It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 17
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:51 PM
reply to post by ModernAcademia

Of course the universe came into being from nothing. I think John 4:24 sums it up pretty nicely.
"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."
What is a Spirit? Well a spirit has no shape,color,texture,smell,weight.No material attributes what so ever.You could say that a spirit is nothing.Nothing at all.Which all Christians know God to be. God is existence!!
I guess you could say that Mr hawking is correct.Thou Doesn't it seem odd that the brightest scientific minds are just now coming to the same conclusion us Jews and Christians have known for thousands of years?

posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:54 PM
reply to post by illumin8ed

Sapien82 is writing and explaining what I apparently am failing to communicate.

Sapien82 thanks

posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:56 PM
reply to post by oliveoil

The Bible doesn't proof anything.......

Well actually it does; That the people that use it as the answer to everything are either lazy to find (or at least try) to find real answers, or they are just ignorant

posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:58 PM
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."

Yes but the ancient greeks didnt have quantum mechanics to help them explain the universe, our greatest minds do.

posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 04:10 PM

Originally posted by Confusion42
reply to post by oliveoil

The Bible doesn't proof anything.......

Well actually it does; That the people that use it as the answer to everything are either lazy to find (or at least try) to find real answers, or they are just ignorant

the bible is proof that humans are good at creating inspiring literature

posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 04:11 PM
reply to post by Confusion42

The bible is not concerned with material "things" in which science studies.The Bible is concerned with non material things such as spirit which science does not study.All Im saying is that Mr Hawking came to a conclusion that Something (the universe) came from nothing( ) Christians call this nothing God. This nothing (GOD) reveled this in the bible. I guess Mr Hawking confirmed this belief.

[edit on 3-9-2010 by oliveoil]

posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 04:37 PM

Originally posted by sapien82
yes but in order to explain anything you will use descriptions , they are linked entirely

No you don't need descriptions in order explain something. Descriptions help, but descriptions alone do not explain anything.

Don't you know the difference between define, describe, and explain?? This is elementary school stuff. Google it...

Here is a start;

Originally posted by sapien82
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

Math doesn't explain things, it only describes.

You can't show, with math, the purpose of a car. Just giving two variables (point A and B) is not math, nor does it explain anything. It's not an equation.

Sure you can use math to describe the speed difference between other forms of transportation, but that is neither purpose or reason. It's just a description of differences.

There is no math equation which explains the purpose for a car. Only you and your words can explain it.

Originally posted by sapien82
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 ?

You just don't make sense anymore, and are ignoring what I say. So I'm done with you. Good day.

posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 04:39 PM

Originally posted by Gigatronix
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?

Yes but there is still something there, your awareness. There is no such thing as something being non-existent in existence. If something is existent it is of existence and can never be other than i.e. non-existent.


The point I'm trying to elucidate upon here is that the Universe/Creation whatever you coin it, is the creator redounds to the very infinite realms of creation forever and ever, creating and creating itself in perpetuity.

I've explained the essence of the Creator/Creation in a relatively large post previously.

Each thing is only superficially that grows, and dies; in a deeper sense there is no end to being-ness.

[edit on 3-9-2010 by 11118]

posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 04:40 PM
reply to post by Confusion42

You just are not wise enough to understand that some answers can only be found with the mind, and logic. Not externally, not in the physical, not with math, nor science.

Science will never explain WHY.... ever.... It will only barely scratch the surface of HOW.

[edit on 3-9-2010 by illumin8ed]

posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 04:43 PM

Originally posted by sapien82
There yo go , your using descriptions to explain your opinion , and using maths to show this


I was explaining my opinion... NOT MATH. I used math to describe something that I was explaining.

Math can not explain, it can only describe. Please do learn the difference.

posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 04:47 PM
I'll have to say I agree with both sides to an extent. I'm not religious, but I guess you can toss me in the spiritual category if you had to. But regardless of whether their is a God or not, the point is we all could use something to define what our morals should be...or as a brilliant pirate once said, it's more of a guideline really....

Who cares if there is a God or not? If there is, and I come face to face with him in the afterlife, I'll simply point out:

"Sorry that I didn't believe...what can I say? I'm not perfect...but you know that, don't you...and also dude, wtf were you thinking when you created Hugh Jackman...what a waste..."

I mean the "Why we're here" would be great to know, but how crazy interesting is it to know the "How"...than we can reverse engineer that, and make a world without Hugh Jackman....

posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 04:58 PM
reply to post by ModernAcademia

If Stephen Hawkings can make the assumption that the universe

created itself. I can make and outlandish assumption that the universe

did not create itself that there was never a beginning that the universe

has always been in existence without a beginning. Now when the

human mind tries to compute this thought process it short circuits.

Imagine no beginning and no end a never ending loop. We as

humans only can compute with our embedded thought process a

beginning and end. ^Y^

[edit on 3-9-2010 by amari]

posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 05:05 PM
Much more entertaining is if we all die and are shocked to find that afterlife is simply reruns of America's Next Top model Season, we were WAY off!

posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 05:10 PM
reply to post by amari

His "assumptions" are modern physics and the accumulation of all physics before it; We (as in me, and / or you) can't make similar assumptions unless we too understand all the physics involved.

Speaking of which; It's probably smarter for me to debate this after reading the new book so that I can understand the context of everything here.

I gotta say; This is one of the best marketing campaigns for a book; It shot up to #1 on Amazon's list.

I think the majority of us in this thread are probably going to buy the book too

posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 05:19 PM
reply to post by ModernAcademia

You have to define what God is first to continue this argument. If God created the primordial soup that could have spontaneously generated the universe. The universe will still be under God’s creation. The problem is you don't know what(who) God is, nor does Stephen Hawking. So this kind of discussion tends to end with no conclusion. Not that it is not interesting.

At least the God defined in the Bible didn't create the universe for sure. The writers of the Bible didn't even know the existence of the dinosaurs.

Why do people still believe the Bible as a scientific talking point? The universe could not have been created in seven days.

posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 05:34 PM
I've mentioned this on other threads and i will say it again.

We are primates, and as such we have a primitive understanding of science.

Most theoretical physicists agree that there are multiple dimensions that we cannot see, accounting for all the dark matter in the universe.

You cannot see what is in those other dimensions. Not a god, but maybe something more intelligent than you?

None of us can say what is out there. The evangelicals preaching of a god are just as stupid as Dawkins preaching there isn't one.

Really? In the cosmic scheme of things, our 'science' is laughable at best.

posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 05:40 PM
It was a bit misunderstood when it was first mentioned, but yeah, trying to understand an infinite universe, with a finite mind....

but not a finite mind per se, objects of finite meaning, ie, words, which, combined into whichever combination you like, will not ever explain you infinity, because their meaning will always be finite,

there are two types of experience, as there are two sides of our brains, logical and shall we say intuitive, one is more difficult to get to understand because it does not deal in words, that isn't to say it doesn't exist, so expecting to explain the universe (and not even an objective universe, as all we can measure is all we can know, and all we can know is all we can experience) which is not all logical, in a thoroughly logical way, is pissing in the wind


“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”

posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 06:37 PM
An actual explanation of all this (actually, it is just an actual, many paragraph excerpt from the new book)

posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 07:52 PM
reply to post by Equinox99

1. the big bang,God said let there be light
2.the planets formed,God said then I created the earth
3.Life started after the planets formed,Then I crated man
hummmmm could science be proving what God has already told us?

posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 09:42 PM

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by galadofwarthethird
Saying the universe was created by gravity, is the same as saying the universe was created by god. Both are unknown in there total scope

It is not the same and here's why
What is gravity?
Gravity is the force or lack thereof that cause us to fall down from a building here on earth and what is absent in space.

People saying that if you don't know what gravity is jump of a building, that's a flawed approach, what they should say an apple will fall on your head here but not in space.

Also if you are on a planet with fluctuating gravity sometimes a rock will be super light and other times it will be incredibly heavy.
Sometimes a pebble will be as heavy as a boulder and if you shoot a gun the bullet might not go so far.

That is gravity.

Now... give me examples of God as I have given you gravity!

See you can't do it, that's why it's completely different.

You CANNOT compare god to gravity, to even attempt to do so is lunacy.

Sorry but wrong replace the word gravity in all that you said with god and it would be the same they are both the unknown. And your concept of god is primitive, because your concept of gravity is primitive. god is a concept for omiscience, omnipotent, omnipresence. Therefore is a unknown factor, gravity is everything that goes up must come down. And yes you can compare god to gravity and even an apple if you so knew how. I reapeat god is much more then a guy with a beard sitting on a cloud. If you think that god is what you heard from religious peoples or you read in a book, then you know nothing of god, religion and the bible has more to do with population's politics, has nothing to do with god or the universe, it's but a human system of control so one group can control another, in this universe. Man is science...God is omni science. Arguing abouth this is pointless, you say if I dont believe in gravity go jump off a building. Or a apple fell on some dudes head and he figured out that things fall...briliant there is nothing new there...cavemen knew that...Gravity is observations of reapeted paterns that have been observed over hundreds of thousands of years by human's, gravity is part of a system that keeps everything together, you could say it's part of the universe, or part of god which is the universe either way its all unknown so therefore both could be right or wrong, all that we are doing is observing and speculating.

[edit on 3-9-2010 by galadofwarthethird]

top topics

<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in