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: 5
29
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 





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


I don't understand how Hawking can make this statement when we still don't know what gravity is, it is just another theory in my opinion, where is the proof?




posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Aquarius1
 


gravity is the magnetic pull between 2 objects objects being any form of anything!



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by metalholic
 


That’s an understatement. What about magnetism and EM force. Or even electro static forces for that matter. They all are fundamental properties of the universe. EM, ES and Gravity. If he says gravity can make the universe, he has to take into consideration of all the other forces.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Maddogkull
 


i'm not worried about that right now they asked what gravity was and i told them! and to think that gravity and the forces you speak of is all there are in the universe is wrong..there is still alot to be discovered...no one here is saying hawking is completely right..but to say hes a "schmuck" "idiot" "ignorant" is ignorance in itself especially if those people believe a guy they never met wrote the bible for a god they never even met! and then to worship jesus as an idol goes against the bible itself! "there shall be no Idols before me"



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by metalholic
reply to post by Aquarius1
 


gravity is the magnetic pull between 2 objects objects being any form of anything!

Thanks I did know that, but the fact is they still don't understand what gravity is.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by metalholic
 


Yeah, you are right there. I already addressed hes a mathematical genius, whoever does not see that has obviously never taken a math course. But the fact that he relies in his own dogma is what messes his opinions up.

[edit on 2-9-2010 by Maddogkull]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Aquarius1
 


well that doesnt make sense to me how could they know its the magnetic pull of 2 objects and not know what it is...i mean thats like me saying that apple is red but i dont know what color it is



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Maddogkull
 


maybe we the people have given him an ego!



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   

One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!


Source: Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), pp. 8-9.]


He's only thinking. It's what thinkers do.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Snarf

There's no jealousy at all. I just think Stephen Hawking is an idiot. He's never proposed one single theory that I find credible in the slightest



Please explain what you don't "find credible in the slightest" about Hawking`s theories on euclidean quantum gravity.

Dont forget to show your work.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   
great discussion, everyone.


the really huge problem with modern physics is that it will forever be attempting to find the ultimate substrate or superstrate.

this is why it is necessary to invoke such ideas as 11 dimensions (superstrate) and higgs boson (substrate). at each level of the system, they simply push CAUSALITY upward or downward to a new level.

the only reason that these theoretical super and sub strates exist is as a matter of explaining away CAUSE! (there may be other uses for invoking a metaphysical dimensional super-structure, but science has only its own objective in mind).


i do not think that mr. hawkings is an idiot, but if he thinks that there can be a purely MECHANICAL and PREDICTABLE explanation for CAUSE (gravity in 11 dimensions, he says), then i must say that i strongly disagree.


ultimately, everything that you need to know about CAUSE can be apprehended directly from your own sensory and cognitive and ontological experience.


physical science is having a real headache looking into the mirror and finding itself staring back out!





posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Aquarius1
 


Good points,

I think Hawking just has a problem with the idea of a personal God and this is his way of lying to himself in order to appease his belief.

He said


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


Like you said, we don't even know what gravity is and how we can unify it with the other forces of nature as well as a theory of quantum gravity.

I was just reading where there's a theory that says gravity is an illusion.

So Hawking just has a problem with the idea of a Personal God and he's trying to use science to sure up his beliefs whatever they may be.

It's no different than saying the wave function of the universe that Hawking says exists, is God because the Wave Function of the Universe is all knowing, all powerful and everywhere at once. The Wave Function of the Universe is also conscious because we can't be something the Wave Function of the universe is not.

It all boils down to belief.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gigatronix

Originally posted by jimmyx
i'm an atheist, and i know that NO HUMAN will ever know how the universe started. i don't know why it is even debated, there can never be any proof.
Please, just stop. You don't KNOW anything. Much less be able to say that there is no way we will ever find the answers we seek. This kind of reasoning is just as bad as the religious person that KNOWS I am going to hell for not believing in God, that KNOWS the earth was created in 6 days.

Take a step back and reevaluate what you believe, because your previous step started with the wrong foot.


Just to make sure you're making your arguments with the right information...
according to Genesis, the earth was created in.....

One day.

What would the timeframe of a day be without the earth to rotate?

Since the earth was not yet rotating or revolving around the sun until it was created, wouldn't all the time before that be the same day?

IF the earth existed was rotating but there was not yet any sun around which to revolve, still, there is no daylight. So then, is not all that time still the same day?

Once the sun and moon are created, still the earth rotates now while revolving around the sun and the moon revolves around the earth. We know that one day is when the earth has fully rotated so that he sun is high in the sky again (or on the opposite side of noon). STILL.... who named that the day? Who said that one full rotation meant a day? Whose idea was that? Why couldn't the measurement be every two rotations?
OH... wait. Interesting thing. All creatures, by habit, have a sleeping schedule that correlates to the rotation of the earth as well as its revolution around the sun as well as the revolution of the moon around the earth. So it is ingrained within our bodies, this notion of time measurement.

So..wait... when were people created according to the Bible? The 6th day, was it not? Interesting... so there was no one to say what day was until the 6th! And even then... how long was it before humans really cared specifically what a day was... whilst living in paradise and all?

Well, according to the Bible, Adam lived for 930 years. That's... WOW. That's a freakin' long time. I mean.. imagine 930 years ago right now??

Adam lived longer than most civilizations!

What was a day then? How large was the earth? How many atomic seconds were there in a full rotation of the earth? Have we not science to prove that the earth second changes due to the change in the speed of rotation and revolution around the sun? Have we not science to prove that the sun causes elements, atleast for the time being, to change their decay-rates? Sure...we have no proof yet that it has lasted for a certain time or been to a certain extreme...

I could keep on going, really, but the point is that anyone here who attempts to refute what the Bible says about creation needs to think really hard about all the variables and situations.

How unscientific for people to discount something by taking it at face value and then turn around and expect us to listen to Bonzi Buddy and tell us to take it for face value because he has "facts" to back him up.

I think there should be a little more understanding on both sides and maybe Stephen should concede that he doesn't know Jack like the rest of us. We all know Jack better than Stephend. Jack doesn't even like Stephen. But we're all here discussing Jack.

This makes Jack happy.

[/schizophrenia]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 


Nice post, but it didn't have anything to do with what I said.

Might wanna look into possible medication options there buddy.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Here is what the author "Stephen Hawking" has to say personally about his new book titled "The Grand Design" (most places that I have checked say that it will be out on September 7th).


How can we understand the world in which we find ourselves? Over twenty years ago I wrote A Brief History of Time, to try to explain where the universe came from, and where it is going. But that book left some important questions unanswered. Why is there a universe--why is there something rather than nothing? Why do we exist? Why are the laws of nature what they are? Did the universe need a designer and creator?

It was Einstein’s dream to discover the grand design of the universe, a single theory that explains everything. However, physicists in Einstein’s day hadn’t made enough progress in understanding the forces of nature for that to be a realistic goal. And by the time I had begun writing A Brief History of Time, there were still several key advances that had not yet been made that would prevent us from fulfilling Einstein’s dream. But in recent years the development of M-theory, the top-down approach to cosmology, and new observations such as those made by satellites like NASA’s COBE and WMAP, have brought us closer than ever to that single theory, and to being able to answer those deepest of questions. And so Leonard Mlodinow and I set out to write a sequel to A Brief History of Time to attempt to answer the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything. The result is The Grand Design, the product of our four-year effort.

In The Grand Design we explain why, according to quantum theory, the cosmos does not have just a single existence, or history, but rather that every possible history of the universe exists simultaneously. We question the conventional concept of reality, posing instead a "model-dependent" theory of reality. We discuss how the laws of our particular universe are extraordinarily finely tuned so as to allow for our existence, and show why quantum theory predicts the multiverse--the idea that ours is just one of many universes that appeared spontaneously out of nothing, each with different laws of nature. And we assess M-Theory, an explanation of the laws governing the multiverse, and the only viable candidate for a complete "theory of everything." As we promise in our opening chapter, unlike the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life given in the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, the answer we provide in The Grand Design is not, simply, "42."


If this does not get you excited than you have never read any of his other books. I am anticipating this book will be amazingly fun to read.

If your religious belief causes your mind to AUTOMATICALLY put up a force field defense mechanism to any challenge of questioning the religious authority over your neurons than you are never going to be interested in a book like this. You have already ended your journey to search for answers. You have the answers and other people will never be able to change your mind no matter what type of data is presented to you.

You might in fact have such a defense mechanism built up that you attack other people who attempt to search for knowledge. We will side step you and leave a rope behind on the ledge you are stuck on as we climb ever higher. It will forever be there waiting for you whenever you are ready.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


All of which is based on new theory,theory does not always equate to reality. He is basing this on a set of theories that have not been proven yet!
Theory does not always match reality the, bumble bee cannot fly based on mathematical theory but it does,prove the theories first then make the statement. Sorry God haters still no real proof God didn't make the big bang!



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   
to all those that responded to me saying Big Bang is just a theory
once again....

Big Bang is just a theory!
So is the Theory of Evolution!

You guys are either on the extreme right or extreme left(Not politically, but philosophically)

I am more of an agnostic
Big Bang is just a theory
So is the Theory of Evolution

Those are comments from an agnostic, I am not extreme in my views like you are.

I am content in knowing that we do not have the answers thus far
Until then, until proof is given... IT'S JUST A THEORY!
However I still love being informed and up to date on progress.

Religious people will tell me I am mixing logic and faith too much
Science fans will tell me the laboratory definition of theory.

It doesn't matter, my statement stands
It's just a theory!

This is the answer from an agnostic... you know.. the unbiased ones!



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by slinger
. Sorry God haters still no real proof God didn't make the big bang!
Sorry God Lovers, still no real proof that God DID make the big bang. Of course, this goes without saying, since you can't make the first assertion without conceding to the second.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   

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,"


He is correct, but it's a little more subtle than that. "God" is the "nothing."

This nothingness, which many people refer to as God, is beyond any conceptual term or belief or "thing." God is not even "nothing" because that would imply something opposite from a "thing."

The truth is that God has no opposite; it is whole, complete, eternal and infinite... God is the ground of being.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by MR BOB
 


What if everything DIDN'T come from nothing? What if one universe, vibrated alongside another, like sheets on a clothes line, blowing in the wind, and -- at the moment of the big bang -- they touched, and transferred energy from one side to another?

We don't "know" what happened at the beginning, or before it, but even the idea that there was a "beginning" is open to rigorous debate at this point.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join