PDA

View Full Version : Hawking: God did NOT create the universe



Ioke
2010-09-03, 04:04
LONDON (Reuters) – God did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, the eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book.

In "The Grand Design," co-authored with U.S. physicist Leonard Mlodinow, Hawking says a new series of theories made a creator of the universe redundant, according to the Times newspaper which published extracts on Thursday.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," Hawking writes.

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100902/lf_nm_life/us_britain_hawking



Thoughts???

(I'll share mine after I recollect all my thoughts regarding Creationism...might take a while!)

Bittereinder
2010-09-03, 04:09
Of course not. Did we really need Hawking to tell us that?

ríkharður
2010-09-03, 04:10
He brings nothing exactly new. Modern science dismisses the existence of God, at least as portrayed by churches and religion.
These conclusions go beyond pure science and reach philosophy. And philosophy was indeed the mother of all sciences.
We are so used to see the origin of things in everything that to think of something to come out of nothing seems really unbelievable. But it can be otherwise.

ethioboy
2010-09-03, 04:13
He got paid to say that :) we all know full well there is cause to everything in this universe (the notion of cause and effect is a well established law see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality), ESPECIALLY if he thinks the laws of Physics played a part in the creation of the big bang.

Ioke
2010-09-03, 04:13
Of course not. Did we really need Hawking to tell us that?

Well, Einstein said that there is. ;)

Krutz
2010-09-03, 04:14
I agree with the quoted part.

But if you realy must put god in there somewhere i guess quantum particles popping in and out of existance pretty much leaves him with a mindnumbingly boring task of pushing two buttons...in/out.

---------- Post added 2010-09-03 at 05:14 ----------


Well, Einstein said that there is. ;)

Einstein was a deist.

Ioke
2010-09-03, 04:15
But you must really think that if Science teaches us that energy CANNOT be created nor destroyed...

Then, where did it come from?

carlos
2010-09-03, 04:18
Interesting Ioke!

Another member here once wrote he thinks God is the total energy of the Universe...

Krutz
2010-09-03, 04:21
But you must really think that if Science teaches us that energy CANNOT be created nor destroyed...

Then, where did it come from?

The big bang?

Ioke
2010-09-03, 04:22
Interesting Ioke!

Another member here once wrote he thinks God is the total energy of the Universe...

I AGREE.

Even though I don't believe that God has the same form as humans... (perhaps that's me thinking that man as egocentric) I still believe in a higher form of energy.

If that is the case, then God is EVERYWHERE. :)

And by the way...I'm not religious. I am spiritual. :)

Krutz
2010-09-03, 04:23
Interesting Ioke!

Another member here once wrote he thinks God is the total energy of the Universe...

What does that mean exactly, isnt that a pretty useless definition of god? why call it god at all?

edit: dammit why wont the multiquote thingy work, owell.

Unome
2010-09-03, 04:23
To state "God did this or did not do that…" first people must define Him.

I personally want to hear Hawking's definition of 'God'.

Krutz
2010-09-03, 04:26
To state "God did this or did not do that…" first people must define Him.

I personally want to hear Hawking's definition of 'God'.

Im pretty sure he ment any of the Gods we "know" of here on planet earth, but thats just a guess.

carlos
2010-09-03, 04:26
What does that mean exactly, isnt that a pretty useless definition of god? why call it god at all?

edit: dammit why wont the multiquote thingy work, owell.

Why call it god? I don't know. You can call it flying spaghetti monster, if you want...

Or maybe Cthulhu...or JDadfaerda......or &(%$#$%&/(/&%!!!!!

What do you mean by useless?:|

ethioboy
2010-09-03, 04:27
Interesting Ioke!

Another member here once wrote he thinks God is the total energy of the Universe...

How could this be if it was the force that created energy itself in the first place. It (God) must be outside of this universe.

carlos
2010-09-03, 04:29
How was energy created? I don't know...Wasn't it there all the time? I really don't know....

Humata
2010-09-03, 04:31
Science is the objective acquisition of knowledge. Conclusions reached by esteemed minds (such as Hawkings') cannot be dismissed in the same way as Abu Hamza's. Nor should they, as their approach is mostly objective.

I can be considered a person of faith, although my interpretation of religious material is rarely literal and usually metaphorical. I perceive the primary conclusions reached by the Bible, Qur'an and other religious texts as guidance (not orders or dogma) for living harmonious and spiritually-fulfilling lives.
That isn't to say an atheist, agnostic or theist of another creed is not capable of living such a life. Ideally, people should be free to follow whichever belief system that helps them reach that harmonious and fulfilled lifestyle.
Two quotes which underscore the individuality and essence of faith;


"One's own religion is after all a matter between oneself and one's Maker and no one else's."

"The essence of all religions is one. Only their approaches are different."

- Mohandas Gandhi

Krutz
2010-09-03, 04:31
Why call it god? I don't know. You can call it flying spaghetti monster, if you want...

Or maybe Cthulhu...or JDadfaerda......or &(%$#$%&/(/&%!!!!!

What do you mean by useless?:|

I mean its useless in the same way it would be useless if i said that God is the sum of all noodles in the world.

Btw as Ioke said earlier, if energy cannot be created nor destroyed(laws of thermodynamics etc) does that not logically mean that it has allways been there in one form or another?
I think this is what Hawking means when he sais there is no need for a Creator type being.

ethioboy
2010-09-03, 04:33
How was energy created? I don't know...Wasn't it there all the time? I really don't know....

Well it seems since the laws of physics as we know them can only be applied to this universe since we have not had any experience outside of this universe then it seems whatever reality lies beyond our universe must have made it possible for the creation of energy itself? I think its an interesting question.

carlos
2010-09-03, 04:34
To me, it sounds a logical interpretation to think God's the energy of all. Always been there, and always will...

Although if you wanna beilive God is the sum of all the noodles of the world, do it:)

Ioke
2010-09-03, 04:35
I mean its useless in the same way it would be useless if i said that God is the sum of all noodles in the world.

Btw as Ioke said earlier, if energy cannot be created not destroyed(laws of thermodynamics etc) does that not logically mean that it has allways been there in one form or another?

Well, that's true...if it cannot be created, it should have existed even before time. Therefore, what is THAT energy that existed? What was that particle if you must, that was there from where all particles have come from?

The Big Bang could not have happened and the universe could not be expanding IF there is no energy from which it derives it from. So what energy is that???

Mind boggling. ;)

Krutz
2010-09-03, 04:38
Well it seems since the laws of physics as we know them can only be applied to this universe since we have not had any experience outside of this universe then it seems whatever reality lies beyond our universe must have made it possible for the creation of energy itself? I think its an interesting question.

Well there seems to abit of a contradiction to me...some laws claim energy cannot be created/destroyed, yet other fields such as quantum physics claim that particles pop in and out of existance all the time...odd

Unome
2010-09-03, 04:51
I actually doubt the "physical universe" is expanding… so yeah…

Ioke
2010-09-03, 04:53
I actually doubt the "physical universe" is expanding… so yeah…

It is expanding. :)

Unome
2010-09-03, 04:55
It is expanding. :)
Riiiiight… :)

Ioke
2010-09-03, 04:58
Riiiiight… :)

Haha...look it up if you want. ;)

I ain't lying!

Krutz
2010-09-03, 05:02
Haha...look it up if you want. ;)

I ain't lying!

Yes it is, which also means that what is observable now wont be later which in turn might call into question whatever observational basis for scientific claims...looong way down the road tho.

Bittereinder
2010-09-03, 05:03
Mind boggling. ;)

I think the universe's mere existence is mind-boggling. Why does anything exist? It's a scary thought that you cannot fully wrap your head around.

alfieb
2010-09-03, 05:05
I believe God is omnipotent and omnipresent. Everywhere, and all-powerful. Does that mean I believe he is a being of flesh and matter such as we are? I'm not sure, nor will I ever claim to be.

There's no way to prove it or disprove it, so there's no sense in valuing one human being's opinion more than another, even when they're as well esteemed as Prof. Hawking. He's a mathematician. There is no sum in the world that can determine the existence of God. God has no numerical or scientific value to analyze.

Moreover, if I were in Hawking's position, I probably wouldn't believe in a deity either. He's been long-suffering for decades, with ever-decreasing motor ability. My greatest fear in the world is that one day I might wake up with locked-in syndrome and be a prisoner in my own body, and even that's only slightly worse than his present state. I'd be bitter and angry about my condition and would find it hard to believe that a loving God allowed this to happen to me, or worse, that it was his will for it to happen.

But he's far less malicious in his views on religion than the likes of Hitchens and Dawkins, so I appreciate his new take on the subject, even though it creates further distance between his views and my own.

Ioke
2010-09-03, 05:21
Another mind-boggling question:

I know some people believe in God and some people don't. And being spiritual has something to do with believing in a higher power. Religion is an institution but something that overlaps in a person's spirituality.

But wouldn't most wars of the world have been avoided if religion didn't exist?

Kyte
2010-09-03, 05:25
I think such a strong claim can be discussed, though it's certain none of the monotheistic religions' Gods created the universe.

alfieb
2010-09-03, 05:27
Another mind-boggling question:

I know some people believe in God and some people don't. And being spiritual has something to do with believing in a higher power. Religion is an institution but something that overlaps in a person's spirituality.

But wouldn't most wars of the world have been avoided if religion didn't exist?

Probably not. We'd find another reason to kill each-other. Communism proved that. In all continents, but especially yours, many of the bloodiest wars have been fought by non-religious people in the past century.

If more people were Buddhist or Hindu, if Muslims adopted Sufi beliefs and if more Christians joined churches such as the Quakers, there would be far fewer -- if any wars.

CWF
2010-09-03, 05:29
He brings nothing exactly new. Modern science dismisses the existence of God, at least as portrayed by churches and religion.
These conclusions go beyond pure science and reach philosophy. And philosophy was indeed the mother of all sciences.
We are so used to see the origin of things in everything that to think of something to come out of nothing seems really unbelievable. But it can be otherwise.

Actually, science doesn't address the concept of GOD at all. And the paper took some dramatic license. I believe Hawking actually said a GOD wasn't needed to create the universe.

Ioke
2010-09-03, 05:31
Probably not. We'd find another reason to kill each-other. Communism proved that. In all continents, but especially yours, many of the bloodiest wars have been fought by non-religious people in the past century.

If more people were Buddhist or Hindu, if Muslims adopted Sufi beliefs and if more Christians joined churches such as the Quakers, there would be far fewer -- if any wars.

In the Philippines? In the last 50 years (obviously discounting WWII and the Philippine Revolution)...most of the wars were between the Muslims and the rest of the Christian Philippines.

That's true...there would be other things to fight about. But I was talking about the major wars in the past and most of it were about religious wars and for their own "cause".

Bittereinder
2010-09-03, 05:31
But wouldn't most wars of the world have been avoided if religion didn't exist?

No, and I'm saying this as an 'atheist'. The way I see it, conflict between human groups arises either because these groups stand in the way of eachother's long-term strategic objectives (ex. territory) or because there is a fundamental cultural, moral, ideological or philosophical opposition that drives them to war. Religious differences should always be viewed as an interchangeable part of the wider framework of this latter category.

CWF
2010-09-03, 05:32
Another mind-boggling question:

I know some people believe in God and some people don't. And being spiritual has something to do with believing in a higher power. Religion is an institution but something that overlaps in a person's spirituality.

But wouldn't most wars of the world have been avoided if religion didn't exist?

I don't think so either. When man annoints himself as God things definitely don't get any better.

alfieb
2010-09-03, 05:38
I think that's an oversimplification.

About 50,000,000 people died at the hands of Mao. Tens of millions of others died at the hands of Stalin. Removing religion doesn't remove the reason why people kill each-other. It just removes the moral handcuffs that instill limitations on most people.

Yes, "us vs. them" is major component in conflict, but if there were no religion it would be something else. It would be brown eyes vs. blue eyes, blonde hair vs. brown hair, capitalism vs. socialism, white wine vs. red wine, etc.

We will always find ways to separate ourselves from our neighbors. To you, a Sicilian and an Italian may look identical, and to an ignorant white American you may look no different than someone from Siam, but internally all cultures try to promote their own individuality compared to that of their neighbors. So, if not Catholics against Protestants or Muslims against Christians, it will be free markets against protectionism or countries that are aligned with China against countries that are aligned with the USA.

ethioboy
2010-09-03, 05:41
Well there seems to abit of a contradiction to me...some laws claim energy cannot be created/destroyed, yet other fields such as quantum physics claim that particles pop in and out of existance all the time...odd
I think these are called virtual particles because they do not contain energy and therefore they pop out of existence as soon as they become existent. You can read about it here http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae332.cfm

Unurautare
2010-09-03, 06:10
He brings nothing exactly new. Modern science dismisses the existence of God, at least as portrayed by churches and religion.
These conclusions go beyond pure science and reach philosophy. And philosophy was indeed the mother of all sciences.
We are so used to see the origin of things in everything that to think of something to come out of nothing seems really unbelievable. But it can be otherwise.

Seems some scientists are attention whores. :lol: Like I said a few times:I especially like when a trailer for a documentary starts with "what Eve looked like" omfg! "Hillbillies please watch us and make us ratings!".

Krutz
2010-09-03, 06:17
I think these are called virtual particles because they do not contain energy and therefore they pop out of existence as soon as they become existent. You can read about it here http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae332.cfm

Ok thats interesting, but it does not mention if said paritcles have any mass...if they do whatever happend to e=mc2?

ethioboy
2010-09-03, 06:59
Ok thats interesting, but it does not mention if said paritcles have any mass...if they do whatever happend to e=mc2?

I guess not since they are virtual? But in that case they dont even exist at all so how they measure their existence is therefore a mystery as well.

Vasishta
2010-09-03, 07:27
Scientists trying to portray themselves as Atheists to the non-scientific world is becoming slightly clichéd.

Anyhow, my personal belief is that science and religion should not be employed as a combination in order to come to a single conclusion.

He wrote in A Brief History ... "If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God."
It's amazing how pathetic we humans are, uttering the name of God in vain. The concept of complete inferiority to the Almighty is something that monotheistic Hindu philosophy like the Upanishads lacks. In this regard, and in this regard alone, I admire Islam, as it is very explicit about human inferiority to God. Whereas Islam's flaw with regards to this theological aspect is spreading the name of God by the man's mouth, wherein it may be corrupted, and the original essence of the matter can be easily lost, as humans, the deluded creatures we are, tend twist our words in accordance to our own personal agenda.

The subject of Physics talks about ten-dimensional vibrating strings and membranes, worm holes, time wrap, dark energy, virtual particles and string tunneling photons and what not. All this is too much for the layman's mind to comprehend. Thus these anti-spiritual scientists take advantage of this naivety, and from time to time come up with similar nonsense as in Hawking, and disregard the concept of a supreme being, yet at the same time fail to disprove the concept of God in a scientific manner, by their words. Meanwhile, the layman sticks to his view on the whole matter -"All this is God‘s work"-, and from this point on, there is really no need for him to think further, or ponder upon and break his head on the feasibility and the concept of God. Thus, it is so much easier for both of these schools of though to ease themselves by believing their personal delusions as truth.

A religion is merely a system of beliefs and faith which acts to create powerful, all-encompassing, and long-lasting frame of mind and a driving force in humans by putting together the conception of a universal order of existence and encompassing these conceptions with such an appearance of authenticity that the moods and motivations seem uniquely level-headed. A prerequisite, in Abrahamic religions, is however, to not question the doctrines of the respective religion. Which is why, many followers of the said religions become deviants, Atheists or just completely apathetic towards the concept of spirituality. Mark my words, this (is and) will be the cause of the mental, social and moral degradation of the Western world. Please do not take offence to my harsh words, as I am merely stating my own opinion.

It is not wrong to question whether or not a certain religion has biologically pertinent meaning is fundamental for the development of an evolutionary explanation of the religion itself, along with the science it fails to explain. For example, Raja Ram Mohan Roy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Mohan_Roy) asserted that the Rig Veda is in actuality, an accurate record of cosmology, whereas in comparison, modern physicists have failed to explain the formation of the universe correctly. By his words, "modern science is not the only way to investigate the subtle nature of reality." He combined his own unwavering faith in Vedantic science coupled with scientific thinking and logic and presented aspects and concepts of the Rig Veda that have not been properly covered by or explained by modern scientists.

Now about the Big Bang theory,

According to R.A.S. Koacha's research, the very name Brahman is said to represent an implicit reference to the ‘Big Bang’ itself. Do note, that the word ‘Brahman’ is derived from the Sanskrit root ‘brh’ which means to ‘grow big’ without limit and can be an oblique reference to an explosion. He asserts that it is perhaps also called ‘Shabda Brahman’ in the scriptures as Brahman manifests itself as a ‘Sphota’ or explosion.

The Kashmiri cult of Shaivism is more elaborate and plausible as far as its account of creation is concerned. In Kashmiri Shaivaite philosophy, the Bindu (the dot as in popular culture) is the Few Millimeter Long Primordial Seed. According to sources, the whole universe was at first concentrated at one point or dot (Bindu). (..also, pointing out the reason as to why Hindu women wear the dot/bindi as a symbol of auspiciousness on the center of their foreheads, now being made an infuriating mockery and stereotype by the Western world).
What follows is even more interesting. After a period of germination it undergoes an explosion (Sphota) resulting in the sound (Nada) of creation (OM). (Sound is used in the scriptures for all kinds of vibrations.) All creation (Kala) proceeds from this sound. Thus the doctrine of Nada, Bindu, and Kala is but an implied reference to the Big Bang theory of creation.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," Hawking writes.
He does not explain the source of this so called spontaneity. Failed logic.

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
These scientists are becoming more and more blasphemous by the day. I ask again, what is the source of all of this?

Vasishta
2010-09-03, 08:34
I actually doubt the "physical universe" is expanding… so yeah…

"What am I, a small creature measuring seven spans of my own hand? I am enclosed in a potlike universe composed of material nature, the total material energy, false ego, ether, air, water and earth. And what is Your glory? Unlimited universes pass through the pores of Your body just as particles of dust pass through the openings of a screened window."

22437

-SMB 10.14.11

Froll
2010-09-03, 09:08
Simple reasoning means you need evidence for any assertion, you can't disprove a negative etc. For a "God" of whatever type to have created the universe there needs to be proof that the God exists and that the God was the cause of the universe. Without one there is no assertion. Anything like: "look around you, someone must have done it" does not meet any requirement of evidence as it is merely superficial, scientifically proven theories (don't confuse it with a detective's theory, a scientific theory has a very high standard to meet) do meet the standard of evidence.

Also anyone trying to prove that their religion is right with their religious text is stuck in a cycle of subjective reasoning-"I believe this because it says x is true, x is true because the book tells me it is....."

alfieb
2010-09-03, 09:13
Also anyone trying to prove that their religion is right with their religious text is stuck in a cycle of subjective reasoning-"I believe this because it says x is true, x is true because the book tells me it is....."

There isn't much of that here. You either believe or you don't, and I haven't seen anyone pointing to verses in the Bible that prove that a creator exists. The facts of the case are presently unknown and, if there is no God, we'll never know... because there won't be an afterlife for which to know.

So, if there's a God, you'll find out later, and if there isn't, well, this debate will likely continue until the conclusion of the human race.

Froll
2010-09-03, 09:17
There isn't much of that here. You either believe or you don't, and I haven't seen anyone pointing to verses in the Bible that prove that a creator exists. The facts of the case are presently unknown and, if there is no God, we'll never know... because there won't be an afterlife for which to know.

So, if there's a God, you'll find out later, and if there isn't, well, this debate will likely continue until the conclusion of the human race.

:lol:

Pascal's wager? I'm dissappointed.

I hope that's not anyone's reason for believing. If you think about it this way, there are/have been literally thousands of dieties and belief systems to choose, the odds of a 'God' existing are already low as far as mathematical odds go, then split that between all the possible belief systems and you are left with very minimal chances.

alfieb
2010-09-03, 09:19
I'm not saying that it is. Pascal's wager is hardly anything more than a shallow "It's better to choose to believe, just in case!". What I'm saying is that the only way you'll ever have a definitive answer is if there was in fact a creator and there is an afterlife.

Mathematics can't answer the question, so it has nothing to do with the equation.

Balder
2010-09-03, 15:04
Of course not. Did we really need Hawking to tell us that?

Hawking never claims God does not exist, just that God is no longer needed to explain the birth of the universe, although obviously he knows much more about this than any of us so you can't assort him too firmly.

Hawking knows well enough that there are aspects of the universe that we cannot yet (and may never) be able to explain. One is where the force of gravity comes from, we know that it exists but not as it came.

Surreal
2010-09-03, 18:29
hawkins has been trying to appear agnostic back then but i guess that just a ploy to have more booksales :lol:

He knows he is near his end now and when a man is near his end most often he will always speak the truth.

formalnie
2010-09-03, 18:37
Hawking constantly comes out with pro-leftist drivel of no consequence to anyone.

annihilus
2010-09-03, 23:39
I have problems with time not existing before the big bang. How I see it is that time is the only constant. If there is time, and you wait long enough, anything can happen.

carlos
2010-09-03, 23:57
I think the universe's mere existence is mind-boggling. Why does anything exist? It's a scary thought that you cannot fully wrap your head around.

What I find the most mind-boggling is time. I mean, has it always been there? How can that be possible? And if not, what was there before time?

For example, I was born, and I will die. When I die, I'll be dead. There ain't gonna be a time when I'm not, really :). My death will last forever. And if you lived forever, there's gonna be one day more, and another day more, and another day afterwards, and so on untill...forever. I really can't understand it:confused:

And before I was born, I was unborn. But I've been unborn....forever. I mean, since when you start to count? When did time start? Time couldn't have started, it must have been there forever:|...

So I've always been unborn and I'll be dead forever? :|:|:|:confused:

Ozrage
2010-09-04, 00:08
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," Hawking writes.

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

I usually try to not talk about this stuff like it's mundane shit. Because it's not, it is serious shit. The quote I snatched doesn't explain anything really. In fact the whole quote is unnecessary, but it shows what some people take for granted.

Like this, is this really a quote from Hawking?

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.
I don't know, but I doubt that he even said that. He might have said it but it's not scientific to say so. No one knows for sure universes spawn because of gravity. For gravity to even work you need mass. Which is matter, and matter was created by the big bang.

So there is something wrong here.

All I run down to in these equations are circular arguments in who/what came first. My father who is born in the mid 40's say "the creator did it". Which I counter with, "who created him?" He get stomped & I get stomped. We never progress in our discussion.

I'm ranting, where was I?

annihilus
2010-09-04, 02:39
^^fly with the eternal goose, you'll be just fine.

(If you want you can substitute goose for anything/anyone you like;))

Geto-Thracian
2010-09-04, 04:33
What I find the most mind-boggling is time. I mean, has it always been there? How can that be possible? And if not, what was there before time?

For example, I was born, and I will die. When I die, I'll be dead. There ain't gonna be a time when I'm not, really :). My death will last forever. And if you lived forever, there's gonna be one day more, and another day more, and another day afterwards, and so on untill...forever. I really can't understand it:confused:

And before I was born, I was unborn. But I've been unborn....forever. I mean, since when you start to count? When did time start? Time couldn't have started, it must have been there forever:|...

So I've always been unborn and I'll be dead forever? :|:|:|:confused:

"Time is the universe's mechanism for making sure everything does not happen at once!" (?)

Since matter and gravity affect the passage of time, it seems to follow that time moved at an infinite rate before the big bang (at least in what was to become our universe).

Time went by at an infinite speed before we were born, and then abruptly slams to a crawl as we are born, slowly picks up speed as we grow older (each year is a smaller and smaller percentage of our experienced time), then as we approach death it starts to take off(life flashing before our eyes), and, IMO, reaches infinite speed in the instant of death.

This sets up really interesting possibilities for the experience of death to be something truly fantastic--Since we spend our entire lives forming, building and shaping a representation of reality(the universe) physically in our brains...perhaps as we die time uses this constructed mental paradigm to give each of us an experience of the future to infinity, all in an instant--based on the knowledge we have accumulated and our beliefs.

Like crossing the event horizon of a black hole may give the person falling in an infinite experience as time dilates to infinity.

Wojewoda
2010-09-04, 07:29
God did not create the universe

I have always suspected that someone else did it.

Boots
2010-09-05, 15:50
God is the sum of lawful. always lawful. gravity works everytime because he is lawful. all laws of creation work everytime because he is lawful and a builder not a genie.. he died by those same laws and boundries he set in motion . those same laws he gave to man and those same laws which will judge man. because he is even lawful to the laws he sets in motion.
so in someways He basicly died for creating the place where he "is not there" , when you say 'there is no god' where you are and you are right! he calls this place of NO REST, no heat and no life because he is not there "death". it is the place man runs shrieking from his light because he is so naked so vulnerable so weak. .. so when you say there is "no God" well you are right to a degree... and from your point of view... but you give away where it is you live..... yes you live in that place man chooses to go to to preform his " knowledge" that knowledge , logic , and experience that will only happen without God. that ' KNowledge' that does not exist and never has and never will exist to God.

omm 'e m.e.r.d.a.
2010-09-05, 18:56
Well in a sense I have to agree, but in another I must say, at this day and age, I think it is necessary for humankind to expand or consciousness and concept of God. The concept of God as a personal, all-knowing, all good creator, is no longer adequate in my opinion, due to the facts we know through philosophy and science today. Humans create God, and this is where our spiritual connections to he universe seem to grow out of, at-least partially. If the laws, or logos, is a fixed non-substance, which the power of creativity, what separates it from our traditional religious gods, or God, but the lack of a personality (theos vs Theos in the Platonic sense)? The universe and everything in it can be seen as living information, and God can be the non-thing (nothing), law behind the existence. Sort of like a Spinoza type idea. As if life (or movement) is generated through a blind constant force without specific properties, a "Mind" that doesn't recognize itself, that dreams (Brahman).

Kaiku
2010-09-06, 14:31
Hawking himself, if anybody, is God.


I have always suspected that someone else did it.

Yes, it was Hawking. The creation of the universe however was such a demanding task that it left him crippled (he forgot to rest on the seventh day). Surely a worthy sacrifice though.

alfieb
2010-09-06, 14:44
God made man in his image and likeness. If all men looked like Hawking, every woman would be a lesbian.

...And I wouldn't blame them... in fact, I'd enjoy that.

Froll
2010-09-06, 17:04
God made man in his image and likeness. If all men looked like Hawking, every woman would be a lesbian.

...And I wouldn't blame them... in fact, I'd enjoy that.

What a useless analogy. Hawking proclaiming there is no God is not the same as him claiming to be God and pretending that he created everyone in his own image? I'm lost for words


Go back to your priest and ask for a better example of stupidity.

alfieb
2010-09-06, 19:18
My response was a nonsensical reply to the following:

Hawking himself, if anybody, is God.



Yes, it was Hawking. The creation of the universe however was such a demanding task that it left him crippled (he forgot to rest on the seventh day). Surely a worthy sacrifice though.

So, go abort yourself like your mother should have.

Boots
2010-09-06, 19:20
Well in a sense I have to agree, but in another I must say, at this day and age, I think it is necessary for humankind to expand or consciousness and concept of God




The concept of God as a personal, all-knowing, all good creator, is no longer adequate in my opinion, due to the facts we know through philosophy and science today.

why would that be inadequate ? wouldn't having a personal relationship with the creator of this world and universe and untold numbers of even expanding dimensions be the ultimate prize? and worth any price asked?:thumbsup:

Geto-Thracian
2010-09-06, 21:06
why would that be inadequate ? wouldn't having a personal relationship with the creator of this world and universe and untold numbers of even expanding dimensions be the ultimate prize? and worth any price asked?:thumbsup:

Except, your "personal relationship" is fully fabricated by your mind in order to make sense of that which your mind is too lazy to inquire on a scientific level.

Where have you been..god is dead....WE are the gods!

Stygian Cellarius
2010-09-06, 21:32
Imagine artificial intelligent life in a virtual "video game" world trying to understand their world. There would be no evidence of their creator in that
world anywhere, nor the code that their world is created from, but they could understand the "physics" of their world and the stages of its unfolding, back to a point when their world was "turned-on". When it was "spontaneously generated".

How exactly would this AI unveil Human existence? It would be in the exact position we are in now, relative to "God".
And where in space would we be relative to its point of view?

Wojewoda
2010-09-06, 21:41
Hawking himself, if anybody, is God.



Yes, it was Hawking. The creation of the universe however was such a demanding task that it left him crippled (he forgot to rest on the seventh day). Surely a worthy sacrifice though.

At least he must know the guy who did is, if he is so sure that God is inocent.

EliasAlucard
2010-09-06, 21:59
Imagine artificial intelligent life in a virtual "video game" world trying to understand their world. There would be no evidence of their creator in that
world anywhere, nor the code that their world is created from, but they could understand the "physics" of their world and the stages of its unfolding, back to a point when their world was "turned-on". When it was "spontaneously generated".

How exactly would this AI unveil Human existence? It would be in the exact position we are in now, relative to "God".
And where in space would we be relative to its point of view?This very interesting and intellectual post reminded me of this awesome book (certain chapters of it):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memnoch_the_Devil

You should read it, I'm sure you'd like it. I personally loved it.

Boots
2010-09-07, 02:45
Except, your "personal relationship" is fully fabricated by your mind in order to make sense of that which your mind is too lazy to inquire on a scientific level.

Where have you been..god is dead....WE are the gods!

of what flatland? aren't you proud of yourself! problem comes in when he rolls flat land up and throws it in the fire..... there goes your little flat self.. poof!

you have not one clue what goes on in my mind !

OH yes any one can call themselves a "god" as narcissistic as we can be.
oh man that is so old, so passé ! Imean mankind has tried that for 6000 years now ..
we been there and done that and we are piss poor god's on any and all levels and proof is in that puddin .
to petty and too nosey and way to controlling and just all too narcissistic ! :sick::sick::whoco:
you can be little g "god" of flatland if you want ... just leave me alone.

ghostface
2010-09-07, 03:13
the big bang still doesn't explain where that tiny piece of matter that grew into the universe actually became existent, apparently Stephen Hawking can't explain this either

Geto-Thracian
2010-09-07, 03:27
of what flatland? aren't you proud of yourself! problem comes in when he rolls flat land up and throws it in the fire..... there goes your little flat self.. poof!

you have not one clue what goes on in my mind !

OH yes any one can call themselves a "god" as narcissistic as we can be.
oh man that is so old, so passé ! Imean mankind has tried that for 6000 years now ..
we been there and done that and we are piss poor god's on any and all levels and proof is in that puddin .
to petty and too nosey and way to controlling and just all too narcissistic ! :sick::sick::whoco:
you can be little g "god" of flatland if you want ... just leave me alone.

I think humanity has created far more than anything any of humanity's "gods" have provided us.

Passe? Old????:whoco::whoco: Piss poor jobs??? NARCISSISM?????? Your god has clearly got all these "human" flaws in spades....and besides that, I don't require worship and will not punish you for eternity if you don't worship me.

Leave you alone(?!)...just responding to your bible-thumping stone-age world-view, there, precious! You wouldn't spark my interest no matter what you looked like...you are an enslaved individual, with psycho-sexual relationships with immaginary beings echoing within your mind. NOT HOT!

But, seriously...no offence! I can't lie and say I respect your beliefs, but I honestly don't mean to hut your feelings...much:p

moleson
2010-09-07, 04:26
Well, Einstein said that there is. ;)

Einstein also disagreed with quantum mechanics and his famous quote"God does not play dice with the universe"turned out to be wrong.

omm 'e m.e.r.d.a.
2010-09-07, 05:25
God made man in his image and likeness. If all men looked like Hawking, every woman would be a lesbian.

...And I wouldn't blame them... in fact, I'd enjoy that.

:lol:


Well, Einstein said that there is. ;)

What Einstein called God was quite different than the common perception. His God was the God of Spinoza, in fact i think he might have said that. When he says things like "God doesn't play dice" he isn't thinking of a omnipresent, non-phsycial person playing a metaphorical game of dice, he is equating God with the order of the Universe, basically that the Universe isn't chaotic. If he says "I believe in God" he would probably mean this in an abstract sense. Regardless, Einstein didn't live through the more recent discoveries of quantum physics, which challenge ounce again age-old concepts of God.

ethioboy
2010-09-07, 05:38
:lol:



What Einstein called God was quite different than the common perception. His God was the God of Spinoza, in fact i think he might have said that. When he says things like "God doesn't play dice" he isn't thinking of a omnipresent, non-phsycial person playing a metaphorical game of dice, he is equating God with the order of the Universe, basically that the Universe isn't chaotic. If he says "I believe in God" he would probably mean this in an abstract sense. Regardless, Einstein didn't live through the more recent discoveries of quantum physics, which challenge ounce again age-old concepts of God.

what recent discoveries challenge the concept of God?

omm 'e m.e.r.d.a.
2010-09-07, 18:09
what recent discoveries challenge the concept of God?

quantum chaos theory suggests that the at the quantum level there exists chaos, that a even a being separate from this chaos might be unable to predict, the traditional picture is that of the "God of order" check out this link for more information:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/lectures/64

There are also some pretty interesting programs on quantum mechanics which also mention scientists need to become philosophical about ideas such as God because of their inability to rely on scientific determinism. The scientists in the video have mixed views but you can sort of see them begin to converge in thought as a result of these new discoveries, if I think of the programs name I'll post it but I can't remember at the moment.

ahniyvwiya
2010-09-07, 18:41
The big bang?

Ok but what came before that?

Krutz
2010-09-10, 01:29
Ok but what came before that?

Cheesecake! :lol:

annihilus
2010-09-10, 02:23
ragnarok, the end and the beginning

alfieb
2010-09-10, 05:18
I believe in the legendary sword "Ragnarok" from Final Fantasy more than I believe in Norse mythology.

ethioboy
2010-09-10, 06:21
quantum chaos theory suggests that the at the quantum level there exists chaos, that a even a being separate from this chaos might be unable to predict, the traditional picture is that of the "God of order" check out this link for more information:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/lectures/64

There are also some pretty interesting programs on quantum mechanics which also mention scientists need to become philosophical about ideas such as God because of their inability to rely on scientific determinism. The scientists in the video have mixed views but you can sort of see them begin to converge in thought as a result of these new discoveries, if I think of the programs name I'll post it but I can't remember at the moment.

Well the only possible quantum explaination which has been brought up through that argument is via virtual quantum particles which seem to pop into and out of existence whenever they please.

You still have to remember that these virtual particles are not real particles in that they do not have mass, cannot be measured, and they will pop out of existence because of the law of conservation of energy (correct me if Im wrong). So therefore I dont understand how this theory could work.

And even if there were virtual quantum particles flowing around nothingness before the big bang, I fail to see how they would carry all of the mass and energy of our universe since again Virtual particles dont have mas nor energy because they arent "real".

omm 'e m.e.r.d.a.
2010-09-11, 16:32
Well the only possible quantum explaination which has been brought up through that argument is via virtual quantum particles which seem to pop into and out of existence whenever they please.

You still have to remember that these virtual particles are not real particles in that they do not have mass, cannot be measured, and they will pop out of existence because of the law of conservation of energy (correct me if Im wrong). So therefore I dont understand how this theory could work.

And even if there were virtual quantum particles flowing around nothingness before the big bang, I fail to see how they would carry all of the mass and energy of our universe since again Virtual particles dont have mas nor energy because they arent "real".

To tell you the truth, I can barely understand it. Read M theory, has been mathematically proven possible, though as a part o f string theory it is extremely difficult to test.

Angevin
2010-09-11, 19:12
:lol:



What Einstein called God was quite different than the common perception. His God was the God of Spinoza, in fact i think he might have said that. When he says things like "God doesn't play dice" he isn't thinking of a omnipresent, non-phsycial person playing a metaphorical game of dice, he is equating God with the order of the Universe, basically that the Universe isn't chaotic. If he says "I believe in God" he would probably mean this in an abstract sense. Regardless, Einstein didn't live through the more recent discoveries of quantum physics, which challenge ounce again age-old concepts of God.

Einstein was a pantheist which means he didn't literally believe in god. The word God is a metaphor when used by Einstein. The quote refers to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. I love how idiots think Einstein actually believed in god because they are too stupid to understand what he was really saying.

omm 'e m.e.r.d.a.
2010-09-11, 23:32
Einstein was a pantheist which means he didn't literally believe in god. The word God is a metaphor when used by Einstein. The quote refers to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. I love how idiots think Einstein actually believed in god because they are too stupid to understand what he was really saying.

:) language is confusing. I think a similar mistake is made with the Platonic or Aristotelian notion of "Theos", which is much more mechanical and impersonal than the prevailing religious idea.

Krutz
2010-09-12, 11:22
I believe in the legendary sword "Ragnarok" from Final Fantasy more than I believe in Norse mythology.

Meh Norse creation mythology actually have strong resemblance to string theory membranes,dimensions etc, and ragnarok is in perfect alignment with the conservation of energy. Its more plausible than any of the major religions :lol:

I can be an apologetic yay! :thumbsup:



The Randall-Sundrum (RS1 and RS2; see 5 dimensional warped geometry theory for a nontechnical explanation of RS1), pre-big bang, ekpyrotic and cyclic scenarios are particular models of brane cosmology which have attracted a considerable amount of attention. The ekpyrotic theory hypothesizes that the origin of the observable universe occurred when two parallel branes collided.


Read Ginnungagap,Nifelheim and Muspelheim.

SilverKnight
2010-09-16, 22:13
I rather be a Buddhist, Taoist, then a wacco Christian, a wacco muslim why? becuase they spread peace rather then war and rage ! No gods no nothing just you with yourself and reality. :)

alfieb
2010-09-17, 01:29
:whoco:

Quranic Islam is a violent religion, yes. However, anyone who reads the Bible can tell you that Christianity is a religion of peace. Individual Christians have taken the Bible out of context to do immoral and violent things, but the religion itself is just as peaceful as Buddhism. Christ was the ultimate pacifist.

"Reality" is up to one's interpretation. We'll never know be able to factually prove the "truth" in terms of religion, but feel free to hold your ivory tower condescending views for as long as you wish.

SilverKnight
2010-09-17, 02:18
:whoco:

....that Christianity is a religion of peace.....


iT sure is a religion of peace, actually here are great examples of that reality :)

[Jesus] made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.

John 2:15

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Matthew 10:34

[Jesus] said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one..." The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied.

Luke 22:36,38


If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12

alfieb
2010-09-17, 02:26
Not this nonsense again.


When Jesus spoke about himself bringing a sword, he was likely implying that it is for God to inflict punishment on those who deviate from his will, and not for Christians to do so. He was certainly speaking metaphorically, rather than literally. It was only Judas Iscariot who expected Christ to actually become a military leader and for him to call for bloodshed.

Render unto Caesar, turn the other cheek, etc. are the rule, rather than the exception, in the Gospels.

Metaphorical sword. Jesus was born to die. He was the sacrificial lamb of God and never commanded his followers to violence. He spoke in parables, but his war was a spiritual one. He told his disciples not to take up arms against the Romans, but to follow the laws of the land as so long as they don't interfere with God's law.

Saracen
2010-09-17, 02:31
The Judeo-Christian God is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously, malevolent bully.

Geto-Thracian
2010-09-17, 03:41
:whoco:

Quranic Islam is a violent religion, yes. However, anyone who reads the Bible can tell you that Christianity is a religion of peace. Individual Christians have taken the Bible out of context to do immoral and violent things, but the religion itself is just as peaceful as Buddhism. Christ was the ultimate pacifist.

"Reality" is up to one's interpretation. We'll never know be able to factually prove the "truth" in terms of religion, but feel free to hold your ivory tower condescending views for as long as you wish.

Unless you consider being sent to hell for not believing in "his" god, or even appreciating idols as a way of visualizing 'god", inherently hostile.

Pagans were far more advanced, IMO--their beliefs were far more useful and realistic than the semitic ass-excretions!

:whoco:..guess I'm goin' to hell....(shrug)..all cool people go there anyways!

alfieb
2010-09-17, 05:13
The cult of Sol Invictus wasn't very advanced, imo.

And if you want to talk vengeful gods, the Norse and Greco-Roman pantheon were far, far more malevolent even than the God of the Hebrew Old Testament.

Geto-Thracian
2010-09-17, 05:30
The cult of Sol Invictus wasn't very advanced, imo.

And if you want to talk vengeful gods, the Norse and Greco-Roman pantheon were far, far more malevolent even than the God of the Hebrew Old Testament.

They never claimed perfection or omnipotence

alfieb
2010-09-17, 05:34
They didn't exist, so I don't think they claimed anything. :lol:

If a creator God was responsible for everything in the universe, He can claim to be omnipotent without any argument from me.

Geto-Thracian
2010-09-17, 05:37
They didn't exist, so I don't think they claimed anything. :lol:

If a creator God was responsible for everything in the universe, He can claim to be omnipotent without any argument from me.

Wow..you truly believe that shit?? You seem too smart for that! Greek gods didn't exist but yours does, eh? So, during Greek times where was your god?....scheming?

alfieb
2010-09-17, 05:44
The Bible says he rested on the seventh day. Who knows what that means. It wasn't a literal twenty-four hour day in our sense, as God doesn't orbit the Sun.

The Hebrews were around during the Greek period. I don't see your point.

Geto-Thracian
2010-09-17, 05:48
The Bible says he rested on the seventh day. Who knows what that means. It wasn't a literal twenty-four hour day in our sense, as God doesn't orbit the Sun.

The Hebrews were around during the Greek period. I don't see your point.

Jeez...this is too slow for me......JESUS, silly , unless you're a JOO now!

alfieb
2010-09-17, 05:51
Oh, that's a non-issue. God created Jesus before he created the universe. It's in the Bible.

Jesus was, in theory, wherever God and the Angels are. If you believe in that stuff.

Geto-Thracian
2010-09-17, 05:53
Oh, that's a non-issue. God created Jesus before he created the universe. It's in the Bible.

Jesus was, in theory, wherever God and the Angels are. If you believe in that stuff.

Whew....thought you were one of THOSE for a sec.:lol:

ethioboy
2010-09-17, 23:14
To tell you the truth, I can barely understand it. Read M theory, has been mathematically proven possible, though as a part o f string theory it is extremely difficult to test.

If M theory was true then it would mean our universe is not expanding which is not the case. Apparantly a new universe is made for every desicion also made which would mean there was an infinite number of universes exponentially expanding into absolutely nothing which I fail to comprehend is even possible. What drove the creation of the first universe? To me there are too many inconsistencies for that theory to make any plausible sense.

The more traditional theory is more viable than M theory IMO.

solkiM
2010-09-27, 09:08
I believe thoughts are energy and therefore matter. God is merely all energy/matter there is in the universe. Although its a 'being' that is more than the sum of the matter. Basically its a pantheist view of the world where people are a part of God too.

God maybe just created the universe by materializing thought/consciousness.