It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

page: 10
29
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Djin

Needless to say "Banana Man" et al will have to actually read a little or fall back on the good old "It's all a matter of faith" trick



LOL. That's classic creationism. I also like the one where the guy disproves evolution because peanut butter doesn't create new life even when the lights in the grocery store are on!




posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 01:16 AM
link   
1. There is absolutely no scientific proof for "nothing". Only the potential for nothing exists, which in a Multiverse theory, could be anything. So saying everything arose from "nothing" is just as much grounded in fantasy as the theory of a bearded guy in another dimension.

2. 0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by enduser
btw i believe that there is more to the universe than meets the eye however, i fail to believe in the god of the bible!


Good for you. Believe it or not. God would still exist if the Bible didn't, because the Universe, which created all, would still exist, and people would still name it God.


Originally posted by enduser
actually, seeing as you have god in front of you, please ask how god was created? yeah yeah i know, we dont need to know, easy cop out for you religious folk


I'm not a cop out. Insulting me for having wisdom is not wise, and is easy for you atheists.

Believe it or not, but scientists are asking God that question, and God is showing them.

So far, science has found that God's body might have came from a big bang. However there is a major flaw in science. They base all their science off of observations. When they realize that they are blind to many aspects of the universe, they will then realize they will never find the ultimate answer to that question through observation. They will then have to resort to math, however, math is just mental logic a.k.a. a form of philosophy. So it all comes down to philosophy.

God always existed, but God's body didn't always exist. God existed as a concept first (because God is everything, not just physical stuff). The concept of "existence VS non-existence" always existed, and was most probably what started all the physical.

Existence cancels non-existence, and non-existence cancels existence, but they can't cancel each other out because they are concepts that will always exist. It's a battle between concepts. It's like an infinite spinning loop of conflict.. a never ending paradox. The battle most probably gave birth to the illusion of infinite possibilities.

Science thinks there was nothing (0) a.k.a. non-existence, and from that came something (1) a.k.a. existence. That is wrong... and right... at the same time... a conflict, a paradox.

It's wrong because nothing IS something.

Nothing is actually (1) NOT (0). And Something is (.999...) NOT (1). Everything is an illusion created by nothing and something, both are CONCEPTS of existence and non-existence. Nothing always existed as a CONCEPT, so it was never nothing, it was always something. It always existed. Like I said... a paradox.

All of that, the battle of concepts, is GOD. God always existed as infinite concepts. Those infinite concepts allowed God to create the Universe, God's body.

Science will never prove that "nothing" ever existed.

I don't expect you to understand anything I just said, it's a paradox.


[edit on 3-9-2010 by illumin8ed]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by illumin8ed


Science will never prove that "nothing" ever existed.

[edit on 3-9-2010 by illumin8ed]


Exactly. Nothing does in fact NOT exist. Otherwise we could scientifically and objectively measure it. We can not measure something that does not exist. That's why physicists come up with the Multiverse theory, it makes it possible for nothing to exist OUTSIDE our physical universe. But we can only measure INSIDE our system.

This is quack physics.



[edit on 3-9-2010 by tobiascore]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by EnlightenUp

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
It's not fact, it's a theory.
And I doubt it's true either.


"A theory" is actually quite a strong designation for something that is falsifiable and has a great deal of empirical evidence in support of it as an explanation. If you call it a "theory", scientifically speaking, it's quite a favorable statement.

If you don't think it's true, find something verifiable that it cannot explain that undermines it's basic tenets.


Hawking is arguing a version of String Theory in which there are multiple spacial dimensions wrapped up into one. You're right, it's a "scientific theory", in that it makes predictions about the quantum universe. But there's not a single iota of that theory that CAN be tested at this time. Furthermore, it has ZERO evidence or real-world observation to back it up.

So yes, it's a scientific theory, much like the ether, or Nassim Haramein's theories. Yeah they're all technically testable and thus refutable, but there's a catch - we CAN'T test them until our technology evolves a great deal further. As it stands he has virtually nothing to back up his theories. They're thought provoking but don't directly apply to the real world in any way, yet.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by TarzanBeta
... I did not mean to say that scientists would be so foolish as you believed I was saying. Sorry.
Sorry on my part for the misunderstanding.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by enduser
Come on, be sensible! you are avoiding my points with BS! of course the universe exists and of course i can experience myself, the simple fact that im replying to your ridiculous claims is evidence that i know the universe as well as myself exist! what does that prove? it does not prove that god exists! how old are you?


I'm not avoiding anything. You think it is b.s. because you are not capable of understanding. How old are you? Your lack of understanding is a hint. You are young.

The Universe is God's body. You just proved to yourself the Universe exists. So you just proved that what I know as God, exists.

The Universe, which is all energy and all things, created US. The Universe is our creator. The Universe is God. Its God's body.


Originally posted by enduser
Yeah yeah the universe is god, jesus christ how foolish of me! god only knows why i bother trying to discuss things with fanatics :S


God only knows why I even bother trying to discuss things with people who are not capable of understanding. Maybe some day you will be smart enough, but that's not today.


Originally posted by enduser
The fact you use the word god implies that you have some religious beliefs so i apologise if i have misconstrued your faith/beliefs.


That is a very ignorant thing to say.

Believe it or not, God exists outside of religion! God exists outside of faith/belief.

Why apologize? You are not wise. I forgive you.


Originally posted by enduser

You are so confused it's hilarious to me.

i feel the same way about you oh holy than thou!


You would, because you lack basic knowledge. It's sad...

Your body, made of the same elements found on Earth, and all around the Universe, only exists because of the electrical impulses that allow your cells to divide. You wouldn't be able to experience the universe without your electric impulses that surge through your body. If it wasn't for the electromagnetic properties of these elements and their chemical reactions, you would melt and have no form, and you wouldn't be able to see, smell, touch, taste, feel. The systems in your body such as your respiratory and circulatory and digestive system wouldn't function, and you would die.

All those things your body does, it does it automatically, and it makes YOU exist. YOU believe YOU exist, and all you are is a bunch of moving energy. Till this day, you don't know why all of the functions in your body exist, or what the purpose of them all are. There are things about your body you don't even know, including your brain functions... yet you feel you exist. If you could only see your bodies systems from inside, how could you prove that you exist? You couldn't.

The Earth is made of the same elements you are, and MORE. There are electrical impulses (lightning), and a play of static electricity, and chemical reactions all around. The Earth has systems which regulate and balance itself, and sustain itself, and life, just like you. In fact, the entire Universe is a play of electromagnetic forces, and systems, that sustain itself. All of it create some big system that we are inside of. The body mimics the Universe almost identically, and yet you still deny the idea that you are a part of something greater.

It's pure blind ignorance.


Originally posted by enduser
and with that im not going to continue chasing my tail with religious people because there is literally no point, we can agree to disagree and i shall see you in hell


I don't subscribe to the theories of Hell. However, if I did, I think it's known that all believers of God are saved, and those that don't believe in God go to Hell... So according to those theories... no I will not see you in Hell, you will only see yourself in Hell.

...but like I said, I don't subscribe to those theories so the joke is on you for making a stupid joke.

[edit on 3-9-2010 by illumin8ed]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by DaMod
 


The point isn't that there is no God, its that the Universe could have created itself without one.


Hmm Its not as simple as that I am afraid if you look deeply in to DNA and RNA you would see that the likelihood of us being evolved through chance extremely unlikely. to coin a phrase, it would be like a whirlwind going through a junk yard and assembling a boeing 747 as it passes through

In regards to GOD, the whole notion of believing that one 'supernatural being' created everything that we have become to understand as the 'universe' is completely preposperous and ignorant.

I wonder how many of these deeply religious people in the world have studied in great detail the effects of cells and DNA in the human body? not many I am sure and if you tried to explain to them the unique process of how a human being is created through specific cell division and how the cells know exactly where to go in order to build specific parts of the human body, they would just lash out with their strong beliefs based on nothing but hear say and a book.

Science = Theories



It is a "systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories".


Many of our so called mainstream scientists view many topics within the supernatural as superstition and ridicule the idea that there could be some truth to it. Yet how many of these so called scientists have sat down with shamans around the eastern world and listened to what they have to say on the subject? perhaps the world would be a better place if we all started listening to someone else for a change, instead of being forced to hear the views and beliefs of the western world.

Heres a thought...perhaps the views from the western religious groups that are shoved down peoples throats and preached in the schools and anywhere else it can are wrong

IMHO - My beliefs are set around a multiple amount of 'gods' that are interconnected within the same consciousness - we are all one in the universe.

Its just a ride !









[edit on 3-9-2010 by franspeakfree]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by illumin8ed
 


Cast not your pearls before swine my friend. Remember that they are denying what is self evident in most people. If they deny what thier own heart tells them then you can convince them of nothing. As well, if they will not listen to the prophits then there is no one else that they will listen to.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hot_Wings
reply to post by illumin8ed
 


Cast not your pearls before swine my friend. Remember that they are denying what is self evident in most people. If they deny what thier own heart tells them then you can convince them of nothing. As well, if they will not listen to the prophits then there is no one else that they will listen to.

It's self-evident once you get out of the religious paradigms that are pushed. The fact that the guy thinks God has something to do with religion means he's still stuck in it.

Brainwashed, not swine, at least at this point.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:22 AM
link   
Hmmm, some mud-slinging going on in the thread.. tsk tsk kiddies. Please learn some manners or leave ATS to those who can.

Anyway onto topic....

So many words written in here about God.. based on the Biblical God of Religion.

And yet that Biblical God is not the Universe being spoken of in terms of it's Awareness.

The Biblical God from the Old Testament is the same God in the Torah, it is the same God we find in Genesis, Yes?

So now look at the original texts for Genesis/first book of the Torah and we find we are looking at Sumerian Tablets.. because Sumer is where Babylon was.. and where everything happened prior to the Biblical Flood.

Okay, so what we read is a massive History that shows how much the story has been shortened and edited over those many thousands of years in order to become the small first book of our modern Bible.

We then read about the race that was here and were responsible for the manufacture of Homo Sapien Sapien.. you and me.. modern human beings. And while reading about this we find two brothers.. one the younger who manufactured us.. known as NK, and his older brother who hated him with a vengeance.. known as NL.

Reading on we find that NL who hated his younger brother also hated us humans just as much and wanted us wiped off the earth. He was Vindictive, Oppressive, Fear-demanding, Worship-demanding, Bloodthirsty and was an Ego Maniac.. all the same attributes of the Hebrew God in our Genesis.

Which is why the God of the OT is completely different in nautre to the God Jeshua spoke about and which appears in the New Testament as Loving, Gentle and who desires us to take on our own power to become what we are inside our-Self.

This God, is more like the God/Universe of the New Age Industry.

And what I see in so many of these discussions is confusion over what people mean by God... some offer God as the Biblical one, while others see it as the Universe.

So I thought it time I chirped up and tried to put some perspective on it.

Lastly, please do not jump to the assumption that I am a Sitchin follower.. I am not.. my words are based on my old mentors work for the British Museum in translating the Sumerian Tablets in the early 70's.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaMod
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


It's stated so "as a matter of fact" when it's not definitive proof or disproof. That's bad science.



Actually it fits perfectly with science as science requires evidence for a positive claim, there is no proof of god, therefore there is no god from a scientific standpoint until someone provides evidence. The ignorant reply to this is that there is no proof there is not a god, which is not how science works because if we apply that measure as evidence then everything can be claimed as existing.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by RestingInPieces

LOL. That's classic creationism. I also like the one where the guy disproves evolution because peanut butter doesn't create new life even when the lights in the grocery store are on!


Do NOT mock peanut butter man, he is quite simply awesome, truly some of the best comedy i have ever seen.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia


A rabbi responds


But his finding were described by Sacks as an "elementary fallacy" of logic.

"There is a difference between science and religion. Science is about explanation. Religion is about interpretation. The Bible simply isn't interested in how the universe came into being."

"But there is more to wisdom than science. It cannot tell us why we are here or how we should live. Science masquerading as religion is as unseemly as religion masquerading as science."

www.guardian.co.uk...

This should be interesting because it may spark alot of scientific and philosophical debates, which is a good thing.

I would probably agree with Hawkings though, God is not required to create the universe.

And then the rabbi said the bible doesn't care who created it.
But then why call God the creator then?

www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Actually, the Rabbi DIDN'T say the bible doesn't care who created it. He says it isn't interested in how the universe came into being.
Big bang, light blue touch paper, reproduced by expansion and contraction of a previous universe, etc?
I am certainly no physicist, but (dare I say it,) I find Proffessor Hawking's assertion that the universe created itself out of nothing a little...unscientific. That takes the kind of leap of faith atheists would describe 'theists' as being foolish and irrational for holding to.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 05:46 AM
link   
The mathematical connection between science and ideas shared by the major religions has been recently revealed for the first time by Dr Stephen Phillips, a theoretical physicist. He has studied their sacred geometries and has discovered their possession of amazing, analogous properties that has no conventional explanation. His work, published in a recent book called "The Mathematical Connection between Religion and Science" has found that the sacred geometries known as the Tree of Life (Otz Chiim), Sri Yantra and the five Platonic solids embody identical information about holistic systems like the superstring and RNA. He has discovered in rigorous terms the mathematical meaning of the ancient Hebrew Names of God, like Ehyeh, Elohim & Yahweh, and how they determine the archetypal geometry/number underlying holistic systems. He has accumulated a huge amount of spectacular evidence for the existence of a transcendental Intelligence Whose design has been revealed in the mathematics of superstrings, in the skeleton and DNA of human beings and in many other examples of holistic systems. He has, for example, derived the bone composition of the human skeleton from these sacred geometries. The religious implication of this, alone, is profound.

If some of you are dissatisfied with the sterile rhetoric of arguments about the existence of God and want to move beyond ever-inconclusive philosophical debate to study compelling, amazing, hard evidence that cannot be refuted and which leaves no doubt that God exists, then visit Dr Phillips' website at

smphillips.8m.com...



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 05:54 AM
link   
Hawking may not be correct.

He can however evidence his claims. Can this be said of his opponents?

Some have said that the universe was created when God spoke it into existence. Ok, I thought... I will assume that he exists for the sake of argument. I am willing to take this very large step. How do these people know he has vocal ability? Does he have a mouth etc...? Or was this just a metaphor of sorts? If so what exactly do they mean. Surely it is not acceptable to just make up a story and sit back and say "..well there we have it. Problem solved."

Hawking may be incorrect. He is however trying to explain the universe we find ourselves in. He is not afraid to ask questions or be threatened with eternal torture and damnation for daring to enquire.

[edit on 3-9-2010 by Pentothal]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 06:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Snarf
 


Cosmic background radiation !

Mass

thats just two I can think of , need anything else

how about maths ?

these are all accepted facts and laws

what accepted facts and laws are there that prove the existance of god
although the absence of evidence isnt evidence of absence

religion is a man made thing not based on observation , only assumption that something must have created everything in our world that we could not explain at the time, i.e. the heavens , the elements , animals and us .

However science is based on observation , and results , which are then verified by independant sources , before theories are formulated then peer reviewed , ammended then a LAW is created.





[edit on 3-9-2010 by sapien82]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Pentothal
 


Yes because the last time any religion will damn a man of science as a heretic ended with Galileo



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by sapien82
reply to post by Pentothal
 


Yes because the last time any religion will damn a man of science as a heretic ended with Galileo



What about science damning a man of religion as a heretic? Will that ever end?



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Pentothal
 


You are trying to disprove God because someone said God spoke the Universe into existence?

That is like trying to disprove gravity because Aristotle once believed that heavier objects accelerate faster than lighter objects.


You can't disprove something because of what someone believes about it.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join