Stephen Hawking lays out case for Big Bang without God

page: 8
8
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by preludefanguy
 


My point here is that what Stephen Hawking says in that video, he discovered for himself. He made sure that his findings were as solid as they were going to get, and explored every alternative as well as attempting to disprove the conclusions he worked so hard to obtain.

He has a lot more reason to believe what he does than most religious nuts have to believe what they do. Hell, a Harvard geologist by the name of Kurt Wise has already stated that even if science concluded a truth that contradicted the Bible, he would stick with the Bible. It's an insult to the intelligence of the most viable species for guardianship over Earth. Since "God" clearly isn't doing anything, we should step up and take responsibility.




posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


I completely agree.

We do need to step up. Our notions of God coming down to save us, or aliens, or what have you is really dis-empowering to the human spirit. We give away our ability to cause change for ourselves.

But in the quest to find answers for himself, Mr. Stephen Hawking has a biased opinion, but so do all humans right?

His arrogance lies in the face that he does not love himself, he is filled by separation. His mind only sees the separation, sees the matter which is formed by the unseen forces.

The big bang is a frontier, not everything is known about it, although we are learning a hell of a lot, and are coming to know it pretty quick with our advancing technologies. What creates and sustains our reality is also a frontier, how can one man be so arrogant as to say I can completely rule something out of the equation when I dont even know the extent or the wholeness of the equation? Ill tell you how, it is because he is a man, lol.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by preludefanguy
 


Have you ever had a conversation with him? Sat down with him and had an in-depth exchange on how he feels about life, the world, and reality? Then how do you really know what he thinks or feels? You're not inside his head. You've never been. You're taking an awful lot of liberties here. Maybe you shouldn't be so presumptuous. You don't know anything about his feelings or processes.

And he has stated quite clearly that he is "extremely grateful". Any bias on his part is not negative.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Grateful, happiness, and love are all different things.

By the way, who or what is he grateful to? Remember grateful is an appreciation of kindness. The way people use words describe to us their hidden psychology. He also says, for this, for the idea of only having one existence and being lucky enough even in current circumstance for him to be able to live through it, experience all it has to offer and then cease to exist which is the fate of all. To him, it is outward thanks, to a system that he has termed as random with no objectives, but thankful that even this 'system' has brought him about. Hmm.. in some ways, when we come to certain conclusions, we are still pointing at something, other than ourselves.

He also calls it a grand design, designed by ? Randomness? I guess Randomness could be a god, we've had a god of chaos.

Im not saying there is something wrong with him, but rather he lives in quite a normal state for the average human being.

How many people do you know that truly love themselves in a way that emanates outwardly to those around them and the rest of the world?

But clearly, we both cant be right, so who is wrong? Is there a wrong? Or is wrong and things called failures only collapsing a system down to something that is below the threshold of bare minimums to have a successful outcome? A limited viewpoint/perception one might call it. Others might call it existing and resonating within a smaller consciousness. Is there wrong within a smaller boundary of the whole which is truth? No, its an opinion, which is something that is formed from probing a system, analyzing it and then labeling it. What we have here, is analyzing a subdivision of the whole and being comfortable within that subdivision we have termed as the whole.
edit on 20-4-2013 by preludefanguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by preludefanguy
 


Failure is to be expected of imperfect beings. Failure is an inherent process of giving success the value that makes learning all the more worthwhile to us. Without failure, lessons have no value. Without value, they mean nothing. And if they mean nothing to us, are we really learning?



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by preludefanguy
 


Failure is to be expected of imperfect beings. Failure is an inherent process of giving success the value that makes learning all the more worthwhile to us. Without failure, lessons have no value. Without value, they mean nothing. And if they mean nothing to us, are we really learning?



I view failure as progress. But yes, when you do figure out a systems minimum threshold you allow that system to come into existence, the taste of success is sweet. Value is an estimated or assigned worth. We can all have values of different things, and believe them to be of more value than the other. So you value success? Success is the other side of the coin for failure, except failure is the larger sea, success is the system lining up in just the way for it to come to be, without the vast sea of failure pushing the system to line up to a small degree of success, we would not know success. (and there are more ways that one to skin a cat, figuratively speaking of course) I value both, and if you want to speak about value in quantitative fashion, it seems that: ( amount of failures > amount of success' ) , from a numbers point of view. But this is the kind of thinking that can get you into trouble. Taking things apart. They both spin around each other, like ying and yang, and one couldnt be without the other. The very nature of OUR universe is to learn about its possibilities within its limited system. Same can be said for man, what can man dream up to push his perceived limitations to make a true possibility a successful outcome?
edit on 20-4-2013 by preludefanguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by preludefanguy
 


Which is why I cannot understand the obsession with a perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing god. What's the appeal? Being invincible? Are we so disgusted with our ignorant vulnerable nature that we become enamored with the idea of being immortal and omnipotent?

I don't get it.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by preludefanguy
 


Which is why I cannot understand the obsession with a perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing god. What's the appeal? Being invincible? Are we so disgusted with our ignorant vulnerable nature that we become enamored with the idea of being immortal and omnipotent?

I don't get it.


You are very perceptive. Except, it is not necessarily our true nature. Nature is akin to character is akin to temper which are all states. Temper could be used in the form of working with metal objects at certain temperatures and we can see it as a higher 'frequency/atoms vibrating/energy exchange' in all those cases. Its a sate of the same physical, or unseen thing(character). They all have measurements, and the measurements pick out parts of the whole to collapse into a symbol for your mind to process.

We are sheep, and we are being herded around by wolves.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by preludefanguy
 


But it all comes back to the same thing: making peace with, and understanding, all possibilities because that's the key to controlling them.
edit on 20-4-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


when you make peace its not so much about controlling, but its more of a surrendering



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by preludefanguy
 



when you make peace its not so much about controlling, but its more of a surrendering


No, it's more of a "picking your battles". You can surrender if you want to, but I won't. There's a reason I'm not big into religion. I don't feel like answering to any god. I have my own brain, my own heart, my own soul, and my own free will. And dammit, I'm going to use all four of them to the best of my ability for my happiness, and the happiness of those I care about. I have the capability to make my own path, and that's what I'll do because it feels right.
edit on 20-4-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by spy66
 



Wrong, it becomes a vacuum when you put something into it. Initially a absolute vacuum is a neutral space until something enters it, than it becomes a vacuum.


No, you are wrong on that count:


1vac·u·um
noun ˈva-(ˌ)kyüm, -kyəm also -kyü-əm
plural vac·u·ums or vac·ua
Definition of VACUUM
1
: emptiness of space
2
a : a space absolutely devoid of matter


Notice where the word 'absolutely' is used in the definition? That means that you have no wiggle room to backpedal without admitting your ignorance in the subject. And now we can conclusively determine that you have not a bloody clue what you're jawing about. Thank you for settling the matter for us - we no longer need concern ourselves with your gross inaccuracies and ill-founded opinions. A good day to you, sir.

Don't let the forum door hit you on the way out.

edit on 20-4-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


A space that is absolutely empty is not a vacuum unless it is inside a chamber. That is what you definitions applies to.

A space that is absolutely empty is absolutely neutral. How can it be anything else? How can it be a vacuum if it is neutral?

You can read, but understanding what you read is something you have to work on.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by preludefanguy
 



when you make peace its not so much about controlling, but its more of a surrendering


No, it's more of a "picking your battles". You can surrender if you want to, but I won't. There's a reason I'm not big into religion. I don't feel like answering to any god. I have my own brain, my own heart, my own soul, and my own free will. And dammit, I'm going to use all four of them to the best of my ability for my happiness, and the happiness of those I care about. I have the capability to make my own path, and that's what I'll do because it feels right.
edit on 20-4-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


I applaud you, for you are choosing for yourself, let not man suppress you with his thoughts. And Im so glad that you choose happiness for yourself and for those around you. You're making your own path with every breath. I hope you have much love and prosperity in your life.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by preludefanguy
 


Thank you. It is my logical conclusion that if I am given freedom, and the will to use that freedom, and the mind to discern that freedom, and the heart to dream that freedom, then I should spend every breath of my life fulfilling that freedom exactly as I dream it to be. Indebted to no one, subjugated by no one, alive to experience the joys of life and bring those joys to the world around me.

No god. No lord. No master. Just me and the world. The world's actions and my reactions. Carving a path through the jungle I have been provided with, never taking a single second for granted. Fate favors those with the courage to make it. And I feel that Hawking thinks the same way.
edit on 20-4-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 




A space that is absolutely empty is not a vacuum unless it is inside a chamber. That is what you definitions applies to.

A space that is absolutely empty is absolutely neutral. How can it be anything else? How can it be a vacuum if it is neutral?

You can read, but understanding what you read is something you have to work on.


Perhaps you should identify your sources so we can clear this matter up. It appears you have been woefully misinformed.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


I believe that once a black hole has consumed enough matter, it simply explodes and creates another universe.
Since energy cannot be created or destroyed (so current science would have us believe) it has to go somewhere. Hence,The Big Bang.

That or the Creator is the biggest plumber I have ever seen. Those pipes have to be really clogged, and only a Super-Sized Roto-Rooter could fix them.

Ergo, my original theory is what I'm going with for now.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Cynic
 







I believe that once a black hole has consumed enough matter, it simply explodes and creates another universe.
Since energy cannot be created or destroyed (so current science would have us believe) it has to go somewhere. Hence,The Big Bang.


Energy is not infinite thereby; energy can never be destroyed, energy is a finite. In other words energy can be created.
Energy changes from one form/state to another. Thereby it is not infinite. If energy was infinite it would not change form/state.

The infinite space is larger than finite energy. So, how can it be destroyed?


I have read about the theory you mention above, and it seams very plausible at first glance. But initially at the very beginning there were no black holes. Only a infinite empty space. That is the very first dimension, the very beginning. And it is the only dimension that can be absolute infinite.

I will not stick with the theory about the black hole exploding. Because that is not how finite time started.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by spy66
 




A space that is absolutely empty is not a vacuum unless it is inside a chamber. That is what you definitions applies to.

A space that is absolutely empty is absolutely neutral. How can it be anything else? How can it be a vacuum if it is neutral?

You can read, but understanding what you read is something you have to work on.


Perhaps you should identify your sources so we can clear this matter up. It appears you have been woefully misinformed.


Hey i use the same sources as you do. But i understand the source you don't.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
Prof Stephen Hawking can't talk or move. All you hear from him is from someone else.

Think about it?

Still I really enjoy what they have to say.


Exactly! Starting about 3 years ago, he has had "assisted typing". This translates to a guy (it was a guy when I watched it on a program) holding his wrist and "interpreting" what Hawking "meant to type" by invisible muscle twitches, if there were, in fact, any at all.

The guy has ALS, which does not get better over time. Just the opposite, with a slow deterioration toward complete immobility and death being the recognized path of the disease.

Poor guy is having his bodily shell and mechanized voice used to spread an agenda.

I can't help but wonder if he still has the wherewithal to be pissed about this fact.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


To each his own I suppose.
If Steven Hawking doesn't choose to believe in the Creator, that's his due.
Personally, I have a problem with organized religion, so he and I may be on the same page from different perspectives.
As to your own suppositions, well, we all know assumptions are like azzholes, everyone has one.
ROTFLMFAO!





top topics
 
8
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join