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.

 

Is physicist Stephen Hawking right that physics, not God, created the universe?

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Why do you use "he" to describe god? Bit arrogant. Anyway whatever you believe has created the universe must by that very logic have been created no?

Lets just leave it for now. I am not prepared to take a leap of faith, just as you are not prepared to give up your faith.




posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   
As an answer to the question:

Yes.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Parallex
 


I think we'll never know the whole truth about who we are and why we are here especially as we are being controlled by this system which is in place... it's a never ending cycle unless we STOP it...

I am however willing to say that no one person or Entity created this Universe!!



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Why do you use "he" to describe god? Bit arrogant. Anyway whatever you believe has created the universe must by that very logic have been created no?

Lets just leave it for now. I am not prepared to take a leap of faith, just as you are not prepared to give up your faith.


1. He uses "He" to describe Himself.
2. No, if it's a created thing it cannot at the same time be the Creator of things.
3. I, on the other hand, have left my lack of belief in favor of faith.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Why do you use "he" to describe god? Bit arrogant. Anyway whatever you believe has created the universe must by that very logic have been created no?

Lets just leave it for now. I am not prepared to take a leap of faith, just as you are not prepared to give up your faith.


1. He uses "He" to describe Himself.
2. No, if it's a created thing it cannot at the same time be the Creator of things.
3. I, on the other hand, have left my lack of belief in favor of faith.



1. He uses "He" to describe Himself.

Who does?

2. No, if it's a created thing it cannot at the same time be the Creator of things.

So we go around in circles as there will always be the answer who created the creator and who created the creator of the creator


3. I, on the other hand, have left my lack of belief in favor of faith.

So you have faith in a "god" but not a belief. Life must be very complicated for you.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
As an answer to the question:

Yes.


I don't understand this.

I can see how someone might believe that ''God'' created the universe, whether out of faith, or wishful thinking.

But, how on earth can someone logically believe that ''chance'' created, or is responsible, for existence ?

It just doesn't make sense.


There is no evidence that ''chance'' or ''design'' even exist; so why would anyone form an opinion on the existence of the universe, when there is nothing to back that opinion up with ?!


[edit on 4-9-2010 by Sherlock Holmes]



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Parallex
 




The scientific community did my smart-alec friend. Physics is a field of SCIENCE, as designated by SCIENTISTS. Parallex.

hahahaha ......

physics and its laws has always been in place, scientists are merely catching up to the genius of creation .....its taken them many thousands of years to get thus far, what God has had in place for infinity.

that's why I like ATS, its good for comedy too!! especially knowing for a fact that when you skeptics take your jacket, i mean your body off, on your last day here, then you see the truth what many alrewady know.

This is a funny thread!



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   
I wonder what brought on this change in Hawking's beliefs. Not a small thing to shift his position on, that's for sure.


Originally posted by 547000
Whatever was the cause of the beginning of the universe and time exists in eternity, beyond time. So whatever the prime cause is didn't have to be created because there is no point in time it came to be.

Exactly. Time is just something we experience as people. God isn't limited and has no creator.


Originally posted by Parallex
The scientific community did my smart-alec friend.

Physics is a field of SCIENCE, as designated by SCIENTISTS.

Physics has always existed in the 'physical' world. Scientists just gave it a name.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   
I have not read his new thoughts but if what I am getting from the MSM and forum posts is that gravity caused it all he is again just trying to make a name for himself in history rather than providing any scientific meaningful theories or evidence.

He is blaming the Universe on energy or "gravity" it can just exist...thats ok may be close to right but...something caused the energy or "Gravity".

I am waiting for God to believe in me so I wont discuss the existence of such a being until the day it actually manifests itself outside the mind of man. When the prosed God realizes I exist and understands its own creation needs a little tangible evidence then I can consider it as the creator.

Hawking is a great man, scientist and philosopher. He is now broken by disease, he lacks the ability to further his works outside his mind in a way others can understand and grasp his concepts in a meaningful way.

He seems bent on comming up with "something" that History can revere him over such as Einstien. Unfortunately fate has robbed him of the ability to do so.

If he had lived his life without his illness he may have been a second Einstien but it is not likely to happen outside of one of his "Assistants" comming up with new theories while pretending to read his mind and giving the credit to his mentor Hawking.

Steve needs to retire from public declarations and fanciful thoughts.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   
People, once again I ask, can we keep the thread on the statistics shown in the OP, rather than Steven Hawkings and lots of gumpf about fake cosmology?

Thank you very much.

Parallex.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 




1. He uses "He" to describe Himself.

Who does?


Who have we been talking about these last few posts? Come on, I'm not going to play semantics and I'm not patronizing you, I'd appreciate the same in return.


2. No, if it's a created thing it cannot at the same time be the Creator of things.

So we go around in circles as there will always be the answer who created the creator and who created the creator of the creator


If you're discussing things not God, God by definition is eternal, and if He were created by something that would immediately cancel out Him being God. God is the only Creator, everything else is creation.



3. I, on the other hand, have left my lack of belief in favor of faith.

So you have faith in a "god" but not a belief. Life must be very complicated for you.


Not at all, life is completely full of joy, haven't been happier in all my life. But are you claiming life isn't "complicated" for some people? Well, I guess the mentally retarded and those in comas have a very uncomplicated life.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Parallex
People, once again I ask, can we keep the thread on the statistics shown in the OP, rather than Steven Hawkings and lots of gumpf about fake cosmology?

Thank you very much.

Parallex.


The title of the thread absolutely destroys the possibility of that.

Perhaps it should have been titled differently?



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
The title of the thread absolutely destroys the possibility of that.

Perhaps it should have been titled differently?


I think it's because we are in the ''breaking alternative news forum'', and the rules state that a headline to an article has to be unedited.

However, I agree with you, and I came blustering in here replying to the headline, rather than the post.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   
God created physics..



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Raphael
 


God created people who post absurd 2 word posts. What i really mean is...God doesn't exist, get over yourself.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Parallex
 


Why can't they both exist. What if we have a spirit and physics give us a way to expereicne the physical world. Color me optimistic, but I like to think that all madness has it's reasons and there is "lessons" in everything. The lesson incase you don't know is LOVE...



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by agentofchaos
 



I believe in Stephen Hawkins and in God. I can see how the laws of physics work. Stephen Hawkins writes on an aspect of String theory that is M theory. Theories always need PROOF!



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Gods.......*throws arms up in the air*

I always try to stay clear of this sort of hot-headed debate because

it is an endless merry-go-round.

I admire and respect Stephen Hawkings. He has a great mind unlike

a few people here throwing hissy-fits.





s&f



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
The question is why. Why was there ever any material in the first place and if not why was there nothing? Why would it have a beginning? Does it? If God exists then what existed before God.

I try and not think too deeply about this for madness lies there.

Why did I even write this?

Does it all matter not?

Dust in the wind...



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
God doesn't exist, get over yourself.


Surely, you'd have to define ''God'' first, before you could conclude that such a thing doesn't exist ?

I've never come across anyone that can give a definitive explanation of ''God'', so that is why my views would most probably be classed as ''ignostic''.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join