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 tackles Creation on 'Curiosity' - New Discovery Channel Program

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 07:22 AM
link   
Genesis 1:1
In the Beginning (Time), God created the heavens (Space) and the earth (Matter). Let there be light (Energy).

----------

HAWKING

"I recently published a book that asked if God created the universe. It caused something of a stir," Hawking, 69, begins on the episode. (The "stir", in fact, was religious leaders denouncing his book's conclusion that God was unnecessary to the universe.) On the show, he takes viewers on a walk through humanity's history of appraising our place in the universe, from Vikings facing down eclipses to the laws of modern cosmology, which explain the origin and structure of universe. "I believe the discovery of these laws is mankind's greatest achievement," he says.

Q: First, we wonder if you could comment on why you are tackling the existence of God question?
A: I think Science can explain the Universe without the need for God."
------------------


1 Colossians 1:15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Genesis
1:27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

We follow along in the creation story and see that God finishes His work on the universe and earth, then begins to focus His efforts on man. As I ponder what this suggests, I realize something interesting about the word image in v. 27. God created us in His image and 'in' the the image of Himself. What should this suggest to us? Have we overlooked something important and obvious here with these words in Genesis?

If we face the truth given to us in the Bible, we realize that the universe is an artificial reality and we are artificial lifeforms to God's perspective. To our perspective, this reality is real. As the Bible suggests, we are inside His created image on the other side of His reality. We are also made in His likeness. Today is the only age in history when man possesses a metaphor for this type of Created reality. Consider the screen that you are using to read these words. It is an image. I am in this image represented by something physical, with words that tell a story, and consciousness connecting me to you.

As stated by Paul Dirac's relativistic quantum mechanical wave equation, our universe is parallel to another universe in opposite. Our matter is anti-matter to this mirrored universe. The event horizon between these two universes represents the projection point of both.

Hawking is wrong. If bias was not blinding him, he could see clearly.




edit on 2-8-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-8-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 07:37 AM
link   
I'll start this off for the atheists on a related subject. I will be the voice of doubt.

"Surly you Atheists don't mean to suggest that the movie Avatar was created do you? Any fool can see that this 3D projection on the screen is way too naturally selected to be the result of a creator named Cameron. It evolved by abiogenesis. Any biologists can see this. Do you really believe that this was somehow the result of 100 years of technology from a man that is only 51 years old? Give me a break. You are delusional. "


edit on 2-8-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-8-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-8-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


Once more rephrasing your almost identical I-have-only-one-thread, and once more repeating the same pseudo-science claims, which you apparantly are unable to substantiate, when it comes to the point.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 07:44 AM
link   
The need to put God aside in the scientific debate comes from the scientific mindset, which is to observe carefully to be able to repeat what was observed.

Science is not necessarily questionning God's existence, merely trying to know how the whole thing works. Scientists got personnal opinions too.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


The movie 'Avatar' is the worst (and most disappointing) piece of new-age 'back to nature' and 'the noble savage' propaganda trash I've seen. It's even worse than "What the bleep do we know".

And what has that to do with Hawking and cosmogony and cosmology?



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 

Poorly constructed analogy is poor. We can observe movies being produced. Let me know the next time you observe a universe being produced so we can both watch and you can point out God sitting in the director's chair.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
Poorly constructed analogy is poor. We can observe movies being produced. Let me know the next time you observe a universe being produced so we can both watch and you can point out God sitting in the director's chair.


The problem is science doesn't know themselves how the universe was created either. I'd like to know which scientist was around when the big bang happened. More importantly, where is his scroll
? If he was around that long I'm sure he wrote it down somewhere?

This is science biggest fallacy, they have never recreated their own universe so they can not possibly know how it was done. There are no modern tools which are capable of observing the entire universe, therefore they can never measure the entire universe to discover it's age, let alone come up with a starting point. Science has not proven how the universe was created, yet they keep stating it as fact.

I'm still waiting for the hard core facts from science on this matter.


edit on 2-8-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
A video that doesn't have any logical premise at all, mixed with psuedo-science

And a mocking statement about something not natural, saying it was made by men, and somehow transcribing that to god making nature. Which could easily be reworded into sending the opposite message.

I'm not in the mood for such a redundant debate.

~
So I'll just leave with thanking the OP for letting me know of the show. I will be checking it out.

Oh, and if your smarter than Steven Hawking, you should contact him. See if you actually have what you need to prove him wrong.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 


You wrote:

["The problem is science doesn't know themselves how the universe was created either. I'd like to know which scientist was around when the big bang happened. More importantly, where is his scroll ? If he was around that long I'm sure he wrote it down somewhere?"]

This obviously is how YOU believe science functions. However that has nothing to do with real science.

Quote: ["This is science biggest fallacy,"]

The fallacy consists of presenting science as it is NOT.

Quote: ["Science has not proven how the universe was created, yet they keep stating it as fact."]

No, 'they' do not keep stating anything like that. That's a fantasy, you have cooked up.

Quote: ["I'm still waiting for the hard core facts from science on this matter."]

You'll need to learn at least basic science, before you can start evaluating and using it.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
No, 'they' do not keep stating anything like that. That's a fantasy, you have cooked up.

Quote: ["I'm still waiting for the hard core facts from science on this matter."]

You'll need to learn at least basic science, before you can start evaluating and using it.


I guess your the lead speaker on what they claim what to be fact. No one needs to learn science in order to answer the question of how the universe was created, simply because science can not answer it.
edit on 2-8-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealTruthSeekerNo one needs to learn science in order to answer the question of how the universe was created, simply because science can not answer it.


I hope you don't teach kids that line of thinking.......



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by bogomil
No, 'they' do not keep stating anything like that. That's a fantasy, you have cooked up.

Quote: ["I'm still waiting for the hard core facts from science on this matter."]

You'll need to learn at least basic science, before you can start evaluating and using it.


I guess your the lead speaker on what they claim what to be fact. No one needs to learn science in order to answer the question of how the universe was created, simply because science can not answer it.
edit on 2-8-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)


Ofcourse no-one needs to learn science to have opinions on the creation of cosmos. With the OBVIOUS exception of those actually trying to use science in this context.

Such people certainly need to know science, before starting to use it.

I believe, you are confusing the faith vs. fact dichotomy with the present situation.
edit on 2-8-2011 by bogomil because: typo



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 

Given that your reply is based on a fallacy about how science is carried out, I'm sure you'll be waiting quite a while for an answer that meets your expectations.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by RealTruthSeekerNo one needs to learn science in order to answer the question of how the universe was created, simply because science can not answer it.


I hope you don't teach kids that line of thinking.......


Give me one reason why I shouldn't.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 

Given that your reply is based on a fallacy about how science is carried out, I'm sure you'll be waiting quite a while for an answer that meets your expectations.


I'm not saying science in general is a fallacy. What I'm saying is that the big bang is science biggest fallacy. They have drawn this conclusion without any evidence to back it up. Science can't even give a solid answer to how the Moon was created, so how in the world could they possible know how the universe can to be?



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealTruthSeekerGive me one reason why I shouldn't.


Because if you really want to know how the universe started, how it came into existence, apart from science what other method would you engage in in order to determine the truth?

The scientific method is used to answer questions we do not have the answer to. It has a proven track record in this, whereas no other process has ever come close to revealing truth.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker


I'm not saying science in general is a fallacy. What I'm saying is that the big bang is science biggest fallacy.They have drawn this conclusion without any evidence to back it up. Science can't even give a solid answer to how the Moon was created, so how in the world could they possible know how the universe can to be?


Your ignorance on this issue betrays you

And is very typical of those who believe in things for no good reason........



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


Funny coincidence; i was discussing these concepts in a thread the other day:-


Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
reply to post by dbates
 



Correct, causation is only necessary for things that have a beginning. Of course this is way outside of the simple conversation this thread is based upon. I don't think anyone is this thread is prepared to have an actual honest discussion about an eternal God, which dimension he resides in, and how he is external to time and space.


And of course, you'd be humble enough to accept that an eternal deity is not the only possibility? There could be alternatives.

It could equally be possible that we exist within a computer program (some pose the unfalsifiable hypothesis that we could exist in "test" universe within another verse or even gallaxy - perfectly simulated reality) Good sci-fi, right?



Simulated reality is the proposition that reality could be simulated—perhaps by computer simulation—to a degree indistinguishable from "true" reality. It could contain conscious minds which may or may not be fully aware that they are living inside a simulation.

There has been much debate over this topic, ranging from philosophical discourse to practical applications in computing.SOURCE


In this hypothetical: would it be wise to assume, and commit to the assumption in belief, that because humans make computers, that a character with human characteristics created the universal "computer"? (i.e. an eternal deity)

It seems to me, it is was it is; an assumption. And equally unfalsifiable as the above "simulated reality" hypothesis, of course, there is evidence that the universe is can be systematically "explained" mathematically. Mathematics is the language of the universe.
edit on 2-8-2011 by ExistentialNightmare because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by RealTruthSeekerGive me one reason why I shouldn't.


Because if you really want to know how the universe started, how it came into existence, apart from science what other method would you engage in in order to determine the truth?


Well there's been a story floating around since the beginning of man about how an all powerful supreme being brought everything into existence. Of course that story has been passed down from generation to generation for thousands of years so it's most likely false. Nevertheless, it might be worthy checking into.

Man will never discover how the universe was created simply because it is always expanding. It's just to large to be figured out with human eyes or modern day technology, or even future technology for that matter.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 



Well there's been a story floating around since the beginning of man about how an all powerful supreme being brought everything into existence. Of course that story has been passed down from generation to generation for thousands of years so it's most likely false. Nevertheless, it might be worthy checking into.


Not really "a story" - Almost every culture on Earth has dreamed, or conjured the idea of a deity, or deities (Polytheism)

When men had little knowledge about science and nature; man did the best they could, they anthropomorphised things they did not understand; "tides, volcanoes" - They considered disease as punishment from a higher power. It's highly understandable that man would seek to rationalise reality in this way, with little infrastructure of knowledge, or the application of the scientific method.


Man will never discover how the universe was created simply because it is always expanding.


You could state that human origins could never be discovered because we're always changing.

We look at the universe as an investigator looks at a crime scene, we only have information available to us at the current time.

We have DNA evidence and fossil records to do the investigative work in regards to evolution.

We have data braught back from Hubble telescope, which can help us understand how the universe functions, how it expands. Other fields of science can help us understand the nature of reality (quantam physiscs) etc.


It's just to large to be figured out with human eyes or modern day technology, or even future technology for that matter.


We are learning more about the universe, and have been doing so at a rapid rate since the age of enlightenment.

It would be unwise to denounce future human knowledge on the grounds of our current limitations.
edit on 2-8-2011 by ExistentialNightmare because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join