jump to last post 1-23 of 23 discussions (241 posts)

'God did not create the universe'- Stephen Hawking

  1. pisean282311 profile image57
    pisean282311posted 6 years ago

    God didn't create the universe -- it was actually a result of the inevitable laws of physics, British physicist Prof Stephen Hawking has concluded.

    In his latest book, The Grand Design, Hawking said: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there's something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist."


    what do you think about it?

    1. 0
      Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hawkins, like any other scientist is seeking validity.
      His earlier statements contradict, or more likely, express a slow distancing of himself from the concept of an entity defined as god, which would place him in a very awkward place, given the nature of present day scientific society and its internal view of itself. To avoid self implosion, distancing oneself from appearances of sensational practices is very common.

      I noticed the news reel includes his two exact statements defending the god concept, then slowly pulling back. Also noteworthy is his physical deterioration, as the brain is a muscle as any other and is effected. Lastly, his years spent trying to meld quantum with Einstein is quite challenging, if not impossible, even dismissing Newtonian theories. Here is the best part of what he said:

      1. Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing" -what would that nothing be, is my question. If gravity is the something, the sustainer, what manifest that gravity.

      2. "If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God." -even this is maddening, since it implies specifically the discovery of a complete theory. Yet, theory is not to be discovered, rather uncovered, through the founding principle of all [ modern] science -the scientific method. The application cannot be both the action and the origin, else it would be god so to speak. (which is yet another glimpse at seeing science as simply another idol religious practice). If this is the ultimate human triumph of reason, than all other reason is dismissed, making this the only reason --that is the theory itself. The icing on the statement is applying god to the theory or being the theory discovered. That is remarkable coming from a physicist since such a theory is not even toyed with/touched by quantum [mechanic] physicists.

    2. 60
      exorterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      why are we not seeing the spontaneous creation of people today?
      Because God does not work that way!

      1. Cagsil profile image79
        Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Spontaneous creation of people? roll

        What do you call all the births that are created around the world by the human species? I would say the "gods" have been hard at work, just like Jesus always said- "You are all gods".

        Each individual human can spontaneously create another human being. Hmmm....nice power to have huh? lol

        1. 60
          exorterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I will pray for you

        2. pisean282311 profile image57
          pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          @cagsil...lol

        3. dosters profile image88
          dostersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "just like Jesus always said- "You are all gods"."

          Jesus never said that.  Perhaps you are thinking of
          "For you are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus" Galatians 3:26, which was written by Paul the apostle.

          1. BDazzler profile image83
            BDazzlerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            He didn't "always" say it, but he did say it once ... See John 10:34 for the context.

            1. dosters profile image88
              dostersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              When he said

              “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’?"

              He was quoting Psalms (poetry):

              “I said, ‘You are “gods”;
              you are all sons of the Most High.’"
              Psalm 82:6

              1. BDazzler profile image83
                BDazzlerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I agree, I was simply responding to the word "never".  That's why I provided context.

          2. pisean282311 profile image57
            pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            jesus saying once doesnot matter?...

          3. DoubleScorpion profile image86
            DoubleScorpionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Actually Jesus did say something to this effect...St.John 10:34 says "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" referring to Psalms 82:6 "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High."

        4. Dave Barnett profile image60
          Dave Barnettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          How many times he gotta say something? Do you like repeating yourself? Makes you feel like no one's LISTENING! Stephen's theories are cool. But, theories are theories. Kinda like the God theory. Personally, I don't like caps, so I'll do this....god. We are not created SPONTANEOUSLY. You ever tried to get in a girls panties? Not always easy. Sometimes, yes. Always? No. Besides that, you need little spermies and little eggs. Nothing spontaneous about that. And don't forget foreplay....

      2. earnestshub profile image87
        earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        or any other way for that matter, except in the minds of the chronically gullible. smile

    3. Beelzedad profile image61
      Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The laws of physics, as we know them, came about as a result of the universe being created. The known forces split apart during the first moments of the Big Bang due to the immediate cooling effect of Inflation. smile

      1. BDazzler profile image83
        BDazzlerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Thus we will always pay more and get less. Have you seen the price of produce these days!?

      2. 0
        Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The laws of physics, as we know them, came about as a result of the universe being created. -I disagree, those laws results in humans attempting to explain those physiques at a distance, rather than engaging them as they once did. All laws stem from human necessity.

        The known forces split apart during the first moments of the Big Bang due to the immediate cooling effect of Inflation - proof positive or "perhaps"? And to add, the cooling effect of inflation is endless expansion.

        1. Beelzedad profile image61
          Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Not the laws of physics, they were here long before we were.

      3. Dave Barnett profile image60
        Dave Barnettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Actually, the laws of physics were in place before the creation of the universe. Sorry, I'll try not to contradict you.

        1. 0
          sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          So are you saying that 'god' is the law of physics?

          1. BDazzler profile image83
            BDazzlerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            That is essentially what Hawking said.

            1. 0
              sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Then what is the problem?

              1. BDazzler profile image83
                BDazzlerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I don't have a problem with Hawking at all.  I don't think God's existence can be proven logically.

            2. skyfire profile image71
              skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              No he didn't said that.

              1. Shadesbreath profile image91
                Shadesbreathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Yeah, he kind of did.

                Here's a quote: 
                "The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second. If you like, you can call the laws of science 'God', but it wouldn't be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions."


                An article referencing the quote is here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scie … verse.html

                1. skyfire profile image71
                  skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Check the quote. What he believes and what he asks those who choose to believe is different.

                  1. Shadesbreath profile image91
                    Shadesbreathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    That's a semantic point.  He's saying he believes in the laws of science, which you can call God if you please.  What you call it changes nothing.  It's still physics.  God is physics or physics is physics. It's all words.  The only confusion is coming from people who are spending all their time on the words instead of listening to what he means and has made perfectly clear that he means.

                  2. BDazzler profile image83
                    BDazzlerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    This is what he said .. you can call the laws of science 'God', but it wouldn't be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions."

                    So, that is why I said to Sandra "essentially".

                    YOU specifically said, No he didn't said that.

                    Which both you and I have shown that he did.

                    So, admit your bias, as I admit mine and get over it.

                2. Pcunix profile image90
                  Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Yeah.  And you can call a table "god" too, but so what?

                  I think Einstein, like Hawking, feared religious backlash.

                  1. 61
                    Janis4808posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm thinking in his condition, Mr. Hawkins isn't fearing religion. In fact Stephen Hawkins welcomes all ideas on theories of life. I've met the man. In fact he is more prone to believe that life will eventually break out of this solar system and into the vast unknown.

              2. BDazzler profile image83
                BDazzlerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Speaking self-bias. This is. tongue

                1. skyfire profile image71
                  skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this
            3. 0
              Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Agreed. Hawkin's didn't refute Creation existence, nor can he say to any length that there is no Creation based on those laws. Those laws of physics would be G/god. Hence why I say, laws are the G/gods of man. This protects the consciousness and gives it purpose.
              Within logic alone Creation cannot be explained, experienced or applied unconditional. Equally, it cannot be done by sensation.

              1. 0
                sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                A scientist idea of 'creation' is vastly different from the 'religious' idea of creation. Don't muddy his thoughts or works to suggest he was or ever would give credence to the 'biblical' destroyer. 

                After all, 'mainstream' religionists believe that the "creator" is something that can be seen, felt, talked to, Jesus or whatever else you can come up with just so it fits.

                On the other hand, the 'beginning' has not yet been definitively defined so 'god' cannot be definitively defined.

                1. 0
                  Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Hi S/R.
                  This has been my argument against both science/sensation for years. Because what is termed God by sensation (religion) and used by science to refute that term are both incorrect. If an entity called "laws of physics" is pronounced G/god by science, it would be no greater than an entity pronounced G/god by sensationalists.

                  All of existence is Creator.
                  This is the thing that seems to be so aloof to people.
                  There is no individuality or singular entity...

                  1. Pcunix profile image90
                    Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Yeah, yeah, we are stardust, kumbya.

                    The universe is not sentient.  There are no gods.

                  2. 0
                    sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I think that 'religion' uses science to vindicate religious ideology.  When people like Hawkin disagree, they get upset. 

                    All of existence is not "Creator".  Like I said, science and religion have a completely different understanding of what that actually means.

    4. LeslieAdrienne profile image81
      LeslieAdrienneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Pisean 282311

      Really???!

    5. Frank Menchise profile image16
      Frank Menchiseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I would like to point out that Stephen Hawking states that God did not create the universe, he does not say that God does not exist, therefore one is lead to conclude that, Stephen Hawking may believe that the universe and God have always existed and they work in conjunction with the natural laws of physics.

  2. aguasilver profile image88
    aguasilverposted 6 years ago

    I think I posted the topic a few minutes before you!

    1. pisean282311 profile image57
      pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      sorry i didnt see it...

      1. aguasilver profile image88
        aguasilverposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        No problem, it needed to be posted, who cares which one they 'answer'! smile

  3. 69
    paarsurreyposted 6 years ago

    'God did not create the universe'- Stephen Hawking

    1.He is indulging in a field which does not belong to the field he has specialized in ie Physics.

    2.He should clarify what he understands from the word "God".

    1. pisean282311 profile image57
      pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      what i read and saw in his video by word god he means god as described by religion...which has qualities like intellect , ability to forgive , ability to judge and such stuffs...he states that gravitational force is true hero of universe which in turn is assisted by other forces to create , build and maintain universe...

      1. 69
        paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Does the above come in the field of Physics? I don't think so. He should not have stepped out the field of Physics to say anything about God; as an ordinary lay man he is free to say anything right or wrong though.

        1. I am DB Cooper profile image67
          I am DB Cooperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Well it seems as if he's saying that the laws of physics allow for a universe without a god in the traditional sense. The so-called "unexplainable" is explainable through an understanding of the physics of the universe.

          1. Pcunix profile image90
            Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Gee, the biggest "Duh!" of the year award has to go to Stephen, I guess.

          2. 69
            paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Well, I don't believe that there is any contradiction in religion and science. The Creator-God Allah YHWH has created the Universe with perfect systems, which we discern as sciences; but He is not physically among them.This is one manifestation of Him.

            The other manifestation of Him is through Word revealed on the Messengers Prophets; the purpose of which is to quide humanity in the Ethical, Moral and Spiritual realsm. We need both of them.

            We respect Scientists in their fields and the Word revealed in which is useful in the broad spectrum of life.

            Thanks

            I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

        2. pisean282311 profile image57
          pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          @paar i understand that you believe that religion and science are two different things...but my friend both are outshoot from same questions and thoughts..religion tries to answer questions like who created the world,why are we here, what after death and such things..it tries to answer them..while hawkings too tried to answer them in his own way...you are rejecting him without even going through what is basis of what he is saying?...first give him unbiased reading...check facts...what proof does he have?..just because he doesnot speak from some book , doesnot make him wrong...does it?

    2. earnestshub profile image87
      earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I have read and followed Hawking's career for 10 years paarsurrey, and you ain't no Stephen Hawking! lol lol lol

      1. 69
        paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I have not claimed to be one. You may continue studying for the next 50 years about  Hawking's career; I don't mind.

        1. earnestshub profile image87
          earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Read your own post.

          1. 0
            klarawieckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Ernest you are mean! You needed a teacher like me when you were a teenager! I'd get you straightened out boy!!!! roll

            1. earnestshub profile image87
              earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              lol I was already responsible for my family's income by time I was a teenager. smile

              1. 0
                sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I think she wants to "school" you in another way! bounchica bownow. lol

              2. 0
                klarawieckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Me too, but I'm not mean! (clear throat)

                1. earnestshub profile image87
                  earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I am not mean! smile You may be confusing meanness with my love of truth. I do not like liars, and call them on it.

                  I Never get answers though, just aspersions on my character from people who not only know nothing about me, but sweet fanny all about life in general. smile


                  Oh... is that mean? smile

                  1. 0
                    klarawieckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm still pulling out the ruler Ernest! hmm

    3. ceciliabeltran profile image84
      ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      for once I agree with you

  4. BDazzler profile image83
    BDazzlerposted 6 years ago

    "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. "

    Under that statement, "Gravity" is "God" and from that point forward it becomes the Deistic clock maker argument.

    God or not God is an axiom. 
    IF God THEN
    Creator  = God
    Creator => Gravity
    Gravity => Universe.

    If NOT God THEN
    Creator = Gravity
    Gravity => Gravity
    Gravity => Universe

    As God or NOT God is axiomatic there can be no logical proof one way or the other. People will react based on :
    1. Their own experiences
    2. Their culture.
    3. Their background.
    4. Their education.

    If God NOT does exist, not one of those things above will create or prove His existence. 

    If God DOES exist, no amount of logic can make Him go away.

    From that point, it can never be anything more than our own faith/opinion/belief/thoughts/perceptions/interpretations etc.

    However, if Gravity = God ... That would, of course, explain why we consider theology and physics both "weighty subjects".  tongue

    1. 0
      Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      well said.

    2. pisean282311 profile image57
      pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      @BDazzler you are perfectly right and may be so learned saints say it is difficult to know god..because god is summation of forces and gravity being primary in it...how can living human being concede that non living forces are actually in control...smile

      1. BDazzler profile image83
        BDazzlerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Or, perhaps, as they used to say in the old Star Trek episodes ... "It's life Jim, but not life as we know it". wink

        1. pisean282311 profile image57
          pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          possible..it is quiet possible..just look at religions of the world right now..none can trace themselves back to 5k..may be 5k years down the line , current religions wont even exist...in same way science too would evolve and find/conclude new things..so what you say is possibility...

    3. dosters profile image88
      dostersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      From an article on the subject: "Hawking says a new series of theories made a creator of the universe redundant"

      I think you have shown why.

    4. skyfire profile image71
      skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Speaking self-bias. This is.

  5. earnestshub profile image87
    earnestshubposted 6 years ago

    21 you managed to crack me up again! Stephen Hawking's brain has got a while to go before the "muscle" in it fails to the degree I see here! lol lol lol

    1. 0
      Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      says you, Doctor Jung?! lol

      damn it, Jim, I'm a doctor, not a sociologist

      1. 0
        Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        ps, Earnest, you know he (and many other "scientesticles")  emphatically states all matter exists, yet also equally states matter comes into existence from nothing. i still have yet to see and physicist or metaphysic get passed their own noses. But it must be fun building the Vegas Quality Hotel & Casino to store all those luck nuts, eh?!

        Jung & Juice, the new religion...

        1. earnestshub profile image87
          earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You are out of date again 21. It's all post Jungian now!
          Hillman, Von Franz et al are aging too.
          Know any post Jungians?

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Campbell

  6. 60
    cherylelemmonposted 6 years ago

    I need inspiration in my life, and I think reading a novel would be a good idea. I've narrowed the author I want down to Stephen Hawking, because I've heard things about his books that seem to be of interest to me. I want a book that makes me think, perhaps something about physics

    Natura Cleanse

  7. Pcunix profile image90
    Pcunixposted 6 years ago

    Let us not forget that ANYTHING Jesus is said to have said is apocryphal, having been fabricated by others long after his (also mostly or wholly apocryphal) life.

  8. ceciliabeltran profile image84
    ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago

    I was just talking about this with my husband. The universe seems to have sprung from nothing.
    which is why, I find it so consistent with the pictograph reading of genesis

    The beginning created [the collective G-d], the heavens [fiery waters] and the earth  [strong first need].  doesn't that sound like plasma and gravity? In that first phrase, it says what happened. when it began, The collective G-d (consciousness) was created and it also even defined what G-d is...it is being defined as the interaction of the weak forces and gravity.

    Of course the Hebrew grammarians will disagree with me and so will everybody else in this forum. Yeah, but who cares. It was there, it's just an interesting thought.

    1. Beelzedad profile image61
      Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Not even remotely. smile

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        sure.

    2. Shadesbreath profile image91
      Shadesbreathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      No, I think there is an argument that can be made that Genesis might represent a technologically and scientifically-primitive man's capacity for understanding an explanation of how the universe began.  It doesn't take too much imagination (or too many games of "the telephone game" in grade school) to be able to recognize how there is at least a plausible case for that.

      I can imagine God coming down and explaining it to some backwoods yokel many thousands of years ago. I can see the guy leaning on his spear, strokin' his flea-infested beard between two grubby fingers and sayin', "Yup, yup, I reckon I got all that." Then he went back to the village and tried ta 'splain it to ever'body else.  What happened afterward is the flawed religions of today.

      I'm not saying that's what I believe, but I think the argument can be made.  Frankly, it's always amazed me that Christians don't work harder to do that sort of thing.  The "dust" that made humans can easily be understood to be the elements themselves, which are nothing more than star dust... etc.

      1. BDazzler profile image83
        BDazzlerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        That is closer to what I think that just about any other thing I've heard on this subject.  I think the reason you see such adamant adherence to certain things is the traditions that came from an attempt at preventing the introduction of "telephone game" errors.

        For example, the Hebrews had a "check sum" error check on their scrolls and if the numbers didn't add up, the whole thing got burned.  This was expensive in terms of time and material so the religious types got very strict. 

        What we have now, for traditional reasons, rather than pragmatic, is a lot of people with the same strict attitutdes regarding religious writings.

        Oral story telling tradition across all cultures is fascinating for it's mnemonic methods.  (Not to say error didn't creep in, but substantial efforts were made to  curb the "telephone game" phenomenon.)  That's a subject I always meant to pursue more.

      2. ceciliabeltran profile image84
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        exactly.

    3. skyfire profile image71
      skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Not plasma and gravity, but sounds like manipulation of verses.

      Let's see Genesis 1:27 :-So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

      So let's see the variation of god's images

      http://kobreguide.com/public/IMGlargephotoBeingBlackMan-2.png

      http://i1.trekearth.com/photos/37092/old-chinese-man.jpg

      I think when bible was in publishing, they forgot to cover various images of god in that verse. Stuff like this happens ya know.

      How many variation of his images were said in original verse ?Just curious.

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        That's the thing, see. When you read it in its original form, you will understand it differently.

        It is not how it looks but in its "like" - ness. I always talk about mandelbroth sets here. And I suspect not a lot of people understand what it implies. It implies that the large is exactly the small in infinite directions. Meaning, everything organizes back to its starting point. It is called orbits of zero.

        So if you're thinking G-d looks like our face, then that is really a laugh. But our image and likeness is the same not in the external way, but internally.

        I hate repeating myself but here is the link again (for the upteenth time) http://www.ted.com/talks/henry_markram_ … crets.html

        the finding is, when you ignore how it looks from the outside and photograph the brain when it looks on the inside, what you see is a starry night sky. So, the universe out there looks exactly like the universe in our brain.

        The image and likeness applies to the thing that generates our consciousness.

        1. Jerami profile image78
          Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "when you ignore how it looks from the outside and photograph the brain when it looks on the inside, what you see is a starry night sky. So, the universe out there looks exactly like the universe in our brain".




          You have just described something that my mind has known, but hasn't been able to put down into words.
              Thank you. That is very clearly put.

    4. Dave Barnett profile image60
      Dave Barnettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Cececlia. This is why I fight so vehemently, because they'll read it, and not SEE it.

    5. 0
      Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Which reaffirms the point, I think. The concept of 'G/god' is human. To say the collective consciousness was created as 'G/god' makes things a little clearer, but nonetheless unattainable, by the human conscious collective.
      So, how does one prove the application of the consideration?

      This is something that is baffling both sides of the house.
      Both attribute it to laws. But those laws are man-made to be god-made, else to be *poof* or *bang* *oye*.

      Neither can support the application without.Nothing is something. Something is nothing. Scaled balancing on a [insert anecdote here].

      Could it be neither? Could it be the human consciousness came into being, not as the entity, self-made, self-evolving, self-defining, but came into being to gravitate the totality of Creation? This makes much more sense (to me).

      Gravity is absorptive.
      The others are projective, reflective.

  9. waynet profile image45
    waynetposted 6 years ago

    I like Stephen Hawkins...He tells it like it is!

  10. ceciliabeltran profile image84
    ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago

    My point is, the ancients are describing their understanding of the universe using terms that are available then. But when you strive to understand their meaning, you will see that it is no different from what we are observing now.

    1. 0
      Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      nods in agreement.

  11. skyfire profile image71
    skyfireposted 6 years ago

    No. This is called as manipulation of verses just like what you did to relate it with plasma and gravity. I did it with looks of humans for that verse.


    For me it implies order out of chaos.


    Again, manipulation here. We can show the variety of thoughts for the same object-internally.

    1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
      ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It's not manipulation. All bible translations are interpretations. 

      It really said  Two Beginnings create Elohim, the heavens and the earth. (with heavens defined by its pictographs as consumable waters and active waters, also read as fiery waters...plasma.)

      You can choose to read it from its translation of two translations or you can write it in its original pictographic form using the Hebrew words as guide and read the ideas associated with the pictographs taking out the grammar and religious interpretations. I read it in pictograph and this is what i read.

      The one in the bible is the manipulation. I just read it technically and that's what I saw. I could be wrong, but hey it makes more sense than the hogwash in print right now.

      I am not going to dismiss the idea that maybe we read it wrong, because, you see , when you read it they way they meant it long ago...there is no contradiction.

      1. skyfire profile image71
        skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        There is contradiction. Do you expect poetic verses to have reference of plasma ? What's next ? Dark matter in some another verse ?

    2. ceciliabeltran profile image84
      ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Well, there is really no argument here because you have not seen it. I can't post it here simply because I do not care to do the excessive amount of work necessary to convince you.

      All I'm saying is, there are many different ways to read the ancient texts. The one based on proto-sinaitic texts and the traditional definition of these ideograms do agree with today's understanding.

      Even the way the words used are being described are explaining the nature of these concepts as understood by the ancients.

      They were not stupid. They learned all the things we are learning today long ago. They are just calling it different.

      And our dear everyday joe and jane are reading it the wrong way.

      1. skyfire profile image71
        skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "Even the way the words used are being described are explaining the nature of these concepts as understood by the ancients."

        Not manipulation huh ?

        They were not stupid. They learned all the things we are learning today long ago. They are just calling it different.

        Assumption. They didn't learned all the things we're learning today.

        And our dear everyday joe and jane are reading it the wrong way.

        So it requires manipulation to suit what religion wants ?

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I am not religion.

          If I lived in the inquisition, they would burn me at the stake. I am just saying, the things we are arguing about are one and the same.

          for example:

          the spirit of G-d is in everything = we are all made up of energy
          G-d created the world = the planet was formed by forces of energy
          There is only one G-d = It is all energy

          Am I saying G-d is energy? No. I am also saying the thing that our sacred texts refer to as G-d is the universal creative nature of that invisible force we call energy.

          The terms we use for our sciences masks that we actually have found proof of G-d, the universal force that creates and influences all we know.

          G-d is not energy to me G-d is all. Energy, Time, Matter, Experience Consciousness. They are after-all beginning to converge into one thing - the infinite movement of + filling -. The No thing that rotates endlessly and in so doing creates all that is.

    3. ceciliabeltran profile image84
      ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      For example, you said
      For me, it implies order out of chaos.

      what is chaos?

      In mathematics it is defined as:  A dynamical system that has a sensitive dependence on its initial conditions.

      The ancients have the same symbol of chaos for water and consciousness. it is the ancestor of the letter w and m.  It pertains to waves. now tell me what you see when your consciousness is measured...what do you see, undulating waves. Now tell me what you see when the random stock market is measured...once again undulating waves. did they know this, i don't know. but chaos, water and consciousness are only similar in one way, they come in undulating waves.

      1. skyfire profile image71
        skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Here is the flaw:

        You assume ancient people were too smart such that we're just studying their stuff. Which is far-fetched assumption and that makes me wonder what tempts them to write scriptures in mystic verses instead of clear symbols.

        Let's admit it-  our ancestors were not smart for things like dark matter, plasma and computer. No matter how we choose to twist things with verses the problem is it shows gaps in knowledge of generation which is unexplainable knowing your assumption about ancient people being too smart and capable of not losing knowledge (all that data) they learned in their time. roll

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Its not an assumption. It is based on evidence.

          Ever heard of the Great Forgetting? Many scientists and archeologists are discussing this with their faces on it.

          They had a different technology, but they had technology nonetheless. If you wipe us all out now save for some peasants in a remote island in the philippines. what do you think an ipad would be to their great great grandchildren? a mirror with an apple on the back. and if you open it, lots of metal things and wires.

          1. Pcunix profile image90
            Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            That is not evidence.  It is foolishness.

            We existed as humans.  We had no great technical knowledge to forget. 

            Science fiction nonsense. Fantasy for adolescent minds.

            1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
              ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              this would be the assumption.

          2. skyfire profile image71
            skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Sorry i can't buy this assumption. Why ? Because if our ancestor were that smart they'll not let the data go out in void just like that. If i choose to go by your assumption then i have to accept that more than 3000 years of knowledge got lost with great forgetting or just like that. Sorry, if they were smart enough to discover quantum computing, plasma and dark matter then their sane mind will try to find ways to hold this information in some form at some place irrespective of environmental condition or any changes in civilization.

            1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
              ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              they did, they are called ideograms. that is why we can access them now. They also had the rosetta stone.

              The problem is not in the storing, the problem is in the reading.

              The Hebrew Letters are folded ideas of universal concepts.

              concept of 1, the first manifestation, force represented by the OX head
              concept of 2, the second manifestation, enclosure, house, represented by pregnant woman or house
              concept of 3, the third manifestation, path  represented by a camel.

              Try describing the big bang to a six year old and see if you don't sound like a stupid moron.

              1. skyfire profile image71
                skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Once again you and james made assumption here that they knew everything. They didn't. They passed what they knew. What you claim about rossetta and ideograms when relating to plasma, dark matter shows the manipulation of earlier civilizations thoughts. This stuffyou can't prove because you backed it up with great forgetting or loss of civilization stuff.
                Too much sci-fi stuff is not good when we end up asking for evidence. 

                At one corner you assume ancestors as know-it-all for us and in another you put them in such lame place that they can't defend their civilization, knowledge and end up to great forgetting or natural destruction.

                Do you think if mayans were that intellectual to give human sacrifice for gods ? And then again such knowledgeable civilizations perished just like that huh ? I wonder which god got pissed off. Think about it. Though we do exhibit many behaviors like ancients there is more development(evolution of thoughts and culture) in comparison to earlier civilization.

                1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
                  ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  That's because you don't know that in iran they have pottery shards dating all the way back to 12,000 years. In the last ice age, the fair skinned people emerged from iran.  And Iran is Ayran...Aryan..the source of all vedic and some say even judaic wisdom. with Brahmins as Abrahamins. A reference to david was recently found that revealed that he existed

                  They have found batteries in these areas. They knew about polarities. They knew about the position of the stars in the cosmos, the significance of equinoxes, they had an advanced and more accurate numerical systems.

                  It is not assumption, it is profound evidence.  They did not know everything. Just as we do not know everything. But they arrived at similar conclusions. 

                  http://www.deep-ecology-hub.com/the-gre … tting.html

                  just to prove to you that the great forgetting is not an assumption but an established development in the study of archeology

                  1. skyfire profile image71
                    skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Quote me from peer-reviewed journal about what you claim about ancestors- (not just great forgetting).

                    Great forgetting phenomena managed to erase everything except the point that there was great forgetting that caused this. Awesome.

              2. alternate poet profile image77
                alternate poetposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                This sounds just like Chinese !  little concept packages that have a wide and deep meaning but (often) no direct definate object.  Great for poetry and social stuff but not so good for  science ?

                1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
                  ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  that is the only way they connected the concepts. universal concepts tend to appear in various levels of existence but the laws still apply.

                  1. 0
                    klarawieckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Both science and spirituality are concepts that are too great to understand. Any spiritual person who thinks they know what's happening out there is out of their mind (that includes me of course) and anyone who thinks science has all the answers is as crazy as well. Science continues to evolve, it is not a closed book. What seems like unreasonable now might become factual in the future. In other words, we are all full of it! lol

              3. Beelzedad profile image61
                Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Of course, especially when you don't understand it yourself. smile

                1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
                  ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  yes! it must hard for you.

                  1. Beelzedad profile image61
                    Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Not at all. smile

  12. 0
    klarawieckposted 6 years ago

    Yooooohoooooo... Ding Ding Ding!!! I'm here!!! What did I miss?!

    1. luvpassion profile image61
      luvpassionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hi klara... smile

      Teri

      1. 0
        klarawieckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Hey Teri, what's up?
        You reading these people?
        Stephen already forgot about what he said, and here they are... killing each other over a statement.

  13. skyfire profile image71
    skyfireposted 6 years ago

    In between, i'm checking profile picture of klara. Hmm...

    1. 0
      klarawieckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hey!!! lol

  14. 0
    sandra rinckposted 6 years ago

    This is what I find truly fascinating. 

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKuE9bVqe8M

    "god" no, aliens... I say yes!

    1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
      ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      ew, and that is why you like Mark Knowles.

      1. 0
        sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Who said anything about Mark?

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          mark thinks the aliens did it.

          1. 0
            sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Like little green men or something much more sinister? lol

            1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
              ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              no like blondes who call themselves the annunaki sort.

  15. skyfire profile image71
    skyfireposted 6 years ago

    If we replace God with aliens then it sounds like RAEL philosophy. I disagree with it because if they're the reason why we're here then what reason they've to hide from us is beyond me.  Besides that whole jesus, muhammad play and other religions will end up in big  drama which i think is not the way it is. These prophets had their existence to explain universal god- not seeding god like aliens. In both cases, we  lack sufficient evidence.

    If aliens are the reason we exist - then theists are like lab rats thinking about not-living the box in which they're kept because of fear of keeper and atheists are like lab rats thinking WTF is this and how can i get out of here and agnostics lab rats are like this may or may not be the box. :-P

    1. Pcunix profile image90
      Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      And again - alien creators would not be gods.  They would have evolved from simpler things.

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        yes i agree. aliens would not be gods, they would be well aliens.

        1. 0
          sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Then that would make us???

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            aliens elsewhere.

  16. ceciliabeltran profile image84
    ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago

    you: there was a tiny tiny dot that exploded.

    child : whats an explosion?

    you : it's like that big noise and bright light you see when a  firecracker explodes!

    child thinks : hmmm...the universe began with a firecracker

    You : and then there was bright bright light and that light made matter

    child : what's matter ?

    you Matter, all the things around you.

    child thinks : the firecracker made all the things around me. Maybe it had hands.


    you see? the myths are a tell it to me like I'm a two year old version and the two year old naturally made it more humanlike, because that is the only she could understand what you're saying.

    But you can understand it, only you have words that the little girl does not. so you use the words  she understands...and that is where religion began and knowledge became forgotten.

    1. 0
      klarawieckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Well? Did it start with a firecracker or not?! hmm

      1. 0
        Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        lol

    2. skyfire profile image71
      skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Ya know this sounds like story of Einstein and his teacher. Do you get the fallacy ?

      1. 0
        klarawieckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        This is what I think - you can kill me after I say this!

        Stephen's opinion of God is as important as Jesus' opinion of Science. WHO CARES?!

        1. skyfire profile image71
          skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          True.

        2. pisean282311 profile image57
          pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          @klarawieck i disagree.hawking is not speaking on religion..he is strictly speaking on subject in which he has worked for his entire life...domain of who,what,when,why,how of universe belongs to his genre..he is not talking about something which is doesnot know...spirituality and science are off shoot of same human brain and its question...science travels path of observation,proofs,disproofs and such things while spirtuality relies more on presumptions ...spirituality is more colorful..i agree on that..but that doesnot mean hawking is speaking what he doesnot understand...

          coming to who cares?.stephen is not prophet who wants to be followed...he wrote what he concluded...it is open to rejection or acceptance or more research...

      2. ceciliabeltran profile image84
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        not a fallacy. einstein as a child did not understand the big bang.

        1. Beelzedad profile image61
          Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Uh, the Big Bang theory actually relies on Einsteins theory of General Relativity. How could he have understood it? wink

  17. 0
    DavidWS10posted 6 years ago

    The "Big Bang" theory is just that, a theory; and it is about as plausible as a tornado hitting a junkyard and assembling a perfectly flyable Boeing 747.

    1. Pcunix profile image90
      Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Oh, boy, it is all downhill from here.

    2. 0
      sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Praise Jebus!  It is far more likely that Jesus came down and assembled the perfectly good Boeing with just one breath!

      1. skyfire profile image71
        skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        and then let people screw him on cross...

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Jesus! The things you guys say about a man suffering on a cross!

          1. 0
            klarawieckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            They'll be roasted in the afterlife! lol

          2. skyfire profile image71
            skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            That's because if any person who managed to split the ocean, cure others and claims to be a son of god if gets screwed by mere mortals then we have nothing left to feel respected about.

            He's just another human. Someone will talk against him, me or any other person on earth like this in such case.

            1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
              ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I agree that he's  human.  But walking on the ocean is based on a Jewish metaphor for waters.
              What he was doing was remaining calm among hot heads.

              Also turning water into wine is a metaphor for turning ordinary folk into people of substance.

              He was a man, but a great one. He understood the nature of human consciousness. It was Jung who said that the Jews were masters of the consciousness. He also knew the belief was crucial to healing. look at the placebo effect.

              As I said, it is not what is written, it is how it is read.

            2. pisean282311 profile image57
              pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              you know what is biggest problem with all major religions?...read between the lines things..walking on water as you said is  metaphor..then why create confusion at first place..why not use calm among hot heads at first place..why use phrases which can be subject to interpretation...religion should be as simple as possible so that every one can get it ...

      2. earnestshub profile image87
        earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        lol lol lol I hope he doesn't screw it up again!

    3. earnestshub profile image87
      earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      lol Nice analogy!
      You may well be right! Very long odds indeed!

      No where near as long as "god dunnit" tho!

      We have Hubble and that is no fairytale.

    4. Beelzedad profile image61
      Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Or, as plausible as an invisible sky fairy creating a human being from dust? smile

  18. CkhoffmanK profile image59
    CkhoffmanKposted 6 years ago

    I think if Stephen Hawking says something... we should probably listen

    The man has unmeasurable amounts of intelligence that people of devout religion or superstitious belief probably can't grasp it.

    1. earnestshub profile image87
      earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I think you nailed it. smile

    2. 69
      paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      He has intelligence which works in Science; in Religion his intelligence is miserably meaningless.

      1. earnestshub profile image87
        earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        There is no intelligence in religion! smile

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          true, religion  is strictly about rituals and faith...faith meaning answers that you believe without proof. this is not intelligence.

          however faith is the interim to doubt, and doubt is the beginning of real questions that lead to answers.

          1. earnestshub profile image87
            earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            unless you get caught in the religion I would say. smile

      2. pisean282311 profile image57
        pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        @paar why do you say so paar?

  19. ceciliabeltran profile image84
    ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago

    as·sump·tion  (-smpshn)
    n.

    2. The act of asserting a claim: assumption of command.
    3. The act of taking for granted: assumption of a false theory.
    4. Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition: a valid assumption.
    5. Presumption; arrogance.

    The Great Forgetting is an established archeological theory. Is it false or not, we don't know yet. But it is not an assumption.

  20. What's News profile image54
    What's Newsposted 6 years ago

    People kill me how they think they are to smart for religion. None of us can claim to be completely right, but some of us still do.

  21. Thunder Vixen profile image76
    Thunder Vixenposted 6 years ago

    He didn't say he proved god doesn't exist he just concluded from his new study which proves that life could have been created by itself that he himself does not believe. I think it's an outstanding discovery, this took years to find out the possibilities of the universes.

    1. pisean282311 profile image57
      pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      quiet right...

  22. 60
    theipadtesterposted 6 years ago

    Have been reading Stephen Hawkings for over more than 6 months now and i just realised that the more you read of him the more you start believin in his theories.He is soo convincing!!

    1. Druid Dude profile image61
      Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      If you had a hold of a piece of string, and all you knew was that you were holding a piece of string, could you tell if you had it by the end? What if it were the beginning of the string? When we aim our telescopes and fine hi-tech instruments into space, no matter where we aim, we are looking at the past. What if the past, instead of always being behind us, could somehow, periodically be in the future, and not the past at all? One can never assume that one has found the beginning of anything, if one cannot perceive the other end. Figure this statement out. smile

      1. 0
        Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Too easy DD.
        Past is human metaphoric for what they perceive was or future what they perceive will. The thing is, no matter which end of the string they are holding, they are still in the same place, holding a string --in Stephens case, a string theory. So in theory, he is holding a string at either end. Which actually means there is no string, only the consideration/possibility of a string and the necessary desire to hold it at its end...
        James.

        1. Druid Dude profile image61
          Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Elegant. The polar duality under which banner all matter is gathered, and the subsequent nature of polar reality through the creation called Universe, evidenced in part by the very energies which produce the gravitational field, in Earth's case, a chaotic field with polar anomalies increasing over aperiod of time which the Mayan's somehow nailed pretty darn close, suggests that such polarity shifts are nothing new and hardly a characteristic of Earth and Earth alone. This must cause us to question the nature of perceptual reality on the physical plane. Time is complex, and thow it's flow is one directional, the vagaries of those things caught within it, may not always move with that flow. More like a leaf in a mountain stream, making it's way to the sea. smile

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            'Zat mean god dunnit? lol

            1. Druid Dude profile image61
              Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Hey, Mark! Did you read something there which confuses you on the subject? You're a hard man to please, but reading what isn't there is unbecoming a rational man, even one who thinks so highly of Phil Collins and the boys. If you see God hidden somewhere in my words, then, it could only be our Father in Heaven who has revealed it to you.smile

              1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                No - all I saw was meaningless gibberish. Perhaps the polar duality of CREATION had me confused. Who knows? Inch alla.

                1. Druid Dude profile image61
                  Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Not into atomic structure huh. Duality of nature.  Polar opposites. Magnetism, you know, Positive and negative poles. Earth has 'em or is that somehow news to you. People have them of is Bi-polar disorder a fanciful lie I slipped in somewhere? Electricity, Einthoven's triangle. Anything even ring a bell in there. Jesus, you are blind guy. Assuming you thik you know something. You must sit on the can for days at a time. You are so full of it. Careful. The others might see, and you'll no longer be able to hind inside your pseudo intellectualism. smile

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                    Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    And this has exactly what to do with Hawking's statement? Jesus? Zat wot god sed? Bi-polar? Oh - you mean manic depressive?

          2. 0
            Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            And rightly so. Reality is (at present to humans) light cubic times necessity --necessity being the variable that manipulates and reflects (solidifies/physic material). The projective and absorptive expressions of energy seem to be the mystery (to humans) since 99% of their waking hours are spend absorbing light from around them and then using that same absorptive expression to project and reflect the energy of the universe. This is the illusion : it appears real, it is measurable in increments (time), has an end point or start point. All the while it as an absorptive expression filtered through the millions on neurological fibers that make up the brain. And the brains function is to spit out a solution or expression so the eyes see, ears hear, body moves, feels, etc. So, it will --out of necessity-- spit out a series of like properties to satisfy the query.

  23. jwdudley profile image62
    jwdudleyposted 6 years ago

    There are so many people who do not believe in the Creation by God.  When you look at the depraved condition of this world and the lack of humanity, all the crimes, all the wars, all the diseases plus the hunger throughout the world, man has failed to help improve matters.  Each and every year that passes by this system of things just keeps getting worse.  At the rate mankind is going it won't be much longer when this total system will collapse.  If there is no God - what, then, is going to save us from utter destruction.  Personally I am thankful to believe that there is a God - one who is deeply concerned with our welfare and will soon rid this earth of all it's corruption.  No God, No Earth to live on.  No universe with all it's marvelous creation to astound us with it's marvel of beauty.  Yes, there is a God.

    1. Beelzedad profile image61
      Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Notice that religious believers have had control of the world during this time? That speaks volumes.



      Mankind could easily save itself if it gave up the delusions and madness of religions. smile

      1. Druid Dude profile image61
        Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Nope, wrong there. If majority rules, then China rules too. After them, why India of course. Strength in numbers. And if you are referring to the plethora of Apostate churches, I belief your data strem is outta whack. What about "Everyone would be wandering after the Beast" Are you that convinced of the illusion that has been set upon your dinner table? Then, by all means....pig out! smile

        1. Druid Dude profile image61
          Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          US Supreme court HAS RULED that atheism IS religion. GEEEZ! smile
          do your parents know how you spend your time?

          1. 0
            sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Sweet!  Now we can evade taxes too!  Awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Count me in. No taxes for atheists. LOL Talk about driving the numbers up. lol

              1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Cool beans!  But wait a minute, I'm agnostic!  In order to not have to pay taxes I will have to move one way or the other.  Not fair!

                1. Druid Dude profile image61
                  Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Sorry. Special rules for stuff like that. BUT iI do have an interesting thought on a certain legal "loophole", but I've sworn not to share my best stuff with difficult sheep.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                    Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I am so distraught!  LOL!

                  2. Randy Godwin profile image92
                    Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Another "secret plan" is it?  You're just full of it...er, them! LOL!

                2. Druid Dude profile image61
                  Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Agnosticism fit the same definition that the US Sup Ct used for their determination. Such is not the same with the loophole.

        2. Beelzedad profile image61
          Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I'm sure you have a point there, but it eludes me.



          I have no idea what you're talking about.  smile

 
working