Stephen Hawking lays out case for Big Bang without God

reply to post by spy66

you're close, but your physics is a little off.

god exists outside time, therefore he is a constant. i cannot speculate much on the nature of it's existence much because it isn't knowable by humans, but i do think it exists outside everything, even the concept of dimensions.

i think we can agree that the universe as we know it began a finite time ago with the beginning of time itself at the big bang, and this event was caused by an unchanging entity. this entity i refer to as "god".

reply to post by Phoenix267


Steven Hawking, another idiot scientist. Spent most of his life studying Black Holes and got it wrong! I repeat...Got it wrong! I'm sorry to say (for him) that his views on the Universe and all that is in it are wrong too. He said there was no time before the Big Bang (a theory that is incorrect by the way, imho) for God to have made the Universe.........lol.......God doesn't exist in time. If it (I say it and not he or she as i believe it is an all pervasive intelligence and not some old man or woman with white hair) did it would not be immortal. All being's in time are mortal and corruptible, all thing's fade away eventually. Only our immortal spirit/soul survives and it survives outside of time, just like God.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by spy66

 

you're close, but your physics is a little off.

god exists outside time, therefore he is a constant. i cannot speculate much on the nature of it's existence much because it isn't knowable by humans, but i do think it exists outside everything, even the concept of dimensions.

i think we can agree that the universe as we know it began a finite time ago with the beginning of time itself at the big bang, and this event was caused by an unchanging entity. this entity i refer to as "god".

But the absolute infinite empty space is absolutely natural. There is no time within this dimension. It is not possible to exist out side of this dimension. It is only possible to exist within it or as the dimension it self.

If God exists within this dimension God would not have always existed. So the only answer is that God must be the dimension it self. And that would also explain how a absolute constant would be able to form a finite existence.

reply to post by spy66

But the absolute infinite empty space is absolutely natural. There is no time within this dimension. It is not possible to exist out side of this dimension. It is only possible to exist within it or as the dimension it self. If God exists within this dimension God would not have always existed. So the only answer is that God must be the dimension it self. And that would also explain how a absolute constant would be able to form a finite existence.

that isn't consistent with what we know.

what is the difference between absolute empty space and nothingness? space allows things to have extension.

i understand your point about god being the dimension, but i think it is more than just that.

reply to post by Y10H5W6H5

i wouldn't generalize the group as dumb because it is insulting to them and i happen to know some intelligent atheists. ideas are best perfected under stress.

i agree with you though. i have yet to hear a valid theory. most theories rely on something already existing, then through the properties of that existing substance all else formed (quantum fluctuations, etc).

Friends, the Baha'i faith should be explored. It embraces scientific knowledge in harmony with religion. God is timeless and therefore exists out of time and created a universe (or indeed the multi-verse) and all that follows and exists therein obey and follow paths according to the laws that govern them. i.e. gravity, quantum behavior, evolution and so on.

To say the universe can be created without God is just like saying I can scratch my head without God. It doesn't indicate God's lack of existence just our misunderstanding of God who can never be fully comprehended by man as our Brain is limited by the physical constraints of this world which obeys these very physical laws.

A little background...
You see the Baha'i faith sees all the prophets of the main monotheistic religions , Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddishim Christianity as being all manifestations of the same God, over time as man grows and develops and cultures change Man has needed guidance in different forms. Ways of living in a barren lawless dessert thousands of years ago do not apply today.

You see the Baha'i faith teaches that each messenger of God has had a different central theme right for that people at that time. At the time of Moses it was the need to obey law, at the time of Buddah was detachment from the material and desires and at the time of Jesus it was the time to embrace love and forgiveness. The message for today is to embrace unity of the human race.

Each of the manifestations of God is built upon the next. If we cling on to the old messages from the earlier manifestations we do not evolve and grow instead we stick to rituals and traditions which have become meaningless, and corrupt them for our own devices and kill, suppress and divide in the name of them.

We need to recognise our unity and grow together, the whole New Atheism movement is using science to wedge itself between those that believe in God and those that don't.

Science and religion are to live harmoniously side by side. Our literal translation of ancient texts and unwillingness to drop the empty traditions and rituals of older religions have show how religions are full of contradictions, and things that science have revealed to be untrue. The writings in the Baha'i faith have made it all clear to me. I implore all of you to research this for yourselves.

He didn't really lay anything out other than stating his views, where is the science in that?

I quote: "I will give you the Simplest explanation"

Is he giving his views or just the simplest explanation? I'm confused.

"We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe"

Having a design implies there is a designer.

Originally posted by thedoctorswife
reply to post by Nuke2013

 

Yes but that still does not explain where the universe came from, how it started. And of course, subsequently if it was down to God, who created god? Its quite the head duck.

edit. Both arguements, the proGod and the noGod, are both as difficult to get ones head around.

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

The only possible way to explain that and satisfy your faith, creationalist, Athiests and every other possible "religion" and scientists alike is simple.

The universe is God and God is the universe. There is no design, it is just there as it stands and expands. A magnicicent piece that IS. That's all !

Originally posted by Nuke2013

Originally posted by thedoctorswife
reply to post by Nuke2013

 

Yes but that still does not explain where the universe came from, how it started. And of course, subsequently if it was down to God, who created god? Its quite the head duck.

edit. Both arguements, the proGod and the noGod, are both as difficult to get ones head around.

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

The only possible way to explain that and satisfy your faith, creationalist, Athiests and every other possible "religion" and scientists alike is simple.

The universe is God and God is the universe. There is no design, it is just there as it stands and expands. A magnicicent piece that IS. That's all !

the truth should never be bent to "satisfy" preconceived notions.

there is a design, a very elaborate one. why do certain constants keep popping up if there was no design? everything that functions has a design, why should the universe be any different?

Design is something that we humans recognise as a constant, that constant can be calculated and make sense, the thing is when things make sense, we as humans tend to try to explain it beyond comprehension and....Well...we are still as dumb as a door nail when it comes to science and all it's implications, thus...We need to justify the creation because we do not completely undestand it. It is human nature to believe in something of a higher power than us and it is not scientific to go beyond what we try to understand.....Kind of a catch 22 realy !

reply to post by DrunkYogi

Steven Hawking, another idiot scientist.

Says the armchair conspiracy theorist.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
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)

Dude relax we all know who he is and all his accomplishments and we all read the same books in school and I am a big fan of many of the things he said. He says he is free inside his mind but I feel he is limiting his knowledge to the physical realm and not realizing the grand scale of things. I for one like reading up on this stuff because i believe we are in the very thought of God, a burst of imagination and as some scientist like to say the universe is like a thought.

I do not wish for science to stop and I only wish for war and violence to stop, I do believe in God and creation and like man and earth they both like to create and so will the galaxy because it's alive. Can we travel through these portals we like to call wormholes, but in reality they are brain waves through the very fabric of Gods mind.

The Bible says that God resides in the third heaven beyond the galaxy where the throne room resides and if we look back we can see our past and our future, science is a great part of my life and I would never have been a Star wars fan or science fiction fan for that matter.

Just because God exists doesn't hurt the quest for understanding and how things work and I'm all for it and it's way better than going to war every couple years.

reply to post by WarriorOfLight96

He says he is free inside his mind but I feel he is limiting his knowledge to the physical realm and not realizing the grand scale of things.

Thank you for responding.

His considerations have already factored in any realms that have any significant influence on our reality both direct and indirect. If he disregards any realm, it is because the realm is so displaced from our existence as to be irrelevant on all levels. And I daresay he has done the research necessary to reach such conclusions.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Well what has he gotten right? His theory about Black Holes was wrong. He spent most of his life racking his brain to come up with the wrong answer....lol. What a joker! These people are so wrapped up in their own Ego's that they cant see beyond their own self-righteous attitude and puny ideas.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by spy66

 

But the absolute infinite empty space is absolutely natural. There is no time within this dimension. It is not possible to exist out side of this dimension. It is only possible to exist within it or as the dimension it self. If God exists within this dimension God would not have always existed. So the only answer is that God must be the dimension it self. And that would also explain how a absolute constant would be able to form a finite existence.

that isn't consistent with what we know.

what is the difference between absolute empty space and nothingness? space allows things to have extension.

i understand your point about god being the dimension, but i think it is more than just that.

The difference between nothingness and a space that is absolutely empty is that one space is absolutely empty and the other "nothingness" is a space that seams to be empty but is not.

A infinite space does not allow extensions, because this space is as large as it can get.

A dimension that is absolutely empty and infinite will only allow dimensions that are different and smaller than it self. That is why we observe compressed matter/mass at different scales and densities.

A different way to put this is to call the absolute empty space for absolute neutral. This space can not create/form elements that are as neutral as it self.

reply to post by spy66

The difference between nothingness and a space that is absolutely empty is that one space is absolutely empty and the other "nothingness" is a space that seams to be empty but is not.

1noth·ing
pronoun \ˈnə-thiŋ\
Definition of NOTHING
1
: not any thing : no thing

1emp·ty
adjective \ˈem(p)-tē\
1
a : containing nothing

After consulting with Merriam-Webster (results shown above) I must conclude that you are full of bologna.

A infinite space does not allow extensions, because this space is as large as it can get.

An infinite space can allow divisions, however. Infinity can be loosely defined through numerical methods, but each and every unit available within that infinite capacity has its own value. In fact...

You can divide infinity an infinite number of times, and the resulting pieces will still be infinitely large,” Uresh said in his odd Lenatti accent. “But if you divide a non-infinite number an infinite number of times the resulting pieces are non-infinitely small. Since they are non-infinitely small, but there are an infinite number of them, if you add them back together, their sum is infinite. This implies any number is, in fact, infinite.

The above is an excerpt from The Wise Man's Fear by Patrick Rothfuss.

A dimension that is absolutely empty and infinite will only allow dimensions that are different and smaller than it self. That is why we observe compressed matter/mass at different scales and densities.

Meaning that the larger whole is only perceptible to us as limited combinations of its base components?

reply to post by DrunkYogi

Well what has he gotten right? His theory about Black Holes was wrong. He spent most of his life racking his brain to come up with the wrong answer....lol. What a joker! These people are so wrapped up in their own Ego's that they cant see beyond their own self-righteous attitude and puny ideas.

How about you post some of your work, as recognized by prestigious science communities and lauded by established researchers everywhere? You talk a lot of crap but don't seem to have anything of your own on the table. What degrees do you have? What books have you published? What lectures have you given? For all your bluster, you have nothing to show.

You're a chihuahua barking at a genius from behind the fence of your own ignorance. Either substantiate your claims or be quiet. Those who pretend to know stuff annoy those who actually do.

reply to post by spy66

A infinite space does not allow extensions, because this space is as large as it can get.

infinity covered the rest, but "extension" was meant in the philosophical way meaning "something can occupy space because space exists".

there is simply no such thing as absolute empty infinite space. infinite space can exist if it is the highest dimensional space (no time would exist in it, only in lesser dimensions), but it cannot be empty. it has substance and laws that govern it, even if the substance isn't directly perceivable to us.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


"noth·ing·ness" can also mean insigificant.

Now you can look up insiginificant.