Stephen Hawking lays out case for Big Bang without God

page: 9
8
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cynic
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!


Its just a debate. What ever is spoken here and what ever we think, bears no weight. We have no authority to make a claim based on our knowledge.

I personally like to argue my own views on the subject, not someone else's. Like most people here do.




posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


I meant no offense,
But if it appeared as much, I sincerely apologize,



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 



Did you deliberately ignore the part about a ton of scientists working from a variety of different angles to cover all possibilities and limit bias to no more than is absolutely impossible to avoid? Or do you make a habit of underestimating the scientific community that is held responsible for the condition of everything you take for granted?

a large amount of bias exists, no matter what steps are taken. i have witnessed institutions doing blind tests for things and giving out the results, then retracting the results as "obviously flawed" when what they tested is revealed based on nothing more than an unwillingness to accept the ramifications.



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Then they weren't true scientists. No self-respecting scientist allows such an elementary error as personal bias to interfere with a study. They go to lengths to ensure that it won't be a problem, or they find someone else to assist them in both the examination and the analysis.
edit on 21-4-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Then they weren't true scientists. No self-respecting scientist allows such an elementary error as personal bias to interfere with a study. They go to lengths to ensure that it won't be a problem, or they find someone else to assist them in both the examination and the analysis.
edit on 21-4-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

i completely agree. it wasn't science, but it is all too often seen. the people who carried out the test (two prestigious institutions of learning) both behaved the same way when confronted with things that they didn't want to believe.

there is more to be gained by attempting to prove a hypothesis right than attempting to prove it wrong.

don't take what i'm saying as an attack on hawking, or on anyone. i've read some of hawkings work, and "a brief history of time". i think hawking radiation is a great example of the man's brilliance, but his refusal to explore a possibility is a sign of bias. it's a very common bias in humans.



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


There's refusing to explore a possibility, and eliminating a possibility by taking into consideration the surrounding certainties. Are you sure this isn't the case?



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


There's refusing to explore a possibility, and eliminating a possibility by taking into consideration the surrounding certainties. Are you sure this isn't the case?

yes. there remains no realistic explanation on how the universe could create itself. the most popular theories involve two other universes colliding (that came into being the same way ad infinitum) and quantum fluctuations leading to the big bang (not possible, these require space, time, energy, AND a model of physics already in place).

i cannot think of a theory that rejects the notion of a creator that DOESN'T involve timeless elements, ever existing elements that don't follow known thermodynamics, or the presence of something that caused our universe to come into being.

these theories were born out of the refusal to consider a creator, yet cannot deny all of the properties that a creator would exhibit in order to have created the universe.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


I agree, it is logical to suggest that a force originating from outside of this universe prompted the creation of this universe. But we must embrace the fact that our severely limited perception is likely a significant stumbling block in our quest for answers. Simply put, we may not be able to discern the solution in our current evolutionary state. Furthermore, our current evolutionary state boasts certain psychological faults that may prove, and perhaps have already proven, more deceptive than practical for such a pursuit.

Time will tell.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   
I don't see God hindering the search for the truth and he lets things play out and I don't see myself hindering science because logic tells us that people differ from each other and we all don't think alike. I do see people hindering themselves from both sides like we see here, by reflecting on those who choose faith and attacking them and using faith against the non believers. This is enough for one to be weighed down by grief and hate on both sides and I like reading the science side of things because to me you describe the beauty of God's creation.

In the bible it says that there are three heavens.

1) The first heaven is where the wind and the birds reside, clouds etc.

2) The second heaven is space, planets galaxies, black holes, you get the picture.

3) The third is where the throne room of god resides and the very place the thought of creation came from and it's behind the veil and it is also in you because it all came from God.

Go on searching but give what I say a thought and it's truly up to you my friends.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by WarriorOfLight96
 


Yet another trinity metaphor. Why am I not surprised? I would surmise that the firmament comprising the first heaven is representative of the body, the celestial second heaven is the mind, and the third is the soul. Just like every other trinity in religious context.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by VoidHawk
I've nothing against those who believe in a god, personally I don't believe.

For me it always seems so strange that over there they believe in that god, over here they believe in this god, down there they believe in the joojoo who lives under the bush.

One thing is for sure, the vast majority who believe in a god are wrong, because they all say there is only ONE true god, and they all believe it's THEIR god, therefore the vast majority MUST be wrong.

As for Hawking, well its all theory, not saying he's wrong, but he cant prove he's right.

edit on 17-4-2013 by VoidHawk because: (no reason given)


God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient.
2nd



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


It's describing the universe man, from earth to space to whats behind the big bang and dark matter is occupied by moving galaxies and space is never empty and as it moves away another galaxy moves across the matter it once occupied.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by steve95988
 



God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient.


Which means that he does not exist as an individual entity, but rather as an attribute that pervades all of existence.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by WarriorOfLight96
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


It's describing the universe man, from earth to space to whats behind the big bang and dark matter is occupied by moving galaxies and space is never empty and as it moves away another galaxy moves across the matter it once occupied.


The firmament must be the source to what takes place in genesis verse 3. There can not be light without a light source.

God cannot just say light and there is light. Something physical must give off this light. Like comressed matter.

Moses would never be able to see the firmament untill the bright light fades off. That is why Moses just observes the light in verse 3.



posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 06:06 AM
link   
The presumption that Big Bang happened or God exists is more difficult to dispute on a starring night, as if one tries to grab a handful of air. Do find a Psychic Medium as a spiritual form when you are out there and tell us what you exactly see and your whereabouts - Heaven or Hell or.... to prove you are totally right. ( Like the movie-GHOST ) So, the argument and disagreement here would be as clear as a potato.


God or noGod; Big Bang or non-BB is not a matter to me. I believe the Karmic law of Cause & Effect in our daily life. If I don't water my flower-pots, a few weeks later they start to wither away; if I don't eat nor drink for a few days, I'll become weak and feeble; if I don't feed my cat for a month or so, surely he'll not be coming back; if I don't have money, I can't pay all the bills; if it doesn't rain for a year, most of the lands will become drought and so on. So i TRY to cherish my friendships, relationships and every living day.

Sorry, if I have lost the interpretation in between.

Go out and enjoy this wonderful weekend with the nature; computer sometimes makes us dull!!!



posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


actually there wasnt even "nothing" before the universe. We cannot even begin to comprehend what it couldve been like before the big bang and then the big bang might have been something that happened only in this part of the universe that we can observe and beyond that are even more galaxies and other things going on, but to try and comprehend what there was before the big bang is impossible, even empty space is still space/time aka "something" so it boggles the mind to think that all of this just happened to perfectly come in to existence just right so life on this tiny little blue dot could flourish. If you are in to the whole mathematics being the language of creation thing then the odds of us being here are impossible. I personally think that energy and matter and the universe/universes/dimensions are eternal. Its always been and always will be. I would DIE to know what/who "let there be light"....



posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 06:45 AM
link   
you all know what my 2 cents is...

Symphony of Science - the Quantum World!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZGINaRUEkU
www.youtube.com...





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join