posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:18 AM
Can you add yourself to the universe while being in the universe itself?
Can we be self-sustaining, self sufficient, self-subsisting beings? No, but according to Stephen Hawking in a CNN interview with Larry King, he said
“the nothingness itself adds to the universe.” later on however; he mentions his beliefs, which is paraphrased by my own hearing of the interview,
“science is a tool that can make god unnecessary.” If we look and analyze these two sentences, we see that Stephen Hawking contradicts himself.
How? The nothingness itself is what makes life sustaining, continuing, and in fact the universe itself is need of it too. I know you think I'm
wasting my time trying to beat him with a simple contradiction, but it's more than that. The understanding of what science is in terms on how I
understand it, it too poses doubts about his interview. He may be crippled, and I know I'm not attacking his state of condition, but his arrogance is
what I'm showing in this paper as well, and his crippled nature has something to do with it. These things are linked up to the fact; that all though
he speaking with a monotone Microsoft Sam voice, his words show something nefarious in nature.
“Science is a tool that can make God unnecessary”
think of science as a program scanner. A program scanner designed to scan not only software but also hardware applications, and/or even the
computer's information. If science were to say... scan for first time in your mind, what such information would you think it would discover? Science
would discover that the computer known as the brain is a scientific tool as well, and that science is merely a software application under the
operating system known as the mind. Because of this, To make that comment a realistic goal for mankind, we need to build technology. But, physically
applying the application we know as science is how we build it. For Stephen Hawking however, he is unable to lift his hands up. The only thing
functioning is his mind, and there for he's incapable of producing technology. The question should be now asked, “are we more necessary than
Stephen Hawking?” But why? Well... Because we're then showing proof that we're more of a god than he is. But, for us we can't be. Even with all
of our technology we're still dependant over the universe's source of energy, the nothingness itself. But is the nothingness itself God?
Free Energy. What is free energy? Free energy is any form of energy that comes with no cost, and puts out enough power, but yet keeps itself going.
Isn't that something that is self-sustaining, self-sufficient, but yet self-subsisting? Is the nothingness itself free energy? Doesn't this support
the theory of an infinite expanding universe? If the nothingness itself was considered to be God, wouldn't he be free energy? Can free energy be a
being? Yes. In science, matter and energy are both the same. In this universe however, matter decays, and so does energy. So we as human beings take
in matter in the form of food and ingest it in order to survive. So aren't we taking in energy too? Wouldn't we consider ourselves as energizing
beings? But if the nothingness itself functions in the same way as the universe, wouldn't we have the nothingness deplete itself, and the destruction
of the universe begin? In order for Stephen Hawking to show God He's unnecessary, he has to master the universe, and prevent that tragic happening
from occurring. Is there anyone who cares to enough to support him after this paper? Maybe, but they have to prove to us they can. So the question has
to be asked. “Can you add yourself into the universe while being in the universe itself?” Can you be self-sustaining, self-sufficient, but yet
self-subsisting? Can you be free energy beings? And if you feel as though you can be a master of the universe, then I have a back up question to
support the first, and that is, “Are you yourselves the creator, or did all of this come out of nothing?”
For if this all came out of nothing, wouldn't it the universe itself be the creator? But, since we're made up of what the universe is made up of
aren't we the same as it? Aren't we the creators? But did we have a say in how the universe can be? Do we have our own galaxies to rule over, and
not conquer over each other? Do we live peaceful lives in the way we desire to? Can we even determine our lives? No. So how can we be creators in a
realistic way? But we're hopeful and optimistic. To be the creator is to be the master of the universe. To even back up that statement literally
means you have to be God to prove it. So even Atheists themselves have something they can never conquer over. Science itself backs up most of what I
said in my concept of what mistakes Stephen Hawking said.
I merely right down this paper just to show his arrogance in his comment, but I don't deny his intelligence. My two questions I feel in the end show
that there has to be a creator before the initial point. My second question, “Are you Yourselves the creator, or did all of this come out of
nothing?” is from the Qur’an. So I am religious in a sense because of my ability to understand my religion. I dunno, there's more I would say but
I can't really fit it in together. So I'm looking just for an honest discussion with all the people here on ATS, both believers, and non-believers
alike. Harsh criticism is highly accepted to me from others for learning purposes. This is my first post, and I wanted to be able to share my thoughts
to you all about what I ponder about. This thread was closed due to T&C rule breaking. So I hope i don't break anything this time, and I'm positing
this once more.