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: 16
29
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Little does he know, He is God. All is one. You'll wake up soon enough. & if our consciousness doesn't exist after death then thats fine too. Being open minded means accepting all possibilities within what I call this grand illusion.




posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Confusion42
 


God is a term that expresses some separate omniscient entity calling the shots; the very word causes "god" to be limited. "The one supreme ruler".

I choose Creator, because I'm speaking of the Creation as well; both are inseparable.

I also explained more of Infinity/Creator in an earlier post.

[edit on 3-9-2010 by 11118]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11118



The only explanation is that there no such thing as linear time but simply a present not a past nor a future.

Meaning quite literally, that Infinity never begin nor will end but has always existed in a present state. The Creator (which is us included) has always existed in a present state.

This sounds good, but you still can't really comprehend it. Doesn;t really do us any good to be able to say it but not actually make it work in our minds.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by 11118
 


To think of nothing is to clear your mind of all thoughts. If I do this successfully, I cannot describe it because as soon as I did I wouldn't be thinking about it anymore. Nothing is just the absence of something. Like I said, who has actually seen or experienced nothing, and is qualified to describe it?



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jrmcleod
Is it just me or is anyone else getting slightly fed up with Mr Hawking trying to be the smartest guy on the planet with answers to everything about the universe? And whats worse is that most sheeple believe him.

I pose this question to Mr Hawkings...

PROVE IT!


hes trying to....lots of people are....his theories are strongly based on facts and observations.

the big bang theory is based on the FACT and OBSERVATION the universe is moving appart.
and the FACT that when you reverse the movements of universal objects you come to the conclusion they all originated from one single point.

this creates the theory of there once being a HUGE amount of energy released from that singular point. hense the big bang theory.

hes doing a LOT more than your doing to prove how we got here why dont you study the universe like he has, discover facts and arrive at your own theories?? or are you one of those religious fools who just say god.

theres far more proof in what he says that what the bible says...im thinking your either slightly jealous of his incredible mind or are just a moron.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
All I can say is WOW..............

I wouldn't make a good super genius with access to the world stage. If my mind came to that conclusion, I would just kinda sit on it I think.

A person of faith might think that Stephen Hawking has just promoted himself from "really smart guy" to "False prophet" overnight.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Khaaaaaan!!
 


Thing is, even the best and brightest get it wrong from time to time. That is to be expected, almost hoped for. But coming out with outlandish or controversial ideas and theories is how we move forward. Because people immediatly start trying to debunk and possibly come back with better answers. The idea that the world was round was considered silly at one point too. Now we're really glad somebody had that idea and ran with it despite the ridicule (to put it mildly)



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   
How far can you scientifically explain away the unexplainable before you realize that something has to come from nothing?

I think we're also making assumptions about the very word "god". It has a different meaning for everybody. My own personal adaptation is that everything in this universe is born out of the same consciousness - which leads us to the absolute - that we are all facets of god "pretending" to experience for the first time. If this is true, all science, mathematics, even world religions have been provided by the original source (i.e. god or whatever we're calling it).



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Snarf
so the idea of "God" is too far fetched, but the idea of 11 dimensions and invisible strings is not?


Hawking is, and always has been, a total idiot.

People call him brilliant because he is a cripple. Put his ideas and philosophies in the body of a normal man, and NOBODY pays attention.


I'm replying to this before i've read the rest of the thread just due to the absurdity of it. I've been to Hawking's lectures, i've spoken to him face to face. As a physicist I tell you right now he is a brilliant mind.

His disability has nothing to do with his status among the scientific world just as Einstein, De Broglie, Heisenberg, Newton et al were recognised as the brilliant minds they are with their able bodies.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
To say god didnt create the universe is contradictory to the universe and ever thing in it, even more contradictory to say we dont need god to create.
People to be enlightened on the GOD concept.

"Any intelligent fool can make this bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes the touch of a genius (and a lot of courage) to move in the opposite direction." quote from Albert Einstein



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 02:20 PM
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. The idea is that the creation of the Universe was an inevitable consequence of the natural order of nature. In a broad sense you could term the law and order of nature God.

I agree that it's rather premature to claim one way or the other that there is or isn't a god or gods but Stephen Hawking is entitled to his opinion


I think it's more like "what created nature" "what created the rules that made this a natural process."



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Confusion42
Now your talking about semantics.


Yes and no. There is a big difference between explain and describe.


Originally posted by Confusion42
Using math to explain things helps describe things just like using math to describe things explains things.


Again, math doesn't explain anything, it only describes.

You can't explain purpose with math.

You can describe a car with math equations, but you can't explain the purpose of a car with math equations alone.

...and also the famous quote from Albert Einstein;


"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."




Originally posted by Confusion42
Next up: Are you trying to say that everything you know and don't know is a fraction of the whole Universe? That make's no sense.


It makes perfect sense, just not to you.

"Everything that is known and unknown" is a statement of the infinite. The infinite is the whole, and any portion of the infinite is finite and only a fraction of the whole. All things are fraction of a whole, so the sum of all things is one whole.


Originally posted by Confusion42
Everything that you know and do NOT know does equal the Universe (we all know very little; but what we do NOT know is the rest of the Universe)


You just agreed that sum of all is one. I don't think you realize it.


Originally posted by Confusion42
This has nothing to do with no Creator much less proofs one even needs to exist.....


Conversations stray off topic in order to make a point. You originally asked questions and I answered them. Why would you ask questions that are off topic, then tell me it has nothing to do with the subject? Don't answer this.

Anyway... It's hard to debate about God when nobody can agree on the definition of God. It's hard to disprove or prove something when you have no solid description of what to prove. Like trying to make a goal with no goal posts!

People constantly grab every single description (ridiculous and reasonable) that has ever been attributed to God, and then use that to disprove God, and that is not logical in any sense. Many people see God in different ways, and not all people hold the same beliefs.

I was merely pointing out that God is another name for the Universe in many religions. It is irrelevant if God is conscious or not, or purposely created us or not, or even can think or not. What is relevant is that the Universe is responsible for sustaining life, and played a major role in all of our creation. The Universe is our mother/father, and that itself is a valid reason to call it God, and is a valid means of proof of a God (of that definition).

Just look up God in the dictionary...
dictionary.reference.com...

The first simple definition;


–noun 1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe


The Universe (according to Hawking) was created by gravity, a force. Gravity rules (via laws) over the universe, and everything. Gravity is described as space and time, and is in a state of "being" and creates beings. How does Hawking know that gravity isn't God or a part of God? He doesn't... but is is possible? Yes.

I think it's time people describe and define God in a simple way... and try to avoid mashing all the definitions from all the different religions into one. That is near impossible for the people who mock God though.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by illumin8ed
 


How do I do quote by quote answers like you just did here (I am new to ATS; I see the quote by quote method being used by all and I need it to address everything)...

Everything KNOWN and UN-KNOWN does equal everything. Doesn't mean its "One."

Or "God."

How you derive that?

Either way, your using math to explain a higher deity....

Didn't you say, "Math doesn't explain anything"?

____

What you go on to say is, basically, the Universe = God ... This is actually called "spinoza's God"


If this is true than our viewpoints are indeed more identical than we both might realize



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by yellowcard

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. The idea is that the creation of the Universe was an inevitable consequence of the natural order of nature. In a broad sense you could term the law and order of nature God.

I agree that it's rather premature to claim one way or the other that there is or isn't a god or gods but Stephen Hawking is entitled to his opinion


I think it's more like "what created nature" "what created the rules that made this a natural process."


The idea is that there is a Multi-Verse. There are an infinite amount of Universes as well as differing Laws of Physics for all the Universes.

From this there must arise Life; it's bound to happen even if the conditions of life are rare because there are Infinite Universes with Infinite Laws of Physics....


_________

Hey, its a work in progress.


Better than the lazy view of "God is answer to every question."



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gigatronix
No, nothing is the absence of anything, giving it a name or describing it doesn't turn it into something.


Giving WHAT a name? Something that doesn't exist? How can nothingness exist and not exist at the same time?

I disagree, giving something a name and describing it means it exists in some form, even if it is just a concept, idea, thought, etc., and not physical. Just the concept alone is "something".

How can you not understand that nothingness, the absence of anything, is something? You can't have an absence of something, unless something existed to begin with. The two concepts go hand in hand.

Nothing and Something are concepts that can't be separated. One can't exist without the other. It's really easy to understand.

You can NEVER have nothingness.

Just like you can't have "rich" unless "poor" exists. You can't have "nothing" unless there is "something" to be absent.


Originally posted by Gigatronix
How can you say its a place when you can't go there? How can you call something an area when you have no means to measure the perimeter of somethign thats not there, youd have to measure the edges of "something" compare it withe measurements and location of another similar "something" then verify that there is absolutely nothing in between. then you might know what the "area" of nothing is.


When I said place, I meant point of reference.

How can you say nothingness exists at all? If it only exists as a concept, then it doesn't exist in reality. However since it exists as a concept, it is something, it's a concept. Who created the concept of nothingness?

You are contradicting yourself and you don't realize it.

So what are you implying here? That from "nothing" came "something" and that "something" was a giant infinite place? Who created the place? Where did it come from?

Also, according to laws of science, nothing can be created or destroyed. That implies all energy always existed in one form or another, so there was never "nothing".



Originally posted by Gigatronix
Everyone, raise your hand if you've ever seen nothing, let alone been to it.


I've never seen nothing, because it doesn't exist. It's a lie.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Confusion42
How do I do quote by quote answers like you just did here (I am new to ATS; I see the quote by quote method being used by all and I need it to address everything)...


You type the quote tags your self. Copy and paste them at least.


Originally posted by Confusion42
Everything KNOWN and UN-KNOWN does equal everything. Doesn't mean its "One."


There is only ONE Universe. Everything that becomes known becomes a part of the Universe.

It's simple to visualize... Image you see yourself in 3rd person, and you are looking down on yourself. Now zoom out so you see the entire Earth. Now zoom out more so you see the entire solar system. Zoom out more so you can see the entire galaxy. Now keep zooming out until you reach the end of the Universe (if there is one). All things would appear as ONE, because all of it IS ONE.

All things are connected. That is a scientific fact. All things are made of energy, and according to science all energy came from the same source.

According to most science, all things were once ONE, and then it exploded...

There are many ways for me to prove that ALL IS ONE object.


Originally posted by Confusion42
Or "God."

How you derive that?


If it wasn't for ALL, I wouldn't exist. All is responsible for my creation. All rules All, and nothing else can rule All. These are all facts from logic which describe what many would call God.


Originally posted by Confusion42
Either way, your using math to explain a higher deity....

Didn't you say, "Math doesn't explain anything"?


I am not using math to explain anything. I was using math to describe it.

I said "Math doesn't explain anything, it only describes it."




Originally posted by Confusion42
What you go on to say is, basically, the Universe = God ... This is actually called "spinoza's God"


No it's called The ALL.
en.wikipedia.org...

Also known as;
en.wikipedia.org...
and...
en.wikipedia.org...

It existed long, long, long before Spinoza existed.


Originally posted by Confusion42
If this is true than our viewpoints are indeed more identical than we both might realize



I don't even know your viewpoint.

[edit on 3-9-2010 by illumin8ed]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   
yes but in order to explain anything you will use descriptions , they are linked entirely

You can explain and describe the purpose of a car with maths .

the purpose is to travel from A to B ,

faster than walking ,running, cycling , or riding a horse.

equations of vectors and motion


Regarding your einstein quote!
Uncertainty certainly wasnt his perfect reality
Whether we can agree on a definition of GOD or not , it is still a human concept , as much as knowledge is a human concept that we cannot agree on an exact defintion.

We should not start calling the universe GOD no matter what major religions say, otherwise we would have multiple gods in multiple dimensions , are they all a part to play in giving us life ?

[edit on 3-9-2010 by sapien82]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by illumin8ed
 


Indeed, you do not know my viewpoint
(no one here does, hehe)


Ok, you assume theres only One Universe.....



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Confusion42
Ok, you assume theres only One Universe.....


No I don't assume. By common definition, there is only one.

en.wikipedia.org...


The universe is commonly defined as the totality of everything that exists,[1] including all physical matter and energy, the planets, stars, galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space,[2][3] although this usage may differ with the context (see definitions, below).


So even if there was "other universes", they would all fall under the category of "everything that exists", and would still be labeled as part of the "Universe".

Uni = One

Dictionary of Word Origins by John Ayto;


"Universe denotes etymologically 'turned into one,' hence 'whole, indivisible.' It goes back ultimately to Latin universus 'whole, entire,' a compound adjective formed from unus 'one' and versus, the past participle vertere 'turn.' Its neuter form, universum, was used as a noun meaning the 'whole world' (based on the model of Greek to holon 'the whole'), and this passed into English via Old French univers. The Latin derivative universalis gave English universal."





[edit on 3-9-2010 by illumin8ed]



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

Originally posted by illumin8ed

Originally posted by Confusion42
Everything we KNOW in the universe CAN be explained my math.






Originally posted by Confusion42
Next; How did you get the sum of ONE from the sum of what is known and unknown?


ALL that which is known and unknown is only a fraction of the whole Universe. The summation of these fractions will always equal one whole.



[edit on 3-9-2010 by illumin8ed]






There yo go , your using descriptions to explain your opinion , and using maths to show this



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join