perfect Life time Earnings with this Business.
Join Now for Make Perfect Business and Earn Money online from home.