Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Stephen Hawking lays out case for Big Bang without God

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   


you might want to recheck the theory of quantum entanglement. It does Not permit any exchange of information.

this is incorrect. quantum entanglement results FROM the exchange of information between two particles (so that one may be measured and information gleaned about the second particle). at the point when an outside particle that does not contain information about the other two makes contact with one of the two entangled particles, it changes the state of the second instantly because the future changes a past event. the event being the information contained by the particle that was interacted with changed to include the outside particle, which then effects how the two particles would have interacted in the first place.




posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Kryom


The 'exchange' only happens one time. You can't 'scramble' the state of the particles again after they have been measured. So, sadly, instantaneous communication over infinite distances, not possible through entanglement.

 


Hmm, didn't we just establish there is instantaneous communication over potentially infinite distances regarding the spin of the particle? For the exchange happening only one time, sure, this makes sense if a particular particle can only be entangled with one other particle, one time only. Can an entangled particle not subsequently be entangled with a different particle? But since at the big bang all particles were in proximity to ever other particle couldn't they all be entangled with each other, providing infinite pathways of communication back and forth? Anyway, this is getting way off topic.

I think that Mr Hawking should have been more specific when he said creation did not need a god. Some process sparked creation. Calling this initiating process "God" or "Not God" isn't useful unless you first define what you mean by god, and what you are assuming its attributes to be.



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix267
Billions people throughout the world hold some belief of a godlike being. You can find some form of creation story throughout every culture in the world. Even today many see some form of creation as a way life and even the universe has come about. However, famous scientist and author Stephen Hawking disagrees. Stephen Hawking disagrees the universe needed a creator.

PASADENA, Calif. — Our universe didn't need any divine help to burst into being, famed cosmologist Stephen Hawking told a packed house here at the California Institute of Technology Tuesday night.


This is nothing new from Stephen Hawking. Because he has commented on his views on god and the origins of the universe. As seen in the video opening of Curiosity.


As a rational and skeptical person I agree with modern science. Compared to religion and spirituality. I do see religion as irrational because it goes against with a lot of modern science. I wouldn't be surprise many will disagree with Stephen Hawking, myself, and countless others who have a disbelief in a godlike being. I do agree with Hawking that we do need to study the cosmos and understand the universe.

Source
Source 2




The Bible says, " professing themselves to be wise, they became fools..."

In the whole argument against God, Stephen Hawkins wants everyone to believe that the whole universe was created from nothing at all, and that for a reason not known to anyone, it just "happened" all on it's own. This is all foolishness.

Lets do some science. Everyone knows that when mass or energy are stable and at a perfect equilibrium that it will stay that way until a force is applied to it to make it unstable and induce a change. I give you, "the conservation of energy. " Now, when nothing comes into contact with nothing, the result is that nothing will happen.

Now, he talks about other universes without elaborating as to where they came from and so on, but, for the sake of argument, lets go with it. We still have the, how did you get that universe question. So, that ain't gonna wash either.

Now, let me make my argument for God. Let's say that all things were created by God, who is not made of matter or energy, but who is Spirit and will of thought. Let's say that in His eternal existence He decided by His will to create something inferior than himself and dependent upon Him, yet beautiful at the same time. And let's say that He caused there to be laws for which science could one day discover the order and precision of His work. Laws so defined that only God could have done it I would say therefore that, " In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth."

1. Bible says first creation was light - science agrees

2. That the stars and planets formed - science agrees

3. That the Earth formed an atmosphere and acquired seas and water - science agrees

4. That plant life began to grow - science agrees

5. That the earth brought forth creatures - science agrees

6. That man came from the earth and is made of earth - science agrees

7. That mankind is the dominate creature on the earth - science agrees



Just because a scientist who is obviously mad at God says there is no God does not make it so. And that's all this is, a man angry at God.




edit on 18-4-2013 by Fromabove because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 



Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 





so no. "empty" space isn't empty because it cannot have a value of zero.


A absolute empty space is something. It is a space/void that is absolutely empty of finite time.
A absolute empty space can not be zero. Because it exists as a absolutely empty infinite space.

It is the very first dimension.


absolute empty space is something: i agree.
it is a space/void that is absolutely empty of finite time: time is only finite.
absolute empty space can not be zero: i also agree with this. space CAN be infinite, but only without time.

i do not think we are of such differing opinions. my question to you is: "where did it come from?"

perhaps it is unknowable, this is a distinct possibility. the first dimension could exist on it's own (i mean without other dimensions) but it would not have time (2nd dimension is required for 1st dimension to experience time), and we are still stuck with the question of it's origin.







absolute empty space can not be zero: i also agree with this. space CAN be infinite, but only without time.


This can not be correct. A infinite space can not disappear or change its own property even thou finite is present with in it. Because the infinite is a absolute constant. The only space that is not infinite is the dimension of our finite universe. A lot off people even scientists thinks our finite universe is Thee space. Meaning there is no space out side of it.





i do not think we are of such differing opinions. my question to you is: "where did it come from?"


True i think we are an the same page on this subject. When it comes to your question i do have a opinion on where our universe came from. There is only one place it can come from. And that is of the absolute empty infinite void. There are no other source present that it can come from.

Our whole universe/space consists of compressed matter and energies. So there must have been a compression within the infinite void that formed our universe. The compression formed the singularity as mentioned in the Big Bang Theory. The singularity have expanded and formed the universe and life we observe today.



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove
 



The Bible says, " professing themselves to be wise, they became fools..."

In the whole argument against God, Stephen Hawkins wants everyone to believe that the whole universe was created from nothing at all, and that for a reason not known to anyone, it just "happened" all on it's own. This is all foolishness.

Lets do some science. Everyone knows that when mass or energy are stable and at a perfect equilibrium that it will stay that way until a force is applied to it to make it unstable and induce a change. I give you, "the conservation of energy. " Now, when nothing comes into contact with nothing, the result is that nothing will happen.

Now, he talks about other universes without elaborating as to where they came from and so on, but, for the sake of argument, lets go with it. We still have the, how did you get that universe question. So, that ain't gonna wash either.

Now, let me make my argument for God. Let's say that all things were created by God, who is not made of matter or energy, but who is Spirit and will of thought. Let's say that in His eternal existence He decided by His will to create something inferior than himself and dependent upon Him, yet beautiful at the same time. And let's say that He caused there to be laws for which science could one day discover the order and precision of His work. Laws so defined that only God could have done it I would say therefore that, " In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth."

1. Bible says first creation was light - science agrees

2. That the stars and planets formed - science agrees

3. That the Earth formed an atmosphere and acquired seas and water - science agrees

4. That plant life began to grow - science agrees

5. That the earth brought forth creatures - science agrees

6. That man came from the earth and is made of earth - science agrees

7. That mankind is the dominate creature on the earth - science agrees



Just because a scientist who is obviously mad at God says there is no God does not make it so. And that's all this is, a man angry at God.


In all of your scientific postulating, I couldn't help but notice that you failed to explain where "God" comes from. You said it: something can't come from nothing. So where did "God" come from?

And I wanted to address that last part as well:


Just because a scientist who is obviously mad at God says there is no God does not make it so. And that's all this is, a man angry at God.


Professor Stephen Hawking, genius physicist and revolutionary of modern science, has already explained that he is "extremely grateful" for his "once chance" to experience this universe.

Where do you get the idea that he is at all angry?
edit on 18-4-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 



Nothingness is God.



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   
I love how you can sleep and then wake up to find so many replies! Thanks for the replies. But it would be awhile since I'm moving slow as a turtle. I would answer later today!



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 



Nothingness is God.


Then, by your own admission, "God" is nothing.

Please insert 50 cents to start a new game.
edit on 18-4-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   
The big bang theory : knock knock knock, Penney ! knock knock knock, Penney ! knock knock knock, Penney !...LOL

Seriously though...my take on the creation of the universe is not very complicated.....It is a cycle through wich a black hole eventually can no longer support the absortion and ...Well....Vomits...And creates a whole new universe that will expand until.......A "new" black whole is massive enough to "ingest" all the matter of said universe untill it reaches a point of....You guessed it...Vomists....And the cycle continues on and on and on for ever.



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nuke2013
The big bang theory : knock knock knock, Penney ! knock knock knock, Penney ! knock knock knock, Penney !...LOL

Seriously though...my take on the creation of the universe is not very complicated.....It is a cycle through wich a black hole eventually can no longer support the absortion and ...Well....Vomits...And creates a whole new universe that will expand until.......A "new" black whole is massive enough to "ingest" all the matter of said universe untill it reaches a point of....You guessed it...Vomists....And the cycle continues on and on and on for ever.


Really? is that so?

Wow man.... you have ALL THE ANSWERS huh?


Edit to say;
I hope you're being sarcastic
edit on 18-4-2013 by resoe26 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   
You should be thankful that God has thought about this existence and you have a remnant of his thought ever expanding, scientists all play a role and God has given them that role but have become to wise and lost touch. He has made his claim or who ever speaks through his ghost box did.



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by resoe26

Originally posted by Nuke2013
The big bang theory : knock knock knock, Penney ! knock knock knock, Penney ! knock knock knock, Penney !...LOL

Seriously though...my take on the creation of the universe is not very complicated.....It is a cycle through wich a black hole eventually can no longer support the absortion and ...Well....Vomits...And creates a whole new universe that will expand until.......A "new" black whole is massive enough to "ingest" all the matter of said universe untill it reaches a point of....You guessed it...Vomists....And the cycle continues on and on and on for ever.


Really? is that so?

Wow man.... you have ALL THE ANSWERS huh?


Edit to say;
I hope you're being sarcastic
edit on 18-4-2013 by resoe26 because: (no reason given)


God knows I'm not...Oh...Wait...I'm Athiest...

Seriously...According to Einstein, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. so...what's wrong with the basic theory that I propose??

We all know that black wholes "absorb" everything it encounters, eventually.....I mean in gazillions and gazillions years...Onluy black holes remain and in turn "join" creating the biggest and baddest black hole ever until it "explodes", reguritates everything and, there you have a "big bang" thus "creating" a whole new universe.



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by WarriorOfLight96
 



You should be thankful that God has thought about this existence and you have a remnant of his thought ever expanding, scientists all play a role and God has given them that role but have become to wise and lost touch. He has made his claim or who ever speaks through his ghost box did.



You should put down that Magic 8 Ball and open a science book. Using those science books, not to mention a few that he wrote himself, Stephen Hawking has declared that he sees no reason to believe in a god. And he even says that this doesn't diminish the value of the world, but adds to it! One chance, one shot, on opportunity to explore/experience this reality.

Those who are afraid of death, haven't yet lived.
edit on 18-4-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nuke2013

Originally posted by resoe26

Originally posted by Nuke2013
The big bang theory : knock knock knock, Penney ! knock knock knock, Penney ! knock knock knock, Penney !...LOL

Seriously though...my take on the creation of the universe is not very complicated.....It is a cycle through wich a black hole eventually can no longer support the absortion and ...Well....Vomits...And creates a whole new universe that will expand until.......A "new" black whole is massive enough to "ingest" all the matter of said universe untill it reaches a point of....You guessed it...Vomists....And the cycle continues on and on and on for ever.


Really? is that so?

Wow man.... you have ALL THE ANSWERS huh?


Edit to say;
I hope you're being sarcastic
edit on 18-4-2013 by resoe26 because: (no reason given)


God knows I'm not...Oh...Wait...I'm Athiest...

Seriously...According to Einstein, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. so...what's wrong with the basic theory that I propose??

We all know that black wholes "absorb" everything it encounters, eventually.....I mean in gazillions and gazillions years...Onluy black holes remain and in turn "join" creating the biggest and baddest black hole ever until it "explodes", reguritates everything and, there you have a "big bang" thus "creating" a whole new universe.


You might be on to something man.
But like always, any evidence or research to back up your theory would be better.



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Phoenix267
 


For him Science is God. It is all good, it is about energy and the vastness of our Universe and beyond. Every truth is at the ultimate an individual thing.



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by resoe26
 


Well...I have never seen any such research personally and I'm no scientist by no means....Just thinking out loud really. But honestly, to me, that's as simple as it can get. Energy never dies and can only be transfered, combine that with Einstein's theory of relativity and ....Well....It seems quite simple. Well...I think anyways but....I'm no scientist.



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Fromabove
 



The Bible says, " professing themselves to be wise, they became fools..."

In the whole argument against God, Stephen Hawkins wants everyone to believe that the whole universe was created from nothing at all, and that for a reason not known to anyone, it just "happened" all on it's own. This is all foolishness.

Lets do some science. Everyone knows that when mass or energy are stable and at a perfect equilibrium that it will stay that way until a force is applied to it to make it unstable and induce a change. I give you, "the conservation of energy. " Now, when nothing comes into contact with nothing, the result is that nothing will happen.

Now, he talks about other universes without elaborating as to where they came from and so on, but, for the sake of argument, lets go with it. We still have the, how did you get that universe question. So, that ain't gonna wash either.

Now, let me make my argument for God. Let's say that all things were created by God, who is not made of matter or energy, but who is Spirit and will of thought. Let's say that in His eternal existence He decided by His will to create something inferior than himself and dependent upon Him, yet beautiful at the same time. And let's say that He caused there to be laws for which science could one day discover the order and precision of His work. Laws so defined that only God could have done it I would say therefore that, " In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth."

1. Bible says first creation was light - science agrees

2. That the stars and planets formed - science agrees

3. That the Earth formed an atmosphere and acquired seas and water - science agrees

4. That plant life began to grow - science agrees

5. That the earth brought forth creatures - science agrees

6. That man came from the earth and is made of earth - science agrees

7. That mankind is the dominate creature on the earth - science agrees



Just because a scientist who is obviously mad at God says there is no God does not make it so. And that's all this is, a man angry at God.


In all of your scientific postulating, I couldn't help but notice that you failed to explain where "God" comes from. You said it: something can't come from nothing. So where did "God" come from?

And I wanted to address that last part as well:


Just because a scientist who is obviously mad at God says there is no God does not make it so. And that's all this is, a man angry at God.


Professor Stephen Hawking, genius physicist and revolutionary of modern science, has already explained that he is "extremely grateful" for his "once chance" to experience this universe.

Where do you get the idea that he is at all angry?
edit on 18-4-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


It is easier to say that what is comes from God than to say that what is comes from nothing. No one knows where God came from. They can't even tell you where the universe comes from.

Stephen may seem grateful for his one chance, but he sounds like so many angry people I've heard before. So like I said, he is obviously an angry person.



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nuke2013
reply to post by resoe26
 


Well...I have never seen any such research personally and I'm no scientist by no means....Just thinking out loud really. But honestly, to me, that's as simple as it can get. Energy never dies and can only be transfered, combine that with Einstein's theory of relativity and ....Well....It seems quite simple. Well...I think anyways but....I'm no scientist.



Hell, me either.
But interesting theory.



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by resoe26

Originally posted by Nuke2013
reply to post by resoe26
 


Well...I have never seen any such research personally and I'm no scientist by no means....Just thinking out loud really. But honestly, to me, that's as simple as it can get. Energy never dies and can only be transfered, combine that with Einstein's theory of relativity and ....Well....It seems quite simple. Well...I think anyways but....I'm no scientist.



Hell, me either.
But interesting theory.


I'll call Stephen Hawkins and see what he thinks...lol....

I might be completly wrong but at least it's an original theory...lol



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove
 



It is easier to say that what is comes from God than to say that what is comes from nothing. No one knows where God came from. They can't even tell you where the universe comes from.


You mean it's easier to dismiss years of mind-numbing research at the hands of a genius with a simple, "he's talking nonsense because he's angry." Right. Okay.


Stephen may seem grateful for his one chance, but he sounds like so many angry people I've heard before. So like I said, he is obviously an angry person.


And now you know why we look to Professor Hawking for rational conclusions.





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join