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: 19
29
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 12:28 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 01:45 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 


actually i had work to do thatnk you very much! this is just for "down" time!

let me be the intelligent one here and say that this argument is mute why? b/c 1 we dont even know if big bangs happened we dont even know that dense balls of energy existed...so to say i'm wrong or your wrong is pretty wrong in itself!

what we can say is maybe maybe not!

but i look toward the evidence and evidence suggests that number 1 these dense balls were dense beyond our imagination if existed witheheld everything within our universe which a star does that in its own right...

so with this being said super dense stars that were compacted with some HYDROGEN could have existed and been the cause of super massive blackholes!

stars are POWERPLANTS...these dense balls of energy could be a verison of a star that we know nothing about so to say that they couldnt be stars is ignorant..obviously your having trouble handling the idea that someone has come along and using existing knowledge came up with an answer for something most struggle with

sorry but no matter what is said mute argument...so if you want to keep it going thats fine but i've made my point...



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla

Originally posted by metalholic
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 


ok so tell the world what the dense ball of energy was! what is the technical term for it?

well seeing as how hydrogen is the only thing IN YOUR PERCEPTION that separates it from a star...and in MY PERCEPTION jus b/c what we think we know is what we currently know does NOT mean that the dense energy in the beginning could not be a star!

if each black hole is the creation of a super nova and there are galaxies rotating with these black holes then this means there were multiple big bangs and if these multiple big bangs left BLACK HOLES that each galaxy rotates!

and everything within the galaxy was RELEASED in a SUPER NOVA on grander scale "big Bangs" then the dense energy was in fact STARS!

comprehendae?


A black hole isn't created BY a supernova.

It is created from the un-ejected mass after a supernova going under gravitational collapse.

You clearly don't know enough about this subject if you tell me a black hole is the CREATION of SUPERNOVA.

Galaxies are created by collections of mass, and a lot of primordial black holes, with some dark matter.

AS all the primordial black holes rotate then the as it gets larger must also rotate.

The center is what we call a galactic nuclei.

You should stop going to wiki for sources. I mean come on.....


sorry bub but uhh..Several types of supernovae exist. Types I and II can be triggered in one of two ways, either turning off or suddenly turning on the production of energy through nuclear fusion. After the core of an aging massive star ceases generating energy from nuclear fusion, it may undergo sudden gravitational collapse into a neutron star or black hole, releasing gravitational potential energy that heats and expels the star's outer layers.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 


Gentill Abdulla

Member


Registered: 20-1-2010
Location:

Member was on ATS
33 minutes ago.

where'd ya go? realise how stupid this argument is? being that we are arguing about a theory that is based off other theories and that neither one of us including the guys who came up with the theories that we use to support our theories bascially know jack about the universe...thought so!!!!



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 01:57 AM
link   
Science and religion has always been arguing about how everything began by providing their sides as fact. However, it's all just theory. Unless someone can build a proverbial time machine and go back in time to check things out, it's all just a bunch of theory (speculation).



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 02:48 AM
link   
Perhaps Stephen Hawking can explain how the 'nothing' came to be that preceeded spontaneous creation?
I also wonder if some supreme being may have created spontaneous creation?
The only thing we really know is that we don't know.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unregistered
Science and religion has always been arguing about how everything began by providing their sides as fact. However, it's all just theory. Unless someone can build a proverbial time machine and go back in time to check things out, it's all just a bunch of theory (speculation).


Actually, that's not true either. You would have to go back in time, personally, and see it with your own eyes, and then have to be assured somehow scientifically that what you saw wasn't a delusion in order to know.

Point is, no matter what, we're all going to have to trust someone's word. Where your trust goes shows how you think, though, and anyone who doesn't think the same way will be totally against your way of thinking.

Basically, nobody can "win", and it's pretty unlikely that there will ever be a consensus. I wonder very often whether there is any point to discussing it at all. How likely do you think it would be that by the time the generational pendulum swings to a greatly atheist majority, belief will start to ferment and underdog itself back into mainstream, then back again. Humans just need something to adverse themselves toward each other with.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unregistered
Unless someone can build a proverbial time machine and go back in time to check things out, it's all just a bunch of theory (speculation).




Do you live your life like that?

Do you see a mountain and say: "No one really knows how that got there"? If you see a tree, do you think: "it may have grown from a seed, but without going back to check, no one will ever know for sure "? When the newspaper appears at your door in the morning, do you refuse to believe that the paperboy brought it *unless you actually saw him* on the grounds that doing so would be pure speculation?

Or do you make and accept theories to explain these occurrences, based on past observation, known physical laws, behavior, and so on?



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 04:38 AM
link   
You make your own Christianity

Caution Strong Language



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 05:53 AM
link   
He's definately entitled to his opinioin, but he really shouldn't present it as 'fact'. Truth is, he doesn't have all the information and therefore can't come to such a conclusion. Sorry Mr. Hawking .. you aren't as smart as people have given you credit for.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by femeile mironosite
 


Accusing him of working with the devil just makes Christians look crazy. Not all people who disagree with you are working with the devil.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 06:41 AM
link   
Fact is, Mr Hawking is not as smart as everyone seemed to think.
Gravity is but a part of the mystery of Creation, not the Creator.

I know Gravity stood in the nothing and said I AM.

Really gravity is a by product of Creation, in the One becoming many, gravity manifest.

If you were only one thing and were everything, why would you even need gravity.

This would also explain why the Higgs Bosom is truly the God particule, in that it is.

This would also mean at time just before Big Bang, there were no great pressures in play, as the Universe was as at rest to say, complete. Neither large nor small but taking up the entire Univese even then nonthe less. All the dynamic energies in play, are really just the result of the Universe desire to become at rest once again.

This would also explain the mutiple Univese theory, as the Univese Banged it would comtinue to Bang until all possible out comes have occurred, and also of having Banged into it's original perfect state, as it was and always will be.


[edit on 4-9-2010 by googolplex]



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   
gods foundation is conciousness. His essence is the perfected (W)holy wisdom of love. God is one. we are one. god is in all things. intangible, formless. thats my "theory"



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   
gravity is still an idea.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 08:29 AM
link   
I am amazed that such a brilliant man doesn't see the logical absurdity in his statement, "“Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing.” How does something get created from nothing? If there is nothing then there is no gravity so the laws of gravity don't apply. Nor do the laws of gravity explain the development of life. We are to believe that there was a spontaneous eruption of creation otu nothing? That is as absurd as believing it's turtles all the way. I have no idea how it all started but hawkings doesn't tell us anything. We're like fish in a fishbowl looking out and trying to explain what is outside the fish bowl.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe


www.cnn.com

Hawking says in his book "The Grand Design" that, given the existence of gravity, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing,"

"Spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,"

His answer is "M-theory," which, he says, posits 11 space-time dimensions, "vibrating strings, ... point particles, two-dimensional membranes, three-dimensional blobs and other objects that are more difficult to picture and occupy even
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


I've been getting back into the whole 'proper application of science' recently (following some stunning fails in my encounters here on ATS, which some readers may be familiar with).

Here's what I've learned so far:

Inductive reasoning (prediction-centred development of knowledge) cannot be relied upon to induce anything true; see Bertrand Russell's chicken theory
Moral of the tale? Diametrically opposed theories can come about through the same observations.

Inductivism = observe / form theory / observe more / observations justify theory


Karl Popper's explanation-centred, or 'problem-solving' method of scientific reasoning provides us with a better framework within which to operate.

Problem-Solving = problem / conjectured solutions / criticism (inc. experimental testing) / replacement of erroneous theories / new problem.

So my question is - can the Big Bang be considered fully 'tested' as a theory? I know there's efforts to recreate the conditions (at CERN and whatnot), but what evidence is there that it's acceptable as a theory?

If there are holes in the predictions that such a theory makes concerning what we should expect to see in the universe around us, then the Big Bang shouldn't be used as the basis for further conjecture?

We should instead be smoothing out the kinks in our 'best available' theory. Someone else has said it's 'bad science' to speculate on the need or otherwise for God. According to Popper's model then yes, it would seem to be the case - he's taking steps that aren't yet warranted.

ALERT - NON-SCIENTIFIC MOMENT APPROACHING: My intuition (or humble opinion if you will) is that the mythology of Kabbalah squares the presence of God with the Big Bang.

PS - something else that fascinates me - Solipsism cannot be logically disproved by human reasoning... Go figure!

If any of you have read 'The Fabric of Reality' by David Deutsch, you may have noticed that I've paraphrased much of my post from his work. So it's not plagiarism, as I've given him the nod. My own thoughts are mixed up in there too. Great book so far - I'm only halfway through it.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   
It kind of just looks like we keep repeating the same sequence. Start at the atomic level (though, odds are it keeps going smaller) and move out. Everything is a repeat of the same idea.

The idea? ...CIRCLES

Everything is round, going around other round things to make a bigger round circle that some where is adding to an even larger round circle.

I'm guess we're just here for the ride and purpose need not exist. Though it could. Certainly God is in the mix. In my opinion, God is the sum of the universe, which seems logical and spiritual at the same time. It doesn't sound scientific, however. It sounds like "arte por arte" or art for art's sake. At any rate, science is always chopping things up into disciplines when life is "interdisciplinary" and messy. You can't explain the universe with physics alone, just like I can't explain your whole body with mathematical ratios.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Wow... how surprising to read such major LOGIC FLAW coming for someone who's supposed to be one of the most brillant living scientists on the planet!

The flaw?

Matter cannot simply come out of NOTHING, such as movement cannot come out of total inertia. It's like saying 0+0=1, or 2+2=5. Unless he has some groundreaking principle that explains it- which I don't find in here- it's just plain, shameful, nonsense.

That's as religious as believing some superior entity created the whole thing out of nothingness.... well actaully that's the very same idea, minus the supreme entity in question.

Shame on you, Hawkins. You are shooting your own foot, or wheelchair!



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sphota
It kind of just looks like we keep repeating the same sequence. Start at the atomic level (though, odds are it keeps going smaller) and move out. Everything is a repeat of the same idea.

The idea? ...CIRCLES

Everything is round, going around other round things to make a bigger round circle that some where is adding to an even larger round circle.

I'm guess we're just here for the ride and purpose need not exist. Though it could. Certainly God is in the mix. In my opinion, God is the sum of the universe, which seems logical and spiritual at the same time. It doesn't sound scientific, however. It sounds like "arte por arte" or art for art's sake. At any rate, science is always chopping things up into disciplines when life is "interdisciplinary" and messy. You can't explain the universe with physics alone, just like I can't explain your whole body with mathematical ratios.



But where these "circles" and curves come from??? That explains nothing, since they cannot just come out of nothingness. Rethink your claims.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join