Stephen Hawking: “The laws of science are sufficient, we don't need God."

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Willtell

So what makes you think "God" is this eternal original thing exactly???

Very simple:

Anything in existence has to have another “thing” to have been the origin of its being.

…Therefore God must be the original "thing" behind ALL things

…And that being the case he must be eternal and therefore “death” and “ life” as we know it are creations of God and not existential.

originally posted by: Willtell
Of course we needed God to create us

The more I study Biology and Chemistry in college the less I see any god involved in our creation.

a reply to: danielsil18

Which is applying super natural thought to the matter.

Generally avoided in science to explain anything.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: danielsil18

Which is applying super natural thought to the matter.

Generally avoided in science to explain anything.

That's right. Its fortunate that we dont involve beliefs in science.

originally posted by: danielsil18

originally posted by: Willtell
Of course we needed God to create us

The more I study Biology and Chemistry in college the less I see any god involved in our creation.

“God” is above.

Of course you don’t have to see a “God” in scientific biology or any “ology” since “God” is always the above


You can only see God in creational mechanisms through inference…

God being the most refined essence or spirit in being can't be seen by the naked eye because God is too big.

God is everything so how can one see everything?

If you saw God then everything else would have to evaporate including yourself

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: danielsil18

originally posted by: Willtell
Of course we needed God to create us

The more I study Biology and Chemistry in college the less I see any god involved in our creation.

If you saw God then everything else would have to evaporate including yourself

How do you know?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I doubt anyone on this board has any where near the intellectual level to call him a retard about anything.

I would venture to say he knows more about philosophy then most of us.

He's already proven lots of times that philosophy is not his area of expertise. He can work with numbers well, and things of that nature. Philosophy? Not so much.
Being smart in one or more areas of study does not imply an aptitude for other areas of study. This is common knowledge.

originally posted by: danielsil18

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: danielsil18

originally posted by: Willtell
Of course we needed God to create us

The more I study Biology and Chemistry in college the less I see any god involved in our creation.

If you saw God then everything else would have to evaporate including yourself

How do you know?

I know the same way you don’t know

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I doubt anyone on this board has any where near the intellectual level to call him a retard about anything.

I would venture to say he knows more about philosophy then most of us.

He's already proven lots of times that philosophy is not his area of expertise. He can work with numbers well, and things of that nature. Philosophy? Not so much.

What makes someone an expert in philosophy?

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: danielsil18

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: danielsil18

originally posted by: Willtell
Of course we needed God to create us

The more I study Biology and Chemistry in college the less I see any god involved in our creation.

If you saw God then everything else would have to evaporate including yourself

How do you know?

I know the same way you don’t know

I dont accept your game of words. Ill ask again:

How do you know what you just claimed?

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

It usually shows you are able to learn them though. He is a theoretical scientist and just an all around smart guy. What examples do you have that show he doesn't know what he is talking about? Outside of this one of course.

originally posted by: Willtell
Very simple:

Anything in existence has to have another “thing” to have been the origin of its being.

…Therefore God must be the original "thing" behind ALL things

…And that being the case he must be eternal and therefore “death” and “ life” as we know it are creations of God and not existential.

I'm afraid it's not that simple though. There is no more evidence for there being an eternal God being that created everything than there is evidence for an eternal pickle beast that burped everything in to existence. All you're doing is making some assumptions then making up some answer and justifying that answer with more assumptions.

You start by setting rules then insert God which is the only thing which is beyond all those rules to explain the creation of all those rules. That is not reasonable or logical at all. It does however allow you to just claim anything at all without any evidence to show for it while also allowing you to deny any evidence to the contrary.

a reply to: Willtell

That is the classic argument there and it seems to be logical, however it falls apart quite nicely if time itself is eternal I'm afraid.

I did not read every post, so kudos to anyone who said what I am about to say.

Stephen Hawking is a fraud.

Whether by puppet strings or by his own volition, I know not. If by his own volition, then I am sorry that he has made such extremely foolish statements.

Causality.

As long as you say, "Well, before the big bang, there was this other thing..." and then so on, and so on, ad infinitum, then you are never finding a cause.

If the universe had proven to be infinite, this wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately, it hasn't.

Therefore, there was a beginning and the beginning came from NOTHING.

In order for something to come from nothing, there must be a non-physical will which produced energy, matter, time, space, and laws to govern them.

It's obvious to anyone with any reasoning capabilities.

If you are unwilling to see the resolution of the system, then you will not progress into other matters which are more difficult to take on.

If you still have further argument, think... If you believe in the "Big Bang", then you believe in a beginning. Hm.

If you do not believe in the "Big Bang", but some other beginning model, then you believe in a beginning. Hm.

If you believe in an infinite universe without beginning, then you deny the nature around you, that things are born and they die every moment.

originally posted by: danielsil18

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: danielsil18

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: danielsil18

originally posted by: Willtell
Of course we needed God to create us

The more I study Biology and Chemistry in college the less I see any god involved in our creation.

If you saw God then everything else would have to evaporate including yourself

How do you know?

I know the same way you don’t know

I dont accept your game of words. Ill ask again:

How do you know what you just claimed?

Alright


Knowledge is experience and mental understanding that’s what I meant by the post you say is semantics.

I can’t tell you how I know something all I can do is offer the equation I did and you can accept it or not but perhaps maybe you could contemplate on it a bit and reach some possibility of understanding


If you can see that anything created has to have some creator then the equation is that there MUST be a God somewhere in the reality of being and that God MUST be eternal or NOT subject to what we know as death since existence is existential

Further contemplation brings one to the fact that God is everything or everything is God

How do I know that?

It’s all in the equation

Look at it

God deniers are contradicting themselves since they acknowledge everything has an origin but refuse to believe in a God force

Stephen Hawkings is a modern day philosopher, he uses mathematical theories to build paradigms within philosophy, mostly sustainable transcending ones, is he smart, oh yeah. Is he a genius, no.

Do i respect him, of course, mostly cause he understands the basic principals of creation and design within paradigms and transcendence, sustainability, relevence and objective, he is not subjective like most modern day philosophers are.

A logical thinking man, who uses laws of nature, dimensions, and the golden rules to make it into a fine little bubble.

originally posted by: bluemooone2
a reply to: Willtell

That is the classic argument there and it seems to be logical, however it falls apart quite nicely if time itself is eternal I'm afraid.

Time is but a measurement of being or what measures death


I said God created death


Death is the end of time


Death is the measurement of life

And life is the measurement of death


Life and death is the experience of creation not God


God is timeless, deathless, and lifeless

In other words the most exact definition of God is that he or she CAN’T be confined by creation

a reply to: mOjOm

You can be as close as you choose to be and still be as far away from it then considering yourself to be partially pregnant . There is a trail to the truth . suppositions and theory will more then likely lead to a dead end . Not that it have never lead to a better truth but even that falls short . Maybe a bigger better Hadron Collider might do the trick ....might is the operative word .

a reply to: Willtell

Im pretty sure, you dont understand time