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.
Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe
www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
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
Well I like the removing of his humanity (hehe) but I can't roll with Force, origin or precedes all things. But that's just me. Those names presume something started, something was before something. I believe the jury is still out on space time continuum, time travel, multiple realities etc. But anyway moving on...
Originally posted by TarzanBeta
Let us define God without all of His "humanity" and only refer to Him as "The Origin" or "The Great Unifying Force Which Precedes All Things".
Yeah umm, can't agree with you on this presently, see above.
We should all be able to agree that the universe DID have an origin because motion does not happen without a catalyst - we have proven this scientifically for sure and it can be proven to anyone who is confused.
Can't do the Force thing, because if something never had to start or begin, a force to make it so is unneccessary. And the forces that are at work would just be elements of the cosmos, not the core energy at work, so it's not really worth mentioning in this context. But again this is just my opinion.
I would like to refer to that origin as "The Great Unifying Force Which Precedes All Things" and one-up it and include "The Great Unifying Force By Which All Things Exist".
We are created, but not from a singular thing, we are just made up of the same energy that is persistent in most things in our reality. We are born into a river, not born from the the "original water".
Morals would not exist if we had not been created. We were certainly created, whether directly or indirectly by "The Great Unifying Force" because IT is "The Origin".
I don;t think it's the form that matters.Morals are a construct of people, not a preprogrammed operatus.I'd be willing to bet those caveman back in the day thinned their own numbers by killing each other. If morals were already there this wouldn't have happened. I'd be further willing to bet that morals came along BEFORE the first general consensus religion came into play. IT wouldn't have taken very many generations of cave men to figure out that wanton killing and stealing didn't make for a good lifestyle.The point is morals are learned, and their parameters vary. Not very absolute or universal if they can be violated without penalty and their very definitions vary by time and location.
Whether it has happened directly or it has happened indirectly, morals would not exist if we were not created in this particular form.
Nah, information and laws yeah, but emotional responses and ethics and morals are always in motion depending on where you are and your situation.
Therefore, the information, the crystallization, the specific nature and laws which automatically govern our universe include our human morals.
I disagree!
Therefore, "God", which is, for me, short for "The Great Unifying Force Which Precedes All Things and Is, Therefore, Responsible For a Great Deal Many Things" (I'm starting to make myself laugh) is responsible for our moral compass.
Originally posted by MR BOB
this is where you lose me"vibrating strings" have never ever believed that, even when i was in high school.
to me string theory is complete bulls***, ...
Originally posted by Xeven
Gravity is not a fact. They do not even know what it is. Gravity is an effect of something unknown.
Originally posted by Snarf
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.
Hawking is, and always has been, a total idiot.
You'll have to enlighten me what I'm opposing. Can't say I'm hip to E=MC square and all that. I know that guys came up with laws and theories that made alot of sense and advanced stuff and everything. But my worldview doesn't revolve around that stuff.
Originally posted by TarzanBeta
For you to be opposed to something as simple as the laws of energy & motion is pretty interesting.
Thanks!
Bravo for going outside the box.
First I'm opposing now I'm not agreeing..with what??
If you wouldn't mind humoring me, which of the Newtonian Laws do you not agree with and why?
As far as space goes, couldn't nothing simply be infinite? How do you put a limit on nothing? Nothing requires no starting mechanism, takes up no space or energy and accept just about any matter instantly. SO the universe has all the room in the world to shake and shimmy. Not only that but it's a whole party of universes inside a mirror ball reflecting into infinity. Which grows and shrink with fluctuations in cosmic forces.
The first law would agree with you except that only the universe itself completely would need to be traveling in a straight line in a zero net force environment... and in order for it to be traveling in a straight line, there must be space wherever it is the universe is going. So, in order for you to believe that the universe has simply existed, then it must exist within something else that has existed even before the universe existed - which is contradictory and impossible if both have always existed.
There you go!
On all other accounts, I'm curious about what you think.
Thanks.
Originally posted by vox2442
Originally posted by Xeven
Gravity is not a fact. They do not even know what it is. Gravity is an effect of something unknown.
So the VIRGO and LIGO interferometers... what do you suppose they are doing there?
Just because YOU don't understand something, does not mean it is not understood.
Newton's law of gravitation resembles Coulomb's law of electrical forces, which is used to calculate the magnitude of electrical force between two charged bodies. Both are inverse-square laws, in which force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the bodies. Coulomb's Law has the product of two charges in place of the product of the masses, and the electrostatic constant in place of the gravitational constant.
Originally posted by Gigatronix
Whatever the truth is, whatever the proof ultimately turns out to be, it won't matter because it won't change anything. The truth is still the truth whether you know it or not.
Originally posted by TarzanBeta
I'd start connecting dots and realize that gravity is the giant brother/cousin to electromagnetism... If not the same thing.
Originally posted by TarzanBeta ...
I'm thinking that most scientists won't be so easily fooled but will fear saying much about this kind of thing due to the fact that speaking against the purple monkey could get them ridiculed at the least.
Originally posted by vox2442
Originally posted by TarzanBeta
I'd start connecting dots and realize that gravity is the giant brother/cousin to electromagnetism... If not the same thing.
Little brother (by thirty six orders of magnitude), and clearly not the same thing. Related, though, in that they are two of the four fundamental interactions. To say that they are the same thing is to ignore general relativity.