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: 8
29
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 09:14 PM
link   

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)



The Creator "God" IS the Creation/Universe, you, me, everything is the Creator experiencing itself in an eternal present. The Universe is very much aware and intelligent not some random Infinity.




posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 09:14 PM
link   

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".
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...


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.
Yeah umm, can't agree with you on this presently, see above.


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".
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.


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".
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".


Whether it has happened directly or it has happened indirectly, morals would not exist if we were not created in this particular form.
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.

Therefore, the information, the crystallization, the specific nature and laws which automatically govern our universe include our human morals.
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, "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.
I disagree!



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by The Djin
 


Djin, you are always bashing religious people, all the time. You go out of your way to do so, sounds like someone with issues. I don't know you, but with a name like The Djin you sound like an evil person imo.

So, Stephen Hawking says the universe does'nt need a God? Well that settles it then lol.
Seriously, he needs to chill, he has been very outspoken lately on some touchy things. Remember the whole 'We should not be looking to contact aliens cuz they will be malevolent" thing?



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Oh, and why are there two of these threads?



One is enough.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Gigatronix
 


For you to be opposed to something as simple as the laws of energy & motion is pretty interesting.

Bravo for going outside the box.

If you wouldn't mind humoring me, which of the Newtonian Laws do you not agree with and why?

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.

On all other accounts, I'm curious about what you think.

Thanks.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   
First double post ever! that I know of...

Yay.

[edit on 9/2/2010 by TarzanBeta]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 09:37 PM
link   

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***, ...

I have to respect that position. I don't know much about string theory, but it is supposed to be very beautiful and tie a lot of notions together. The only problem is that it does not tie testable predictions together.

I've been following this over some years, and long ago I noted it was not a testable theory. Then some years later I asked two or more physicists if it was testable. Answer: no, still not testable, but Real Soon Now, maybe. As far as I know that is still the state of affairs. Did I miss some development in this?

Hawking may believe string theory, but he cannot document it with experimental results. It is not testable. It does not make testable predictions.

Hawking's conclusions from it are therefore also in the realm of untested theory.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 09:41 PM
link   

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.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 09:45 PM
link   
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 and ultimately god, gravity, universe, are the same difference. The rest is just what peoples call there world, there language, all saying the same thing in different languages, from english to math to binary, to dog to frog to tree. Yes all of these create noise on different levels, and they all think they are important, and they are...just not that important. Everything simply is, disprove that, and you might learn something.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   

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.


Stephen Hawking may have a "crippled" body , but you my Snarf - have a crippled mind.

You exhibit a serious lack of class !


=============================================



Originally posted by Snarf


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



What an idiotic statement .



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


In all of this I recommend that you read a book titled "The Universe In A Single Atom" by his Holiness The Dalai Lama. It is fascinating and will tell you more than what you have learned in your existential life. Read this before you reply blindly to this post.

Best regards...



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by MR BOB
 


Supposedly the brain has a finite storage capacity, but I'm sure folks are still arguing about it somewhere. If nothing else, it is contained within the finite space of the skull, and has a finite number of neurons. It seems reasonable to assume to then that it can only contain (or perhaps access) a finite amount of information. I don't think any of that has been conclusively proven though. If anyone is better informed on the matter, I'd be interested to know.

As a side note, you might be interested in the Bekenstein Bound.


Anyway, onto the topic. I find it ho-hum that the stipulation is that provided gravity exists, the universe could create itself. Whence came the gravity? From the curvature of space-time? How did that get there? How'd those strings get there? He might as well have just said "it's turtles all the way down."

-B.

[edit on 2-9-2010 by bikeshedding]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by TarzanBeta


For you to be opposed to something as simple as the laws of energy & motion is pretty interesting.
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.


Bravo for going outside the box.
Thanks!


If you wouldn't mind humoring me, which of the Newtonian Laws do you not agree with and why?
First I'm opposing now I'm not agreeing..with what??


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.
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 whole time paradox thing is just a mind twist thing better to just accept it that make your brain explode.

I'm sure I just broke a ton of "laws" with that, but it does't really matter to me, because my ultimate world view doesn't revolve around that stuff either. It's fun to postulate and everything, but even the universes and realities don't matter to me. 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. If there is a heaven, you will go to it whether you believed in it or not. If there is a limbo, likewise. Whatever it is, it is, and you won't know until you get there. Personally, I have options for whats next. There's a number of ways it could go for me according to my view.



On all other accounts, I'm curious about what you think.
There you go!


Thanks.

No Problem?




posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 10:06 PM
link   

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.


Well, let's see...



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.


Wiki article on Newton's

Wiki article on Coloumb's

I'd start connecting dots and realize that gravity is the giant brother/cousin to electromagnetism... If not the same thing.

For Bonzi Buddy to say that gravity created the universe is reaching at best. If energy existed outside of the universe in order to create this dynamic, then what is outside the universe? Is he just selling answers because he can?

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.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 10:10 PM
link   

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.


Now that is the first Pro-Logic 99.5% bias-free thing you've said.


I concur.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   

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.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   

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.

I can tell you that is not correct. A physical scientist would be expected to know that both gravity and electrical attraction have similar functional forms, and this similarity can be used in various analogies between electric circuits and physical systems. It's very standard.

That doesn't mean they are the same thing, but no I'd say there is no decent physical scientist who has not played with the idea in his mind and thought about the similarities and differences and implications thereof.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Spot on my friend!
Religion and macabre notions of the all seeing eye of god creator have confused people and gotten them into thinking that spirituality, god and religion are one and the same, like the holy trinity.

Man's spiritual side accounts for half of his whole, mankind feels empty and alone in the universe, when it has each other for comfort, but the mere notion of a global unity based on trust and hard work is considered an insult, us vs them all the way in this empty void.

Spirituality is mankind's ability of silencing his inner being and turn on a different kind of awareness fueled by the energy saved during the shutting of the inner speak, or as some know it mundane thinking.
We describe the world with our thoughts, and while doing so, building the boundaries of what possible or extraordinary.

We are or jailers and our saviors.
God is the will to live, the smile of a loved one, the sun shining through the window, the driving force that MOVES the universe, the clashing of galaxies taking billions and trillions of suns and planets in less than a heartbeat.
That movement, that chaotic murderer creator, takes no sides, it does not look after anyone, but then, sometimes makes the unexpected happen in so many strange ways.

I've spoken about this to Stephen, but he just laughs and rolls his eyes, he's had a lifetime to think about everything and nothing, so expect to hear more of him in the near future.

We don't need to look further, we are god, and the trees, and the planets, and the nebulas, and the alien, even bigfoot.
look no further there is no need.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   

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.


I have an interesting thought that when you touch a charged balloon, the charge is not nearly as awesome as when your hand is slightly away from the surface of the balloon...

Meaning, we don't feel gravity too much as people who are standing on it, and we assume it is a weak force because of its massive size and its apparent effects on things closer to the planet.

But, even though we barely feel gravity, look at the awesome ability of gravity to keep the moon from going away! That is not a weak force - especially since we keep the Sun from stealing our Moon!

Of course, the calculations work for the purposes for which they are used, but that doesn't mean they are correct all the way. That just means that within the world which we better understand we are able to mathematically manipulate what we need to complete whatever our job is.

Of course, who am I to question the theory of relativity?
I mean, scientists believe in black holes and they whole idea of a black hole isn't even possible within the bounds of general relativity and even if it was minutely possible for a black hole to exist, the only form in which it might possibly exist is in the form of a single mass-point singularity which would rule the universe all on its own - and judging from the way we've observed the universe works so far, that particular singularity must be a ring around the edge of the universe!

But, who am I to question the theory of relativity?


Thanks for the exact information, though.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


It sounds like you're very biased to me! an open minded person would take into consideration what makes the big bang theory credible. Firstly, there is what is called cosmic microwave background radiation, this can be detected by any tv as static; we know that the universe is expanding, this would imply what? There is more observable evidence I believe but those are the two that you should know about.

-----

As for Hawkings being an idiot, considering the guys life he is far from being an idiot! He has a very long list of prestigious awards, without a brilliant mind this would not be possible! I do not believe for one moment that he is given credit because of his disability, that is a ridiculous thought! You do not get far in the scientific community by being a fool/idiot or disabled! Saying that, he has made some claims which he has later changed, off the top of my head the claim that time travel was not possible purely because we would have met time travellers coming back to visit us


I do not believe that Hawkins claims to know for a fact how the universe was created, it would be foolish for anyone to make such a claim with the information we have available! That goes for religious and non religious folk!



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join