jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (134 posts)

Stephen Hawkins said so

  1. Jerami profile image77
    Jeramiposted 6 years ago

    I Was watching Larry King last night.  Forget his name.
    That physicist that co-wrote a couple of books with  Stephen Hawkins.  He stated and Hawkins also that it has been proven in a laboratory that in a vacuum, matter appears and disappears.

       Doesn't that mean that there is something outside of this material world?  It comes in and out of this physical world uncontrolled by our laws of physics?

       Does that not prove that our universe is only a small part of whatever is?

       Isn't that what scripture has been saying all along.
       So .. whatever God is?  If it is,..
       Is outside of this universe.

       And that contradicts scripture how??

    1. DevLin profile image60
      DevLinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      What affect did it have on the anti-matter?

    2. getitrite profile image79
      getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Wow!  Trying to use Physics to validate your belief in an ancient book of Bronze Age goat herders.  Anyone see the desperation?

      What a waste of time to ponder such a desperate conclusion.
      The bible is still ridiculous, no matter what kind of new spin you try to put on it.

      Do you not understand?:  the fact that your scripture is dubious, negates your wishful thinking.

      This new discovery in Physics has absolutely nothing to do with your nonsensical, imaginary God.

      1. 0
        Kathryn LJposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Have you read the satirical novel 'The Book of Dave'?  I can thoroughly recommend it as a witty illustration of the perils of literal interpretation of texts of dodgy provenance.

    3. Pcunix profile image89
      Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      No.  That isn't what it means.  It means exactly the opposite - no gods needed.

      Get over it, Jerami.  It doesn't matter - you can go on believing whatever you want to believe.

      But I do have to take issue with your "outsider".  If there were such a thing, why would you assume it is a god?  Why not a third year physics student in another dimension? 

      And why assume benevolence?

      You religious folks come up with the silliest ideas sometimes :-)

      1. Jerami profile image77
        Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        It doesn't PROVE anything. That is my point!
        There will always be the question about ...  where did that come from. What was before that.
          The only answer that I can see to answer the "What was Before that" question is that time runs in opposite directions.

          And we can not accept that because we can't prove it.

          Why don't we put a lid on the question of a supreme entity by just saying that Nothing exists that we can not prove ???

          That would be like returning back to the dark ages but with sophistication.

        1. Pcunix profile image89
          Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Again, the "Supreme entity" nonsense.

          Jumping to ridiculous conclusions from no evidence whatsoever.  What would you call that, Jerami?

          1. Jerami profile image77
            Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            We all project our understanding upon any  thing.

              what do you understand supreme entity to mean.
              Yours is more than likely to be different than mine.

            I guess we are the supreme entity if there is no other.

            1. Pcunix profile image89
              Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Again, silly assumption.

              "Supreme" in what context?  We don't know if there is life elsewhere.

              But even just taking what we know:  We aren't the largest creatures.  We are not the longest lived.  We haven't been around as as species very long.  We are not the strongest, fastest, most resistant to disease.

              Why would you say we are "supreme"?   That's a short sighted,  anthropocentric view.

              1. Jerami profile image77
                Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                We are the fastest.  We can catch a cheetah ..  with a bullet.

                   We are the strongest.  We can lift a house with a crane.

                   We are most resistant to disease by taking antibiotics.

                   It all depends upon our prospective.

                  Take away mankind's thumbs and imagination and you are correct. We are not supreme.

                   Therefore I would say that it is our imagination that has made mankind the supreme being here on earth.

                  To imagine things that are not yet true?
                 
                  And we are supreme in this area.
                There will never be an end of that road as long as imagination survives.
                  Unless our imagination imagines its own demise.

        2. Mark Knowles profile image61
          Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Dear me,

          Are you having a bad day or something? Who said nothing exists that we can not prove?

          The simple fact is that most scientific knowledge points to the fact that we do not need a "supreme entity," in order for the Universe to have come into existence.

          This is also strong suggestion that there is not a supreme entity and certainly there is plenty of proven scientific facts to show that the one your goat herders wrote about does not exist.

          All you are really demonstrating is lack of understanding and knowledge - both of what Hawking (not Hawkins) actually said and the conclusions it is possible to draw from that. I mean - you cannot even get the man's name right. You are getting more desperate with each thread you start.

          Having doubts are we? wink

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

      No, by the very definition of "universe" those particles that appear and disappear are part of that universe.



      There is no such thing as something being "outside of our universe" by definition. smile

    5. Don W profile image82
      Don Wposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Suggesting the universe began from 'nothing' is misleading anyway. The hypothesis is that the inflation of the universe may have been started through the process of virtual particles popping in and out of existence as you describe. Physicists call that 'nothing' in relation to the energy required for it to happen (zero).

      So physicists are using the word 'nothing' in a way which is philosophically naive, not in the way you or I would intuitively use it. Our use of the word means no thing, or not anything. Virtual particles which pop in and out of existence are not nothing in that sense. They are of course something, but not in the way physicists describe a 'thing'. So this really doesn't add anything to the debate over the existence of a deity. All it's does is shift the question from why does the universe exist? To why virtual particles instead of no virtual particles at all?

      Use of the word 'universe' can be tricky as well. If you use universe as the totality of everything that exists, then if god exists, by definition god is within the universe. However the word is used differently in different contexts. For example one hypothesis suggests that there are multiple 'bubbles' of space-time. The bubble we are in is refereed to as the universe, another bubble referred to as a universe. So in that context your suggestion of something existing outside 'the universe' is not problematic at all. So it's merely a semantic argument.

      Also, saying something is unlikely does not allow us to say it's untrue. That's a non-sequitur. Indeed the development of matter in the universe, given the early conditions following inflation can be said to have been unlikely. We can even make the calculations to determine exactly how unlikely. Despite that unlikelihood, matter does of course exist. So we can see that the likelihood of something bears no relation to the truth of it. Therefore suggesting the existence of a deity is unlikely tells us nothing about whether it's actually true or not. Of course that assumes we are not part of a multi-verse in which there are infinite universes. Assuming the opposite though raises meta-level questions of it's own, like why a multi-verse instead of no multi-verse? Is the multi-verse part of something else (a mega-verse?!?)

      So it's all smoke and mirrors, with everyone suggesting their approach has less smoke and mirrors than another. At the end of the day when scientists start shouting "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain", you know that's the best place to look. More often than not you'll find some kind of misrepresentation or other. Question is, is it better to misrepresent, e.g. 'something out of nothing' or is better to simply say this is our best guess at how this happened, but we have no idea why X happens to be the case, rather than Y. Wouldn't sell many books like that I suppose.

      1. Jerami profile image77
        Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you very much for that explination.  Believe it or not I followed that. And though I could have never in this lifetime have explained this ; your explination was "kinda" what I was thinking, sorta.
         

          It just seems that the vacuum (nothingness) that the particles were popping in and out of suggests that when they popped out here they would pop in someplace else ???

           And that someplace else would be that other bubble of reality that you spoke of ??

           Is that something close?

    6. thisisoli profile image62
      thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Seriously?

      I think maybe you should have listened to what they were saying rather than just looking at what they were explaining and then forming your own assumptions.

      1. Don W profile image82
        Don Wposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Why's that? Is there something wrong with assumptions? If so we're all in trouble.

    7. OpinionDuck profile image60
      OpinionDuckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      genesis doesn't even make sense as the guide to how the universe was created. If you think so I have questions on my hubs that no one answers.

      1. Jerami profile image77
        Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        There are no answers because  comments section isn't open.

        open the capsule and I'll leave an opinion.

    8. zexxtra profile image60
      zexxtraposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      this note is for jeremy who said:

      That physicist that co-wrote a couple of books with  Stephen Hawkins.  He stated and Hawkins also that it has been proven in a laboratory that in a vacuum, matter appears and disappears.

         Doesn't that mean that there is something outside of this material world?  It comes in and out of this physical world uncontrolled by our laws of physics?

         Does that not prove that our universe is only a small part of whatever is?

         Isn't that what scripture has been saying all along.
         So .. whatever God is?  If it is,..
         Is outside of this universe.

        Jeremy, you are right on the mark.  this universe could be ONE CELL in a leg of another human being or universe somewhere else for all WE know.   we do not know the extent of what we are, and we are just a small part of whatever it is........jeremy you are far and beyond stephen hawkins....he's figured out lots of things, but his universe is small...yours is  is infinite....mine is too...................

  2. CkhoffmanK profile image60
    CkhoffmanKposted 6 years ago

    He was referring to different dimensions in a round about way

    Try to read a little on what he actually said (by researching, as you apparently have the internet)


    As always, this does not prove your god into existence. Sorry.

    1. DevLin profile image60
      DevLinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I know what he wanted. I just wanted his head to explode, having to read more about it.

    2. Jim Hunter profile image62
      Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Nor does it disprove the existence of God.

      Actually, there is nothing that can disprove it.

      That must drive you nuts.

      1. Rishy Rich profile image79
        Rishy Richposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah...Nor does it disprove the existence of flying Spaghetti Monster.

        1. Jim Hunter profile image62
          Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          No it doesn't.

          Whats your point?

          1. Pcunix profile image89
            Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            That believing in one is just as foolish as believing in the other, obviously.

            Most people believe what they were taught to believe.  Some of us realize early on that religion is nonsense, but most never do.

            Weak, easily led? Perhaps.  But I think it is deeply emotional.  I think you NEED to believe, that no matter what logic is presented, you will brush it aside and ignore it.   I think it does stem from base insecurity and fear - you need to believe in something bigger, smarter and more perfect than yourself.  A great big father figure to protect you.

            If that is all it is, I have no problem with it.  It is unfortunate that you need to delude yourself, but if it gets you through your day, fine.  It is the pushers who annoy me and the fundies who scare me.  If you keep it to yourself,  I have no complaints.

  3. skyfire profile image72
    skyfireposted 6 years ago

    No.


    No

  4. 68
    paarsurreyposted 6 years ago

    What did he actually say; please explain in simple words for an ordinary man.

  5. aka-dj profile image79
    aka-djposted 6 years ago

    If there are extra dimensions, we have no proof of it other than inference. I believe the general idea of this being the case is accepted, but not proven.
    Therefore, God and all matters Spiritual are likewise (theoretically) possible. Whether or not you believe it is up to you, for either proposition. It still come down to faith.
    That rotton word!!! Causes so much upset here in these forums . .  lol

    1. skyfire profile image72
      skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      If there are no proof for dimension then that doesn't mean there is any hint of existence of god. Plus going by that reasoning so-called god is trapped in same dimension as his creation and that turns down the possibility of spirituality. Spirituality theories requires dimension other than the present one.

      1. aka-dj profile image79
        aka-djposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "Spirituality theories requires dimension other than the present one."
        I say BINGO.! (Right on..)
        That's kinda what I said, NO? cool

  6. Jerami profile image77
    Jeramiposted 6 years ago

    It just seems to me that nothing has been proven concerning the existence of   or   non existence of God.

       That is all that I'm saying. 

      Matter coming into existence  and out again.
    We can say anything that we want to about this.

    1. stilljustwonderin profile image61
      stilljustwonderinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      No, we can't prove to their satisfaction that he does exist.  They can't prove that he doesn't.
      I think it is totally ridiculious that all this money is spent to try to prove anything.  Isn't there much better things to spend it on?

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

        The same could be said about unicorns and leprechauns. I can't prove they exist and you can't prove they don't exist. Therefore, you must believe in unicorns and leprechauns using the same logic. smile

        1. Jerami profile image77
          Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          By the same logic I can not with all certainty say that they do or don't.  I can believe either way as you also are free to do.

              If I remove your free will to decide for yourself then I SHOULD be required to show you proof.

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

            In other words, you are free to contradict yourself no matter how absurd, irrational or impossible it may seem.

               

            If you are shown how utterly absurd, irrational and impossible it is to freely believe in one thing and not the other, you certainly are required to show me the proof. smile

        2. stilljustwonderin profile image61
          stilljustwonderinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I wouldn't try to argue with you about it either way.  What ever you believe, you are free to do so.  If you have had an experience with a unicorn or leprechaun, you would believe they are real, and no one could convince you other wise.
          No one is required to show you proof of anything.  No aspect of our lives rest on what you believe.

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

            That's because you have no argument. 



            That is where you're entirely wrong, again. Our world is controlled by religious mindsets, which have serious repercussions on many aspects of our lives. Since that is the case, I do demand proof.

            1. Pcunix profile image89
              Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Oh, I am sure  you are wrong.  What could religion have to do with troubles in Isreal, with terrorism, with  that mosque in New York, with presidents praying to get advice on starting wars, with arguments over abortion, stem cell research..  No, religion has no influence whatsoever.

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

                You're right, how silly of me not to have noticed that. wink

              2. Jerami profile image77
                Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                If that is true?  Religion can be seen as a branch of politics. 
                  We have Republicans and democrats religious and non religious.  These all have an agenda. In a Democracy the Majority rules. 
                   For Atheists to require the dismantling of all religious affiliations  is the same thing as   Republicans  demanding the dismantling of the Democratic party.

                   A minority crying because they are not the Majority.

                   Seeing it from this prospective it seems logical for Atheists to join the campaign trail. They have to follow the same rules that everyone else does.

                   Just a bunch of mud slinging rhetoric while on the campaign trail.

              3. stilljustwonderin profile image61
                stilljustwonderinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I have agreed that some of the wars are religious wars.  I just don't agree that religion is the root of all problems.
                Israel, a territorial dispute.  They all want that land.
                The mosque in New York.  The bombing of the WTC has a lot to do with that.
                I know athiests who don't believe in abortion and stem cell research.

            2. Jim Hunter profile image62
              Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              "That is where you're entirely wrong, again. Our world is controlled by religious mindsets, which have serious repercussions on many aspects of our lives. Since that is the case, I do demand proof."

              Then get busy looking for it.

              You demand?

              Demand in one hand and shit in the other, see which fills up faster.

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

                Perhaps, you're not aware of the Burden of Proof fallacy in which the claimant is supposed to provide the proof. One does make a statement of belief and then expect everyone else to run around proving him right. wink

                1. Jim Hunter profile image62
                  Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  "Perhaps, you're not aware of the Burden of Proof fallacy"

                  Do you demand this?

                  Try doing what I said and call it a scientific experiment.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                    Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    How did it turn out for you, Jim?  LOL!

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

                    Why should I?

                2. Pcunix profile image89
                  Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Jim is a conservative.  Conservatives simply detest change.  Losing his religious fantasies would be a definite change and therefore must be avoided.

                  It really is that simple.

                  1. Jim Hunter profile image62
                    Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Pcunix is a liberal therefore he hates individual thought and relies on pack mentality to guide his distorted worldview.

                    It really is that simple.

              2. getitrite profile image79
                getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this



                ANGRY CHILDISH NONSENSE!!!!!!!!!!!

                1. Jim Hunter profile image62
                  Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  roll

            3. stilljustwonderin profile image61
              stilljustwonderinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Demand all ya want to.  I am not trying to make you believe anything.  I really don't care what you believe.  Your belief has no effect what so ever on my life.
              So go ahead, demand, see where that gets ya.

              I have no argument about your unicorn because, I don't care if you believe it or not.

              What you believe is strickly up to you.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                "I don't care if you believe it or not."

                "What you believe is strickly up to you."


                Fine!  Don't try and convince others your beliefs are correct then!

                1. stilljustwonderin profile image61
                  stilljustwonderinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm not trying to convince any one of anything.  Why would I try?  I know that trying to push my views on people will only push them away. 
                  I was speaking to Jeremi when Belzedad opened this conversation.

                  Maybe when I am speaking with another believer and a non believer joins the conversation I should ignore them?  Probably since if I respond to a reply I am pushing my views.  Yes, to just ignore a non believer is what I should do.   Right?

                  1. Pcunix profile image89
                    Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Maybe if you want to talk to one person you should send them email.

                  2. Randy Godwin profile image93
                    Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    And to just ignore a believer is what I should do, right?

      2. getitrite profile image79
        getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Like, maybe Bible Study? lol

      3. Jerami profile image77
        Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        In times of plenty we should prove or disprove anything that we can.

           Mr Hawking has a great mind and makes money with his books which is as it should be.

           But to take his book and make claims that he is saying something that he does not say is in error.

           To say that a car does not "have to" run on gasoline
        does not say that there in no such thing as gasoline.

        1. Pcunix profile image89
          Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          But when there is no evidence of gasoline, when nobody has ever seen anything that runs on gasoline, what does that tell you about people who go around pretending that cars run on it?

          1. getitrite profile image79
            getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this



            lol lol

          2. Jerami profile image77
            Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            At one time no one imagined that the gasoline engine could run on anything else.

              They never imagined an automobile being propelled by anything else.  Batteries and solar power was unknown. Unprovable, By your logic "Impossible".

              When we begin categorizing the unprovable as impossible, we have become closed minded.

              I believe anything imaginable is possible.  Yes even unicorns.  I won't buy one till I see it though.

            1. Pcunix profile image89
              Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Actually, the likely first automobile was steam powered.  Electric vehicles also came quite early.


              But you missed the point.  You babble about mystical forces and imaginary beings.  They plainly do not exist, but you keep insisting they do.

              1. Jerami profile image77
                Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I am insisting that to exclude the possibility of a source from out side our system of logic having any influence here is not logical.

                   Nor would it be logical to declare what exactly that source of influence looks like.

                1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                  Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  No one is excluding anything except your imaginary friend who wrote a book explaining what was going to come to pass.

                  The fact that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of a source from outside our system of logic is a good reason for discounting it.

                  You on the other hand claim to have certain knowledge. You even claim this outside source sent its only son to earth.

                  And then you speak of logic. Too funny. lol

            2. Pcunix profile image89
              Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Not "impossible".  Vanishingly unlikely.

              It's POSSIBLE for all the molecules in the left your body to move in opposite direction to those on your right and unzip you right down the middle.  It's POSSIBLE for water to just start boiling away without being heated for the same reason.  Neither is ever going to happen.

              That's the kind of "possibility" your religion is built on.  Something so completely ridiculous that no one should ever believe it - but you do, don't you?

              1. Jerami profile image77
                Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                When I was raising my children it never ceased to amaze me how they could always come back with a ridiculous argument that had nothing to do with what I was saying.

                   Like  they might say "You say anything is impossible, then a tree can grow with its leaves under ground and its roots sticking straight up in the air?"

                   What does that have to do with me saying that they could become president of the US of A some day. Cause anything is possible.

                   You do what you accuse Christians of doing.  Neglecting anything that does not fit within a concept that you wish to hold onto.  If you do not want it to be applicable then you insist that it isn't.
                   
                   Seems that we both are guilty of this to some degree.
                   I admitt this.   ???

            3. getitrite profile image79
              getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this



              But you don't need to see God to buy right into Him.  Why?
              Amazing how contradicting your reasoning is.

              Seems to be based on something other than reason, to me.
              Could it be fear?

              1. Jerami profile image77
                Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                How do you know what I have or have not seen?

                   If you have not seen something; then you presume no one has.

                1. Pcunix profile image89
                  Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  If you think you have seen things other people cannot see, you need a psychiatrist.

                  1. Jerami profile image77
                    Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Everyone has seen things that some people haven't.

                       Everyone is different.

                       No one is exactly like you or me.  So we all need help????

                2. getitrite profile image79
                  getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  No I don't know what you have seen,  but I do know...

                  Those who see things that aren't real are suffering from some kind of imbalance, be it ocular or otherwise.

                  1. Jerami profile image77
                    Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    And if we chose the next 100 people that we see walking down the street  and let them decide what is NORMAL ???

                      We both might be surprised to find out that neither of us are.

  7. getitrite profile image79
    getitriteposted 6 years ago

    Any conclusion drawn from a nonsensical presupposition is absurd.

  8. skyfire profile image72
    skyfireposted 6 years ago

    I'll take meaning of "supreme" as creator of universe,okay ? Then do you think creator who managed to handle the supernova, meteor showers and other destructive events will give birth to a son who ends up getting knocked down on cross ? and preaches path of only one religion ? Sounds like lamest supremacy to me.

    Let's get real. Studying science gives you better perception towards what you fantasize as "supreme".

  9. Jerami profile image77
    Jeramiposted 6 years ago

    Mark Knowles wrote   
      The simple fact is that most scientific knowledge points to the fact that we do not need a "supreme entity," in order for the Universe to have come into existence.
    ---------

       We do not "need" ...  Is that like saying that we can prove another way that it could have happened?
    ========================================================== 



    MK ...  This is also strong "suggestion" that there is not a supreme entity

    ----------

      And we are all free to follow any suggestion that we choose.

    ====================================================== 

    MK  .... All you are really demonstrating is lack of understanding and knowledge - both of what Hawking (not Hawkins) actually said and the conclusions it is possible to draw from that. I mean - you cannot even get the man's name right.
    --------------

       Yep ...  at 12:45 AM  just before I went to bed ...           I misspelled a name wrong.  Will not be the last time.

       Desperation?  Not ...   
      Some people are trying to make the wagon go faster that the horses can run.   
       I'm just point that out.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      No. It means exactly what I said. sad


      I was merely pointing out that you actually got everything wrong. Including the name of the man you were quoting as having said something you did not understand.

      Smells like desperation from here.


      This makes no sense at all.

      1. Abhishek87 profile image74
        Abhishek87posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Pardon my ignorance in the matter of these discussions that I find on Hubpages related to God, Supreme beings, Believers, Non-Believers, atheists and so on....

        I just have one simple question? Why can't we be convinced with our belief? Why does someone who believes in God need to prove it (read posting in forums) to exactly the people not at all interested (atheists).

        And, why are those, who deny the supreme beings, bent on blasting anyone who has any views (read hate messages).

        1. 68
          paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          They blast because they don't find any brilliant arguments.

          1. Mark Knowles profile image61
            Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            LOL
            As opposed to god dunnit LOLOLO

        2. Randy Godwin profile image93
          Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Why is it okay to tell others god is real and bad for us to disagree with you on things we see as wrong or delusional?  I'll bet some of those suicides at Jonestown could have been prevented if more people would have tried to tell them they were deluded by false beliefs!  This is a good enough reason for me to keep the religious nonsense down on here!  No apologies from me!

  10. Jerami profile image77
    Jeramiposted 6 years ago

    Another thing that was discussed on Larry King
    When asked about life after death .  He said that there is no proof what so ever as to what happens after death.
      He then added that there is no proof as to what consciousness is or where it comes from.
       

       So wouldn't the same rules apply to consciousness as it does to a creator.   No scientific proof of either ??

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

      Yes it would appear to at first glance, but in reality you have theories and empirical evidence about the source of religiosity that strongly indicates that the mechanism can be understood.

      On the other hand we have a ridiculous myth that remains without any proof of any sort ever with a blatant agenda. smile

    2. Pcunix profile image89
      Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      So now Larry King is an expert on conscioysness?

      There is nothing mystjcal about consciousness.  It is nothing but feedback loops.

  11. Jerami profile image77
    Jeramiposted 6 years ago

    HMmmmm...   I like your attitude!?!?      Thanks ....

           UHHHH     I agree ???....  I also am pretty sure that We are somewhere half way between infinitely outward     and   infinitely   inward.


          I think that it goes in both directions equal distances from where I am.   Way too far to ever see the end of it.

         I wonder what is way over/in there"

 
working