Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 376
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the UniversePage 16 of 19    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
''first of all, I don't give a shitt what anyone else thinks, hope that's obvious by now.


The best part of your post. Which is sad because it's such a grand statement with no worthy competition''

what some one THINKS is not that important to me.
what they know, ACTUALLY know, IS important to me.

''Consider the vast body of knowledge that has been gathered on those topics over just the past 200 years. It's too much for any one person to fully appreciate, which is why people now specialise in narrow areas, so saying that we know "almost NOTHING" about those things isn't true.
It may be true for you, but in general, it isn't.''

so, you guys still of the opinion that 97% of the genome is junk?

JUNK, another word for more ''stuff we don't know anything about.''

I believe hawking said ''the laws of physics created the universe''

so, am I the only one left here to ask, did the intricate laws of physics just show up at the right time, on their own? that's why I called them natural. [naturally occurring] [or have they now existed forever?
what created them?
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 377
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/27/2012 3:00:03 AM

Consider the vast body of knowledge that has been gathered on those topics over just the past 200 years. It's too much for any one person to fully appreciate, which is why people now specialise in narrow areas, so saying that we know "almost NOTHING" about those things isn't true.
It may be true for you, but in general, it isn't.


so, you guys still of the opinion that 97% of the genome is junk?
JUNK, another word for more ''stuff we don't know anything about.''

Your original statement, to which my paragraph quoted above is a reply, claimed we knew "almost NOTHING" about the "universe and cells and dna" not "the genome".
You are just jumbling up things either you, or others, don't know much about, presumably to support your irrational idea that there must be a creator thing who/which understands it all on our behalf.

Consider that only a couple of hundred years ago you could have posed a questiion about the spontaneous generation of flies on decaying matter to imply the same conclusion. Five hundred years ago you might have used the 'fact' that the universe orbits the earth.

The reasoning is, obviously, inadequate to reach the conclusions you are presumably attempting to stretch it over.


so, am I the only one left here to ask, did the intricate laws of physics just show up at the right time, on their own? that's why I called them natural. [naturally occurring] [or have they now existed forever?
what created them?

Once again, you don't mention the conclusion you are implying, but it doesn't matter. Your reasoning is flawed.

The argument - 'Stuff is unknown... therefore god/a creator' is meaningful only in the sense that it illustrates several logical fallacies.

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 378
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/27/2012 8:17:40 AM
even secular scientists admit to us knowing very little about how the universe ticks.
we see much more then we used to, but don't really know much about exactly how and why.

we don't even know how much there IS to know.
the more we know, though, at least a few admit, the less we know.
or
for every question we answer, 10 new ones arise.

apparently most of matter is dark, of which we know almost nothing.

we understand very little of 97% of dna.


['''Consider that only a couple of hundred years ago you could have posed a question about the spontaneous generation of flies on decaying matter to imply the same conclusion. Five hundred years ago you might have used the 'fact' that the universe orbits the earth''']

and today we think life started totally on it's own in other ways, chemistry........

as far as I know, chemistry makes thing rot, go back to dirt, from whence it comes.
it's only life, [dna] that makes chemistry go against what chemistry wants to do naturally.
when life is gone, natural chemistry takes over immediately.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 379
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/27/2012 8:40:59 AM

even secular scientists admit to us knowing very little about how the universe ticks.
we see much more then we used to, but don't really know much about exactly how and why.

we don't even know how much there IS to know.
the more we know, though, at least a few admit, the less we know.
or for every question we answer, 10 new ones arise.

apparently most of matter is dark, of which we know almost nothing.
we understand very little of 97% of dna.

So what.
You keep posting these vaguely untrue lists of things 'we know very little about' as if it all meant something. It doesn't.
But meanwhile you don't address the questions you have been asked about these allegations and you don't adjust or clarify your utterances to reflect the, often pointed out, fact that you are using fallacious logic to arrive at flawed conclusions.
Instead, you just produce another vaguely untrue, more or less rhetorical, list/statement that reflects, again, your poor understanding of how science works.

Consider that only a couple of hundred years ago you could have posed a question about the spontaneous generation of flies on decaying matter to imply the same conclusion. Five hundred years ago you might have used the 'fact' that the universe orbits the earth.


and today we think life started totally on it's own in other ways, chemistry........

as far as I know, chemistry makes thing rot, go back to dirt, from whence it comes.
it's only life, [dna] that makes chemistry go against what chemistry wants to do naturally.
when life is gone, natural chemistry takes over immediately.

My emphasis. ^ ^ ^ No further comment is required.

 Yule_liquor
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 380
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/27/2012 11:04:15 PM
@Kard


(1) I did not actually refer to the outputs of our 'theory of mind' adaptation as "dysfunctional" per se; in fact, I would even grant that the adaptation is functioning as it was designed to function.


It doesn't matter, because it lends itself to dysfunctionality; thereby making such "outputs" paradoxical (at best), and unreliable venues(at worst).


What is irrational is not the functional working of the theory of mind adaptation, but rather the way in which its outputs are used in the service of theistic thinking;


If we are insinuating that the "outputs' are being misused (by the very users for whom they were constructed or crafted for), even by a subset of users then; again, we have enough to indict nature's faulty processes. Secondly, that nature would allow this misuse(of outputs) to propagate untruths freely and diffusely (affecting all cultures) is the epitome of unavoidable failure founded upon irrationality.


if there are tensions between being ontologically veracious -- that is, understanding reality for what it is, in and of itself -- and being evolutionarily fit -- fitness would always win.


Thus if a biologic investment (that has taken millenia to perfect) that is 'ontologically veracious'; is discarded for another that isn't but because it just happens to be better fit for the particular environment in which it is thriving at that particular epoch, further underscores how perversely specious nature is!


In other words, truth is not something that natural selection intrinsically worships just for its own sake.


which then means that natural selection has no rational foundation for what it allows. Since 'natural selection' itself is of nature; it stands to reason that there is no (absolute) truth. There is only 'relative' truth; that is; truth that is only paradigm specific. As such, that which is true or axiomatic in one such paradigm is usually not applicable to another. Then, no form of extrapolation, however, logically sound can serve to explain anything outside a given paradigmatic domain.


Explain how either of the following are fitness-enhancing in the evolutionary-biological sense (and bear in mind that these are only but two of many possible examples):

(i) Suicide bombing
(ii) Celibacy amongst priests


you might perhaps have a good point if you could indicate where in said scriptures it shows that:

(i) followers of a certain religion are compelled to kill themselves and others when at odds with an adversary.
(ii) priests are strictly forbidden to marry!

Notwithstanding, I could state something nearly as preposterous by asking you to explain how fitness enhancing are the following developments that have grown to enormous proportions in the advent of secularism; and they are (not not limited to):

{1} skyrocketing divorce rates
{2} liberal use of addicting intoxicants
{3} family instability with resultant dysfunctional offspring


Our sociocultural and technological environment has changed so drastically and rapidly that a putative cognitive adaptation for religion may no longer be fitness conducive if rogue,


In contrast to what? A secular one? If so then please clearly demonstrate how an exponential increase in societal de-stabilization over various generations is anymore fitness conducive!


ultimately replicator dynamics are all that matters in the biological world; all else -- including truth per se -- is secondary.


Then as I have already said; nature (or its tentacles) de-selects TRUTH in favor of what is fit (which by itself is environmentally dependant and subject to change). Thus what is recognized as Truth (by nature's devices) is relative to what "fits" within a given frame-work and little else. Thus there is no evidence that principles of absolute truth are at play; and if there is no absolute truth then there can be no absolute knowledge, or discernment of such!


The science says they're wrong, flatly wrong.


science is a study of our surroundings and of their properties. It does not and cannot tell us anything of the dynamics(supernatural, if any) outside our 4 dimensions. Science cannot tell us if the quantum world existed "pre-big bang" or not. Hawkings says it did but it is based on his own conjectures. He gets around it by saying that the Universe did not emanate from a singularity (such as it would from the big bang event); but that it was always there; ie; self contained.
 mccullough64
Joined: 11/11/2006
Msg: 381
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/28/2012 11:02:18 AM
if god is particles it may be possible(say when you are high on the burning bush of mose3s marijuana fiery but not burnt -red haired cannibis and familiar with the logical, scientfic arguments for his existent to causes the particles that he bundleup of his own uncreated one eternally existant one the "created" ones to talk to him and interpretthe thought patterns of "the mind of God" and that at a cetrain level he will work miralces and send quasar angels elements that exist only in the cold and lessened gravity of deep space and are alive like the gases and higher composite elements except for the radioactive ones which and the shit and corpes of the living ones and not element at all. and their also the unclean demongodsthat feeed and breed aroud radioactivityand appear as the mottled dark patcharound nuclear power plants and source of radioactivity- the faster than lightdark mascreatures that croos the faces of the demon possessed.
 Kardinal Offishall
Joined: 2/26/2010
Msg: 382
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/29/2012 3:24:57 PM
Yule_liquor:



It doesn't matter, because it lends itself to dysfunctionality; thereby making such "outputs" paradoxical (at best), and unreliable venues(at worst).


It does matter, and I'll briefly outline why. The 'theory of mind' adaptation, in the broadest sense, was selected for a specifically delimited function, namely inferring the mental states of conspecifics, roughly speaking.

The problem is that it also lends itself to false, incoherent beliefs about gods, namely when its outputs are pre-reflectively taken to license the coherency of non-physical minded gods as part of a premise for the existence of god.

However this problem is orthogonal to the functionality of the adaptation in and of itself; so attributing dysfunctionality or paradox or unreliability or all of the above simply misses the point.

The same holds for our 'folk physics' adaptation: Strictly speaking, it is ontologically incorrect; yet its selected function(s) are not dysfunctional, paradoxical, or unreliable when seen against the backdrop of its adaptive rationale, which is a necessary backdrop when posing the question of whether it is dysfunctioning.

The mistake you're making is running together ontology and ancestral fitness effects. The two are in no way necessarily coextensive.



If we are insinuating that the "outputs' are being misused (by the very users for whom they were constructed or crafted for), even by a subset of users then; again, we have enough to indict nature's faulty processes.


The 'folk physics' adaptation I alluded to above is an excellent example for once again demonstrating why this line of thought is incorrect.

If one trusts their folk-physical intuitions and takes them at face value, they will present an ultimately incorrect (rather radically incorrect) picture of the way in which the physical world works. That's the crux.

Physicists don't rely on those intuitions. So neither should you rely on the intuitions generated by your folk psychology adaptation as blindly grounding a pre-reflective ascription about a god's properties (and especially so in this case).

Taking the outputs of our theory of mind adaptation as components of premises about non-physical gods is to commit the analagous error, namely taking intuitions at face value.

On both accounts, the scientific picture demonstrates why the manifest, intuitive picture is flatly wrong.



Secondly, that nature would allow this misuse(of outputs) to propagate untruths freely and diffusely (affecting all cultures) is the epitome of unavoidable failure founded upon irrationality.


Once again, see the point about truth vis-a-vis fitness. The two are not necessarily coextensive. Did you perchance read the example in my last post about the chemist and the alchemist?



Thus if a biologic investment (that has taken millenia to perfect) that is 'ontologically veracious'; is discarded for another that isn't but because it just happens to be better fit for the particular environment in which it is thriving at that particular epoch, further underscores how perversely specious nature is!


Unfortunately that wasn't my point. Take the folk physics adaptation again: It isn't ontologically veracious in the complete sense -- because, for instance, it provides no innate understanding of quantum phenomena.

I will try to make the point simple again: Truth and fitness cannot be assumed to be on a par, one and the same.



which then means that natural selection has no rational foundation for what it allows. Since 'natural selection' itself is of nature; it stands to reason that there is no (absolute) truth. There is only 'relative' truth; that is; truth that is only paradigm specific. As such, that which is true or axiomatic in one such paradigm is usually not applicable to another. Then, no form of extrapolation, however, logically sound can serve to explain anything outside a given paradigmatic domain.


The sciences didn't develop by automatically deferring to our intuitions -- this point should be obvious.

Any individual that presumes that the proposition of a non-physical minded god is coherent has not actually tested to see whether that proposition runs afoul of known science.

And in fact it does fly in the face of what we know. This underscores why the outputs of our folk psychology cannot be taken at face value when pressed into the service of theological argument (or, more usually, in the professing of laypersons).



In contrast to what? A secular one? If so then please clearly demonstrate how an exponential increase in societal de-stabilization over various generations is anymore fitness conducive!


You're conflating the taxonomy of possibilities I was outlining. Much hinges on the outcome of empirical investigation into religion, viz., whether it turns out to be an adaptation, or byproduct, or cluster of memeplexes that parasitize our cognitive architecture.

For now, whether the religious/spiritual impulse is an adaptation or not is otiose, as is talk of contemporary fitness effects in modern societies.



Thus there is no evidence that principles of absolute truth are at play; and if there is no absolute truth then there can be no absolute knowledge, or discernment of such!


There's one critical difference that you're missing here. The sciences do not rest on our subjective intuitions. Science is empirical, I might remind you.

By contrast, when you or anyone blindly assumes that a non-physical minded god is a coherent proposition, you are resting on sheer subjective intuition. That's a huge difference, and my hope is that you can grasp this important and fundamental point.



It does not and cannot tell us anything of the dynamics(supernatural, if any) outside our 4 dimensions.


Firstly, the same can be said about human thought: It intrinsically would only apply within this universe/multiverse. Therefore the very reasons you've just adduced would totally undercut the very notion that your (or anyone's) assertion about the properties of god even has a truth value (could even be true in principle).

In other words, if you argue that we have no epistemic access to anything that outstrips physical reality (in the broadest metaphysical sense) then one has absolutely no reason to think that any assertion about a non-physical god is even coherent or possibly true in principle.

It works both ways. You cannot deny the relevancy of the sciences to the assertion of non-physical gods with minds while at the same time affirming the validity of bare thought as applied to the same (supposed) non-physical minded gods and so-called non-physical reality.

One cannot have their cake and eat it too. Wittgenstein made this point close to a hundred years ago.



Science cannot tell us if the quantum world existed "pre-big bang" or not.


There's nothing intrinsic about these hypotheses that would preclude them from asserting such things.

What matters, in particular, is whether they can be tested in various ways, and how any given hypothesis fares comparatively against others. The notion of "test," here, is tangible yet broad.

Also, and perhaps just as importantly, physics and cosmology -- as with pretty much any other science -- has its own endogenously evolving ontology and epistemology. It would be folly to try and dictate rigid strictures a priori -- the history of such disciplines speaks strongly against that notion.



Hawkings says it did but it is based on his own conjectures. He gets around it by saying that the Universe did not emanate from a singularity (such as it would from the big bang event); but that it was always there; ie; self contained.


Hawking's proposal is also not the only one on offer. Also, you should not make the assumption that there was a singularity; the notion of a singularity does not feature very widely anymore (or at least as widely as it did before) in contemporary discussions within theoretical cosmology.
 sexynessonlegs
Joined: 12/12/2011
Msg: 383
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/29/2012 7:08:16 PM
didnt some one once say i know everything but i know nothing?
2
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 384
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 5/1/2012 1:08:58 AM

How to Make an Atheists Head Explode
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0DT6uljSbg&feature=related

The video title is incorrect.

It should be "Typically Witless Deist Arguments"
Or alternately "A Collection of Debunked Fallacies"

And by the way, changing the thread titles of the threads you participate in is arrogant and disrespectful to the OP. They started the thread, it's their prerogative to choose the title.
 Samhein
Joined: 7/20/2010
Msg: 385
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 5/1/2012 5:02:45 AM

And just what are these "attributes" that serve as the necessary evidence to "discard' God's existence, if I may ask?
{also similar objection from Guitar}
Someone handled it kindly, but for a start, all the omni-attributes cannot coexist together, and as well, some are essentially canceled by thge various imperfections of the creation or presence of sin, Hell, etc..


Just like you demand proofs; I will ask you to furnish proof just as to how the Universe came into being on its own; and please don't circular logical terms such as "it does because it can" or hollow assertions/conjectures such as "it is due to a quantum effect". If it is then you'd have to show unquestionable proof that the quantum realm existed "a priori" ; how it functions, and whence it came from!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html
There is a generic summation of the theory; you may feel free to skip to the evidence section, and begin debunking them all, using only scientific arguments and none of your circular logical terms such as "we don't really know therefore it was created" or hollow assertions/conjectures such as "anything is evidence of God".
 balrog67
Joined: 4/1/2012
Msg: 386
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 5/1/2012 9:13:52 AM

Just like you demand proofs; I will ask you to furnish proof just as to how the Universe came into being on its own; and please don't circular logical terms such as "it does because it can" or hollow assertions/conjectures such as "it is due to a quantum effect". If it is then you'd have to show unquestionable proof that the quantum realm existed "a priori" ; how it functions, and whence it came from!


Why must Theists always trot out this epic fail??

Here's the salient and ethical difference between Reason and Mysticism -

In answer to any multitude of questions about the origin of the Universe, a scientist has the Integrity to simply state "we don't know yet". And then they continue with the honest work of FINDING OUT.

A Theist does not feel constrained by such banal attributes as Integrity - cannot possibly delay their prurient need for immediate gratification - and charges ahead with the completely unsupportable contention that says "Aha! Since you don't KNOW, it's absolute evidence that my GOD done it!!"

It's really tiresome.....
 Samhein
Joined: 7/20/2010
Msg: 387
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 5/7/2012 11:07:24 PM
Now now Balrog, don't paint all us theists with the same brush as certain others.

Im a polytheist, and I certainly understand what science is saying on these various subjects, why these things are said, and that they are true.

Not all of us are head-in-the-sand science deniers ;)
 mccullough64
Joined: 11/11/2006
Msg: 388
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 5/12/2012 12:23:02 PM
it has not been proven that nothing starts without a cause by reversing local particle flow it is possibble to prove the universe has always been in in eternity future that it was here for eternity past and if god has particles that he was always here and that he could create mom mentum "ex nilho" even if he could not explain it be cause it could be observe and this obsevervation would be proof of magic and because it could not be explained would not be scienceand thefore illogical and unnatural and supernatural and provabal so you can prove some thing that are not science and because science involve a human witness it will end when the last human on the planet dies although objectively reality and therefore it's scientific description will never end.
 Justatrubblemakr
Joined: 1/27/2011
Msg: 389
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 5/13/2012 9:19:23 PM
Well for one thing belief in god? Whats to believe in?
God simply is, he doesnt require belief what he demands is faith, so you should term the question " does a simpleminded human creations book destroy your faith in god?"

Well since stevie there isnt aaking anything new , isnt giving anything irrefutable to deny gods existance, hasnt given any new evidence whatsoever to deny the existance of god or even remotely lived long enough to offer up a viable explanation to the age old qUestion why are we here. Im thinking my faith is pretty much still solid. Not to memtion if god disnt exist i think stevies book wouldnt sell or even have been able to be written. Kinda funny how hes making money denying the existance of the lead character of the book he wrote.
What in your opinion would male steve an expert on anything more time consuming than choosing which fancy car to drive?
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 390
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 5/14/2012 1:48:23 AM

Well for one thing belief in god? Whats to believe in?

Good question. There are thousands of them to choose from, and so many of them contradict each other while claiming to have exclusive access to 'truth'. It's pretty funny really.
Probably the best course is to believe in things that are rational? Like, the things that have direct and incontrovertible evidential support. One can be more certain of avoiding foolish self-delusion that way.


God simply is, he doesnt require belief what he demands is faith...

On the other hand... 'God' might be described as 'simply is not'.
Gosh, 'He' might not be a 'he' at all, and he/she/it might not 'demand' anything from anyone.
Say... how do you know so much about the god things? Is there a website? Do you have a citation?


...so you should term the question " does a simpleminded human creations book destroy your faith in god?"

Nahhhh, a better question would be 'why do allegedly highly evolved and presumably intelligent people believe in simpleminded fantasies that violate numerous physical laws, rupture common sense, and entirely lack either circumstantial or direct evidential support?

It's a mystery.


Well since stevie there isnt aaking anything new , isnt giving anything irrefutable to deny gods existance, hasnt given any new evidence whatsoever to deny the existance of god or even remotely lived long enough to offer up a viable explanation to the age old qUestion why are we here.

I doubt he was intending to do, or has set out to do, any of those things. Except perhaps for the first - asking (aaking?) new questions - and he has done that over the course of his career, despite your impression to the contrary.

Im thinking my faith is pretty much still solid.

Along with all these people presumably?
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions
Some of whose articles of 'faith' contradict yours probably, but not to worry. Facts and rationality aren't important when it comes to religion.

Not to memtion if god disnt exist i think stevies book wouldnt sell or even have been able to be written.
(my emphasis)
You 'think' in non sequiturs.

Kinda funny how hes making money denying the existance of the lead character of the book he wrote.

That's a radical claim. Trouble is, for it to have any meaning you'd first have to establish the allegedly missing 'lead character' has any existence to 'deny'.

Out of curiosity, where exactly does Hawking himself make that claim?


What in your opinion would male steve an expert on anything more time consuming than choosing which fancy car to drive?

This -

Stephen William Hawking, CH, CBE, FRS, FRSA (born 8 January 1942) is an English theoretical physicist and cosmologist, whose scientific books and public appearances have made him an academic celebrity. He is an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, a lifetime member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and in 2009 was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States.

Hawking was the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge for 30 years, taking up the post in 1979 and retiring on 1 October 2009. He is now Director of Research at the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge. He is also a Fellow of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge and a Distinguished Research Chair at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario. He is known for his contributions to the fields of cosmology and quantum gravity, especially in the context of black holes. He has also achieved success with works of popular science in which he discusses his own theories and cosmology in general; these include the runaway best seller A Brief History of Time, which stayed on the British Sunday Times best-sellers list for a record-breaking 237 weeks.
 Justatrubblemakr
Joined: 1/27/2011
Msg: 391
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 5/14/2012 5:46:05 AM
Or he may sit and wonder we exist at all.science proved we are a creation , a rational mind can look at a computer or a car with all its complex parts working in a pattern and accept it is a creation of at least someone or something. And it pales in comparison to life or the universe. Denialists think it all just happened by itself so really they have faith in accidents rather than creation lol so they r just as gullible as the rest of us.
Religion is just another idea derived from mans mind , atheism is just another religion with yet another god just An antigod ,Faith comes from the heart tho , no matter what u have faith in.
Hmm a best seller for 237 weeks eh wow impressive.... How long would u say the bible has been a best seller ! Lol well id say at least 1500 yrs even a mathemetician would have to agree thats a bit longer.as for the authors . Well they were quite the radicals in their time as well i think
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 392
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 5/14/2012 8:51:18 AM

Or he may sit and wonder we exist at all.science proved we are a creation ,

Do you have a citation for that?

...a rational mind can look at a computer or a car with all its complex parts working in a pattern and accept it is a creation of at least someone or something.

Indeed, the manufacturers details are often included with the product.

And it pales in comparison to life or the universe.

Therefore? Wait... don't tell me! Your 'logic' is that because someone made the computer you're using 'a god' must have made the universe?
That's a bit of an assumptive leap isn't it?

Denialists think it all just happened by itself so really they have faith in accidents rather than creation lol so they r just as gullible as the rest of us.

'Denialists' of what? There's nothing to 'deny'. You would need to produce evidence of something to 'deny' before anyone could 'deny' it.

atheism is just another religion with yet another god just An antigod

Really? Is there an anti-god anti-heaven that atheists go to when they die if they're anti-good enough?
Gosh, I'd sure like to read up on that, do you have a citation? A reference to an authoritative source? Perhaps a link to an online comic?

Hmm a best seller for 237 weeks eh wow impressive.... How long would u say the bible has been a best seller ! Lol well id say at least 1500 yrs even a mathemetician would have to agree thats a bit longer.as for the authors . Well they were quite the radicals in their time as well i think

But how many of them were Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge?
How many of your authors received the Presidential Medal of Freedom?
None! I think that proves they were just hacks, specialists in over sensationalised popular fiction - not serious writers at all otherwise they'd have got a medal too.
 riodejack
Joined: 3/23/2010
Msg: 393
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 5/14/2012 1:18:03 PM
That was ignorant. My mother thinks that atheists are dumb, that doesn't say much for her. God's existence is open to opinion.
 Justatrubblemakr
Joined: 1/27/2011
Msg: 394
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 5/15/2012 10:56:15 PM
lol u think cause they didnt get some simple medals from a defunct government and werent a professor at a simple minded university that all the minds that predated any of these institutions were unworthy of recognitionand hacks? you seriously need help no wonder u ask for citations all the time
aristotle plato archimedes ptolomey to name but a few etc these are all hacks according to you ? since they didnt recieve recognition from a puny country run by people with punier intellects.

"Therefore? Wait... don't tell me! Your 'logic' is that because someone made the computer you're using 'a god' must have made the universe?
That's a bit of an assumptive leap isn't it? "

no its actually logical . who made the simple computer? it didnt appear by itself . everything has a beginning and an end . modern aged religion (science) is still a religion . of what they call fact, this is merely another form of faith . faith in something a human says is proven
assumptive would be stating there was no beginning to it , since the computer didnt come into being of its own volition, what would be your basis for saying the universe did? is it less complex? smaller? less mechanical?



"Indeed, the manufacturers details are often included with the product."

dna . manufacturers dont always leave labels , just the other day i bought something with no label
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 395
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 5/16/2012 6:12:07 AM

lol u think cause they didnt get some simple medals from a defunct government and werent a professor at a simple minded university that all the minds that predated any of these institutions were unworthy of recognitionand hacks? you seriously need help no wonder u ask for citations all the time
aristotle plato archimedes ptolomey to name but a few etc these are all hacks according to you ? since they didnt recieve recognition from a puny country run by people with punier intellects.

I was just fooling with ya. Seeing as you just move the goalposts when your position is shown to be ludicrous I figured, since you're clearly impervious to rational input, I just might as well do it too instead of bothering to mount a rational argument against your crackpot assertions.
Speaking of which. . . it's interesting that you, in the above quote, dismiss the Presidential Medal of Freedom (the USA's highest civilian honour) as a "simple medal from a defunct government", refer to Stephen Hawking as "a professor" (he held the chair of Lucasian Professor of Mathematics for 30 years, a previous notable holder of this same position was Isaac Newton), and refer to the University of Cambridge (founded in 1231) as "a simple minded university".

But who needs science, who needs a functioning intellect hey? When you have The Holy Babble. . .


Therefore? Wait... don't tell me! Your 'logic' is that because someone made the computer you're using 'a god' must have made the universe?
That's a bit of an assumptive leap isn't it? "


no its actually logical . who made the simple computer? it didnt appear by itself . everything has a beginning and an end .

No... that's not logic. It's simple minded rationalisation using irrelevancies. Though it's funny you should mention that "everything has a beginning and an end".
Tell me, when did 'god' boot up?


modern aged religion (science) is still a religion . of what they call fact, this is merely another form of faith . faith in something a human says is proven

This ^^^ is just gibberish based on incomprehension.


assumptive would be stating there was no beginning to it , since the computer didnt come into being of its own volition, what would be your basis for saying the universe did? is it less complex? smaller? less mechanical?

I haven't made any claims about how the universe came into being. If you are claiming you know how it did then you'll have to support the claim.
I'll look forward to your struggle.


Indeed, the manufacturers details are often included with the product.

dna . manufacturers dont always leave labels , just the other day i bought something with no label

Aha! Proof that the absence of a manufacturers label has no significance.
 null_locus_accede
Joined: 6/25/2011
Msg: 396
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 5/16/2012 6:38:25 AM
There is a label on everything. It is just that perception gives no weight to absolutes, only to differentials.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 397
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 5/19/2012 9:37:56 AM
repeating mantra does not make it true;

like, implying that there are natural conditions that evoke universes.

you will need preconceived ideas to gobble that up as fact.


it boils down to, it's still your choice.
 dwight_the
Joined: 7/4/2010
Msg: 398
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 5/20/2012 6:28:28 AM
Stephen Hawkins is just a human and like other human he's got an opinion . He's got no way of proving these things he's imagining .He's got a great imagination though ,if I were him I would be writing books similar to Lord Of The Rings .

Live for Jesus .
 Coma White
Joined: 4/11/2004
Msg: 399
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 5/20/2012 9:41:46 AM

Stephen Hawkins is just a human and like other human he's got an opinion . He's got no way of proving these things he's imagining .He's got a great imagination though ,if I were him I would be writing books similar to Lord Of The Rings .


I don't think Lord of the Rings is based on proven scientific priciples. He's not just giving an opinion. He's using proven scientific facts to form possible answers for the questions we have. Religion has nothing to do with reality.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 400
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 5/20/2012 10:17:09 AM

repeating mantra does not make it true;

So why do you keep talking about a creator thing for which no evidence, not a single shred, either implied or direct, actually exists?


like, implying that there are natural conditions that evoke universes.

The universe is self evident.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
Physical laws are ubiquitous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law
Nothing has been discovered that isn't either matter or energy.
http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~acarpi/NSC/2-matter.htm

Whereas on the other hand... there is no evidence of 'creator' beings. There is no evidence that anything might possess the powers creator things would need. There is no need for a 'creator'.
No creators have ever been found. Nothing has ever been discovered that would require a 'creator' to explain it.

Yet you keep 'repeating the mantra' that the universe 'implies' a creator was required to 'evoke' it. Oddly.

________________________________________________________________________________________
Stephen Hawkins is just a human and like other human he's got an opinion . He's got no way of proving these things he's imagining .

Which parts of Hawkings writing do you think are based only on 'imagination'?

He's got a great imagination though ,if I were him I would be writing books similar to Lord Of The Rings .

This ^^^ highlights the problems caused by reading things like the Bible. People become completely unable to distinguish between made fantasy stories and objective reality.


Live for Jesus
.
Or live an authentic life based on truth. It's your choice.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe