Stephen Hawking: God was not needed for the creation of the Universe.

reply to post by Hot_Wings


well said...people need to understand the limits of science. truth be told many people look up to these scientists as heroes. its hard to accept that maybe some of these "heroes" might be full of crap.

I've said it once and I'll say it again:

Living your life vicariously through someone else's discoveries or understanding of the universe is very, very dangerous. Tread with caution.

Originally posted by Unity_99
and all soul progresses.

What is a "soul"?

Can you provide evidence of the existence of such a thing?

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


My life/soul is infinite in progression, all things in infinity are, but this is one thing my Higher Self showed in downloads while contemplating infinity, and I've had many memories return.

You are not your body, your body isnt yours at all,its a biosuit, a piece of technology akin to the bio universe/hologram. Involves a lot of coding as well, like computer programming. This system could be compared to a dvd player, playing infinite dvds, each one a different time clock orbit, and infinite densities, in other words infinite channels.

All things already existed, and in eternity, so the first cycle of this dvd called earth, can't be pinpointed, yet these bodies are on loan to our souls for lessons. We project in. In No Time, all things occur at once thereotically so the back to back runs of systems are all occurring simultaneously, and there are infinite parallel earths consequently.

The you that can astrally project out of the vehicle you're driving is the real you.

And there is a purpose to your life here, your in a duality school and need to learn to love. For Soul progresses, and all in teh Beyond are united in the highest degree of love.

But in infinity there is not One, there are infinite rays of consciosness ever progressing, all globally equal to the infinity itself, for they are infinite, without beginning or ending, where the One is Infinity or the Love between us.

Its a very big/infinite concept, and the most wondeful thing you can ever think of.

Also "time".

If you took a biobot today and programmed him to experience your day in 15 mintues, you would disappear from site, to you, he would be moving in extreme slow motions or standing still. Since all is recorded, Higher Ups read our lives like a magazine, or a dvd, for all is recorded, forever. We should try to eliminate the bloopers and shameful moments on the recording, and try to be heros of love instead.

[edit on 2-9-2010 by Unity_99]

reply to post by The Endtime Warrior


I agree with you in the statement that the scientist is fallible and can be corrupted by Bias. The Experiment and the result are not. Data speaks for itself. Data is not the Scientists opinion or his beliefs. It simply is.

reply to post by idonotcollectstamps


yes I happen to be a believer of the scientific method....
I'm glad you got the point I was trying to make

reply to post by Unity_99


Can you provide some evidence or support of any of your claims? Because much of your claims rely on things unrecognized by science and vague terms such as "soul" and "higher self". How is anyone to know this isn't some stuff you just made up?

I really can't believe the ignorance in this thread.

So you know better than, and are judging, one of the leading scientists of our time based on one paragraph quoted in an article?

Give me a break. Read the frigging book and then come back with your opinions.

'God' is a label that humans invented that actually means 'the reason' or 'the answer'. It is used to explain the things we can not explain.

It does not make sense to people to think that something has always been there. That is a limitation in the understanding not he fault of the universe.

It really is simple. We form concepts as a result of our limited view of the universe. These concepts are just that, ideas that seem work and make sense. They can in no way be proven as more than that. If an idea or concept comes along that does not fit within this system of understanding then it is assumed incorrect. This is not so. It could be the understanding that is limited.

Maybe we did just appear from nothing. I can not understand it but it does not mean it is not so. It only means the way my brain functions is incapable of understanding that.

Just how egotistical is it to assume that the whole of the seen and unseen universe can be captured into the human mind? Apes do not even understand basic chemistry.

[edit on 2-9-2010 by Pentothal]

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


You can search for evidence of the holographic universe yourself, and contemplate what Infinity means yourself as well. I do have a thread in my signature about the Holgraphic Universe, in my signature, that I made after my downloads, and in fact after discussing infinity with my son, because I realized that once you start contemplating the right concepts, and really study nature, cause and effect, and what heals and transforms lives---LOVE --- you can actually start to figure it all out.

But what doesnt make sense is what scientists are clinging to, creation of something out of nothing, finite-ism, in an infinity system, and while there is evidence of hologram and matrix, and in fact, there is no proof of any matter surrounding you whatsoever and they've wrapping their minds around that one for a long time, for inside atoms are quarks and inside those are strings, and strings are only exotic streams of energy, coded energy streams.

Once you hit on the key points, logic starts to tell you the rest, and your own soul/Higher Self can boost if you are loving enough, they operate on the love frequency.

They havnt figured infinity into the picture, and as a platform everything in it is infinite.

In a free will duliaty system, you get sent back as well, and your level of frequency, thoughts and actions, determine your next world, your creating your next existence now. And you can also be sent back like Groundhog Day the movie literally, repeating. Which reminds me of a strange converstation a young bloodline member from Indonesia had with me when he said we'd had this converstation 4 or 5 times already, and this time I would be OK, but he wouldn't. I didn't understand in the least what he meant, but he wrote because of my ufology posts.

The stars are the projectors in, they very in size, relate to orbits and time. We have a standard low level one, so we wouldnt be seeing advanced ets, but they'd see us in slow motion or standing still even. Stars also relate to collective consciousness, and if something happens, cosmically it would be akin to law of consequence. This planet is controlled by a pryamid system of abusers, with horrendous wars and suffering, its extremely negative. People here are in a kind of reform school.

Stars like our suns are not objects worthy of worship, they're programs in the system too, and you wouldnt worship a phone would you? But value it, enormously, yes!!!!

Google hologrpahic universe, and also holographs in general, ask yourself what represents the lasers/projectors in this system. Infinity is something you either have teh capapicity to grasp yourself, what it means to be in an infinity system ----The Neverending Story ---- or not. I grasped it instantly, in fact before I contemplated someone kept talking about infinity and it stirred the pot enormously for me for I knew it was the key issue, and seemed to already know it meant something significant, as if I could almost remember.

Originally posted by Unity_99
You can search for evidence of the holographic universe yourself,

I am aware of the holographic universe hypothesis.

But what doesnt make sense is what scientists are clinging to, creation of something out of nothing

I don't believe scientists are clinging to any such theory.

Once you hit on the key points, logic starts to tell you the rest, and your own soul/Higher Self can boost if you are loving enough, they operate on the love frequency.

Here's where you need to start providing some evidence. If you arrive at the notion of souls, higher self and "love frequency" because your "logic told you the rest", then you're simply making things up.

They havnt figured infinity into the picture, and as a platform everything in it is infinite.

Science routinely incorporates the concept of infinity.

In a free will duliaty system, you get sent back as well, and your level of frequency, thoughts and actions, determine your next world, your creating your next existence now. And you can also be sent back like Groundhog Day the movie literally, repeating.

Prove it. Prove there is a "free will duality system" and that it's not say, a plurailty. Prove that we get sent back and can repeat literally.

Google hologrpahic universe, and also holographs in general, ask yourself what represents the lasers/projectors in this system.

No offense but are you sure you understand the holographic universe hypothesis?

Look, it seems fairly clear that much of this is stuff you've made up. That's fine because that's all that religion and deities tend to be: stuff we made up. Either admit that outright or provide some proof and evidence of these esoteric concepts you keep espousing.

What I find extremely interesting is how scientists talk of matter just appearing, whilst many of them realize evidence exists for a holographic universe and that everything is Quantum, and matter isn't real to begin with. Most must understand its a signal broadcasting in, and a rather mysterious organic creation all at the same time, a bit like Horton Hears a Who no doubt, where an infinty was within a fluffball, and if they can contemplate infinity at all they must realize even a grain of sand contains a potential infinity. All we're seeing is on a projector in our minds.

But when they study something appearing in the cosmos, they are studying an effect, not a cause. And they call the effects the causes. They themselves must realize the outcome is not equivalent to the action predetermining it.

They've determined that studying the effect, labeling it as cause, is a fact, instead of the poorly thought, malformed theory it really is.
When Infinity Rocks!!!! And is the foundation to everything!

[edit on 2-9-2010 by Unity_99]

Stephen Hawking is getting ahead of himself.

I mean to say, that he is working his science on his own terms, this is this for that because this is there.

Whenever the word god is used in an argument the argument is null because there is no contextual definition of god.

[edit on 2-9-2010 by depth om]

Originally posted by CynicalM
reply to post by woodwardjnr

 

“Because there is a law such as gravity

Last I heard no one could really explain gravity..

Pretty much sums up his book as nothing more than fiction..

Like, who knows for sure what happened 10,000 years ago, let alone a few billion years or more???

I'm getting pretty tired of this know it all. I wasn't aware that Hawking had become a full fledged Beatle. Yawn, there is no God, according to a guy who believes in gravity and the big bang.

While contemplating infinity, "time"/No Time, and holographic universe, with "time" being a program in the body suit, related to orbit around star, one should also ask themselves, in a metaphorical though somewhat real computer system, what kind of program is gravity?

Time and gravity seem to relate to order out of chaos. Is gravity just a needed graph, to sort out the layout of the energy we pick up in our brains, the centers that deal with energy recognition? Ie. the signal comes in, energy waves, from our senses, and is organized by an inner software program and sorted onto a screen, that we think is real, and its spacially placed with perspective.

Gravity is?

Totally agree with hawking,
the universe has no begining and no end,
the universe constantly creates and destroys matter in an infinite cycle.
The Universe is God Manfested.

God can't be outside of it's own creation,
God is his own creation.

Any post with Stephen Hawkings is wasted on ATS because he will be attacked for relying on evidence instead of speculation and faith.

Originally posted by hippomchippo
Any post with Stephen Hawkings is wasted on ATS because he will be attacked for relying on evidence instead of speculation and faith.

There are many posts here on ATS with Stephen Hawking’s that are sorely not wasted, but there are of course ATS members who have different views and opinions about his sayings.

And there is nothing wrong with that in my opinion.

May I ask you on what evidence he is relying in this case saying:

God was not needed for the creation of the Universe.

[edit on 2/9/10 by spacevisitor]

reply to post by spacevisitor


Yea it's like he's floating in some lofty realm where he sees the absolutes of all notions, and by peering into the void of mind he "knows" "god" "was not needed" for creation of the universe.

Cmon steve, let's come back down to earth buddy.

Originally posted by depth om
reply to post by spacevisitor

 

Yea it's like he's floating in some lofty realm where he sees the absolutes of all notions, and by peering into the void of mind he "knows" "god" "was not needed" for creation of the universe.

Cmon steve, let's come back down to earth buddy.

What exactly is wrong with his concept? Everything in the observable universe is explainable without the need to invoke deities. Why would we need one to explain the beginning of the universe? If we do, where is the evidence for this deity, how is it defined and how can we test it?

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by depth om
reply to post by spacevisitor

 

Yea it's like he's floating in some lofty realm where he sees the absolutes of all notions, and by peering into the void of mind he "knows" "god" "was not needed" for creation of the universe.

Cmon steve, let's come back down to earth buddy.

What exactly is wrong with his concept? Everything in the observable universe is explainable without the need to invoke deities. Why would we need one to explain the beginning of the universe? If we do, where is the evidence for this deity, how is it defined and how can we test it?

What is god, you can't use a term that there is no definition for.

edit, I'd like to see steves definition.

lol bearded cloud man?

[edit on 2-9-2010 by depth om]