Stephen Hawking has concluded....

Jump to Last Post 1-40 of 40 discussions (311 posts)

72
aguasilverposted 14 years ago
"The Big Bang was the result of the inevitable laws of physics and did not need God to spark the creation of the Universe."

What say you?
reply report
1. 51
  paarsurreyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  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".
  reply report
  84
  CMHypnoposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  How the universe began is very much in the realms of physics, and, as you say, that is what Stephen Hawking specialises in.
  
  Everyone is free to speculate and hold their own beliefs about how things started, so nobody can say that Stephen Hawking 'does not belong' in this field. And as he has spent many years studying the origins of the universe and physics, he is more qualified than practically anyone else on the planet to state what he thinks.
  reply report
  51
  paarsurreyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  To say that the Creator- God Allah YHWH did not or could not cause a "big bang" is definitely out of the field of Physics, the field Stephen Hawking specialises in.
  
  God does not come under the study of Physics? To say anything about God makes him simply a layman in the field of knowing about God. It is just an ordinary opinion of him about God.
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Says who ?
  
  Besides that definition of god always has to be quranic ?
  reply report
  51
  paarsurreyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  If Stephen Hawking means Jesus did not do the Bing Bang; that is another thing. Jesus was born 2010 years ago; he could not do that.
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Jesus was son of god, so christians planned escapism tactics there. But if you take objection on that as well then same applies to allah theory from islamics. Quran was written just 1400 years ago.
  reply report
  80
  thisisoliposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Stephen Hawkin is a specialist in physics and astrophysics.
  reply report
  51
  paarsurreyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Out of his field, I meant religion.
  reply report
2. 0
  Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I have a t-shirt I've had for years; it's faded and tattered, but I still wear it sometimes.
  It says "Heard of the Big Bang?---It was just God getting started"!
  That's what I say. ha
  
  Actually, I don't know if there was a "Bang" at all when He spoke heaven and earth into existence; all I know is that HE did it, Amen!
  reply report
  55
  ftclickposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I like that t-shirt. Yes, an act seems very plausible.
  reply report
3. 60
  Jeramiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I have never been an all or nothing kind of person.
  Did God say let it be and bang there it was?
  I can believe in a God whether he created the universe or not.
  
  And if he did? Ok, he started it on one day
  And then, many years later he came by a second time, 2nd day
  And then, millions of years later he came on a 3rd day
  ETC. ETC, JUST saying?
  
  If I go to a doctor does he have to have had a hand in building the hospital?
  
  If the God that I know did't create the universe,
  I bet he knows who that did.
  reply report
4. 88
  Bibowenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  But what "laws of physics" are in play at t=0? If we're talking about the beginning of all physical reality after that point, that would include the laws of physics. But the laws of physics can't exist until they come into being! Are you sure this is the way that Hawking put it? Do you have a quote?
  reply report
  88
  Bibowenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps you are referring to this quote...
  
  "The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary . . . has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe . . . . So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end. What place, then, for a creator?" From Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), 140-141.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Ancient stuff. Throughout that book, Stephen worries about gods. I found the whole thing more interesting as an examination of a religiously tortured psyche than for any other value.
  reply report
  88
  Bibowenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It isn't ancient. Is this a book critique? "Worries about gods"..."religiously tortured psyche"...Does this also apply to Brenda or do you have special denouncements for her (because she isn't rational and all she knows is that 'god done it').
  
  Can you state anything on the merits of the topic or is all that we're going to get is a sideshow?
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Have you READ the book?
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  1988. It's ancient. Poor Stephen has been trying to avoid this conclusion for years.
  reply report
  88
  Bibowenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Labeling the book as "ancient" and bashing Hawking's religious psyche... Another fine example of what passes for "atheistic analysis" these days...
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  1988 is ancient in the field of physics and if you had actually read Hawking you would realize that he plainly has great conflicts with regard to religion.
  reply report
  88
  Bibowenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'm sure this is great information, but it has little to do with refuting an argument.
  
  Refutation. Do you know what that is? Labeling something "ancient history" isn't a refutation; it's a dismissal. Labeling a person's views as "religious" is not a refutation either; it's also a dismissal of the argument.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You do have a hard time here, don't you?
  
  We aren't refuting anything. I am explaining why I don't care what Hawking says about invisible make believe beings. He might as well have said that the universe wasn't created by the Invisible Pink Unicorn. No atheist cares.
  reply report
  88
  Bibowenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  But you said that some time ago. No one really cares what you think about Hawking. But, if you could actually add to the discussion about the topic, well, that's different....
  
  No atheist cares?? OK, you give me $100 for every atheist that snatches up Hawking's book and starts pontificating that "the world's greatest physicist has concluded that God did not create the universe..."
  
  If you're right, I should receive $0.00.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Ahh, that is what worries you.
  
  I wouldn't think anyone would bother waving this in your face. Your religious beliefs are easily discounted without that.
  
  And, unlike most of you, we don't think argument from authority carries any weight. We are also aware that if we could show you a movie of the past where no gods ever appeared, you would insist it was forged or would insist your god hid himself. Your need to believe will trump anything.
  reply report
  88
  Bibowenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Just one other thing you're wrong on....but you guess which one....
  reply report
  64
  Ben Evansposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  1988 is not ancient history in physics. Most physics up to that date is very relevant. Not much has changed. Everything except the very fringe of physics which not many people understand. There are very few people who understand GUFT or any of the esoteric physical theories out there.
  reply report
5. 60
  wilmiers77posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Before something God was and IS now. Stephen H. began his intellectual endeavors when there was something. He's running a little late.
  reply report
6. 82
  Don Wposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Any theory which insists something exists, whether it be multiple universes, quantum foam, some 'previous' state is simply another hook on which to hang the question 'why?'. Nothing Hawking has said approaches that question, because it can't. Asking 'How?' is not the same as asking 'why?'
  reply report
7. 0
  cosetteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  i admire Stephen Hawking very much.
  
  speaking only for myself, i think SOMEthing or someONE had to have created the very seeds of life, or matter or whatever, and i do believe in the Big Bang also.
  
  i know, it is complicated. i don't think "God" and "created" are like most humans think of. i mean, i don't think there was some "God" floating around upstairs mixing up Universe batter then when he saw what he had done, he sat around supervising everything. i just think of a profound spiritual force that is more beautiful and more benevolent than anyone can begin to understand and there are other spiritual forces on Earth in Nature and the elements that radiate comfort and positive (and dark) energies, which we perceive on a subconcious level and they are all unified and explained in mathematical formulas and in things like the symnetry of flower petals and seashells.
  
  it's impossible to explain. but i disagree with Mr. Hawking's comment that 'we didn't need God'.
  reply report
8. 70
  waynetposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It is true..................God had one massive five knuckle shuffle and the big bang occured!!
  reply report
9. 88
  Bibowenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I was not aware that Hawking was coming out with a new book; I thought you were responding to some earlier comments. For those interested, here is one story.
  
  http://abcnews.go.com/WN/stephen-hawkin … d=11542128
  
  I really can't comment on his reasons until I have a chance to look at the book. From what I have read, he is baldly asserting that we have to embrace a universe that came from nothing. I'm curious to read his rationale behind it. I hope it's better than Dawkin's rationale for rejecting the Design Hypothesis.
  reply report
10. 67
  goldenpathposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  In the common words of atheists, "It can only be...", I'd say that the Big Bang can only be caused by a really big elephant who beforehand got overzealous in a massive patch of habeneros salsa! .....movement......big...BANG!!!!
  reply report
11. 58
  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Considering there are few if any believers here who would even remotely understand what Hawking is talking about, this is a pointless question.
  reply report
  88
  Bibowenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  When I look at your image, I can't help but think of Albert Einstein, but when I read what you say, I can't help but think of Albert Gore...
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Couldn't come up with any fallacies so you had to attack me personally? Sad indeed.
  reply report
61
anonimuzzposted 14 years ago
I say that Big Bang is a theory, creationism is a theory and one of them, both of them or neither one of them might be right.
reply report
1. 56
  andromidaposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Very good point.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Hardly. That isn't a point at all, it is a nonsense statement.
  reply report
59
Randy Godwinposted 14 years ago
Of course the creationists disagree with Hawking! They are not educated in science enough to know any better! Nothing new there!
reply report
1. 71
  earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, what would Stephen Hawking know about science compared to the religionists here on hubpages!
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Did Stephen Hawking create the universe?
  If you can prove to me that he did, I might listen to him.
  reply report
  71
  earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think you would listen to him under any circumstances Brenda. Anyway, what would he know about life compared to someone so smart they have god?
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It's not about being smart. It's about having Faith in that "smart" God.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Which one?
  
  I've heard of hundreds. Which one did the dirty deed, Brenda?
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  There is only One who's all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing. That would be the One. He is Alpha, Omega, Jehovah, Jealous, Love, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the One who sent His Son to die upon a Cross for you and me.....
  Reckin I should go on? Or are you through with asking questions you're not really ready to hear the answer to?
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, THAT one.
  
  Fairly recent, you know, and the accompanying myths are all stolen from older, more creative religions.
  
  It's main book is very confused and often contradictory because of that copying. It would have been less of a target if they's just left out everything after the first sentence.
  reply report
  60
  wilmiers77posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Pcunix, who says that previous myths are more creative? The Word Of God brings use to Jesus, the Living Word Of God who has God's Holy Spirit, who brings us to our destined life (our purpose) if accept Jesus and Love God and Jesus.
  The Word Of God appear to unbelievers as having contradictions in which once saved they become needed truths and free-ing truths. Who the Son sets free is free indeed.
  reply report
  88
  Bibowenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The usual suspects have taken the question on the Big Bang and have used it as an attack on religious people, as usual. This is either because they can't answer the question or they hate religious people. I suspect it's both.
  reply report
  71
  earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It's neither.
  There has never been a question posed to answer, and we believe it is a hate filled crock.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise." (1Cor.1:27)
  Stephen Hawking is very "wise".
  And I believe you consider yourself very wise, earnest?
  reply report
  71
  earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So now it is the wise who have it all wrong?
  
  What about the educated, or just plain not dumb and gullible?
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, it is the "wise" who have it all wrong; the ones who are "wise" in human knowledge more than in Godly wisdom.
  The people who built the Tower of Babel thought they were "wise".....
  But true wisdom is realizing God's power, not our own.
  reply report
  71
  earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well thinking you are wise and being wise would be two different things I reckon.
  
  We can measure IQ and EQ, we can even switch off that fear button that religionists can't keep their minds off, but we can't stop dumb asses from being dumb, or educate someone with a closed mind that tells em god dunnit.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You are correct. We cannot. But God did.
  In the Bible, He made a dumb donkey talk.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Never happened.
  
  It's that type of insane claim that shows your religion for what it is.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe the donkey talks to Brenda?
  reply report
  88
  Bibowenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Wow...bashing the ladies. Your mothers would be proud...
  
  Bashing a woman's beliefs, instead of engaging her in a discussion about your own, is another reason why atheists should be kept away from the kiddies, power, and sharp objects.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  There is no such thing as a rational discussion with Brenda. All she knows is "god done it".
  report
  88
  Bibowenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "There is no such thing as a rational discussion" with her and "All she knows is 'god done it.'"
  
  That's great. Why don't you demonstrate your intellectual superiority by ridiculing her some more and discussing the topic less. That should be even more convincing.
  report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Brenda brought up the donkey, pal, we didn't. If she believes that nonsense, how is it ridicule?
  
  That's all Brenda ever does - god, god and more god. In her mind, that's the answer to everything.
  
  Is that your answer too? Are you upset that Stephen finally, after years of apparent mental anguish, finally admits what he must have known in his heart from day one?
  
  Well, don't be. Stephen's opinion on gods is unimportant. He has always vacillated on this, sucking up to religion at one moment and backing away the next. I feel sorry for him, and his conclusions elicit nothing but a "Duh!" from me.
  report
  88
  Bibowenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  God might be the ultimate or sufficient reason for why anything exists, yes, that's one answer. It's no more simplistic than saying it was "Nature" or "Evolution."
  
  But saying that "God did it" is only to give a sufficient reason for why anything exists. That does nothing to negate the role of science which seeks material causes for those phenomena of interest.
  
  So, saying "God did it" isn't anti-science. It depends upon which way it's being used. If the response is being used to explain physical causation, it's a misapplication of a metaphysical principle. But it isn't a misapplication as an explanation for why the universe exists. That answer may end up being wrong, but it isn't an unscientific response.
  
  Let's say God did create the universe: would this undercut science? No. We'd still be interested in "how He did it" which is the task of science. It's in this same sense that scientists like Newton, Kepler, and Galileo sought to explain those phenomena they observed.
  report
  51
  paarsurreyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Hi friend Bibowen
  
  I agree with you.
  
  Religion encourages science to progress.
  
  Thanks
  
  I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
  report
  71
  earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Really? Is the donkey running a church somewhere now, or does he do his own TV evangelical show?
  reply report
  62
  Daniel Carterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, I think Stephen Hawking is absolutely amazing. Being constricted and confined as he has all his life, and still be one of the brightest scientific thinkers of our age. Surely if God were unhappy with him, he would have done him in long ago.
  
  Still more evidence to me that God is not whom so many have presumed him to be. IF he exists, he is watching over all of us, including the hateful Christians.
  
  Yes, Mr. Hawking is wise. And if you could converse with him, I'm sure any human could learn a lot. He is a credit to the human race. Many others, I'm not so sure about.
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Just because it is written in bible doesn't make it true.
  
  But then again, it's Brenda for you
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  As I said, she has one answer for everything
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Doesn't that make you foolish?
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Just like those who believe in their ancient novel! Scientific facts versus superstitious beliefs! But let a believer get sick and they run to the doctor. If science is so wrong, why not just rely on prayer instead of depending on scientifically produced medicines and medical techniques? Where is the believer's faith in these instances? Let me guess! LOL!
  reply report
  88
  Bibowenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The dichotomy between religion and science exists......in the minds of atheists. It's just another front to hide their religious bigotry and contempt for religious people. This is one example why atheists should never be allowed to lead in society (well, may be a discussion on Hubpages...).
  
  And, of course, your post is another example of how atheists cannot address the question, so they turn it into an attack on believers going to the doctor...
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Care to address how science is wrong about evolution, the earths age, etc. but how religionists still depend on science for medical needs?
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Even the Christian ScienceLess use dentists
  reply report
  88
  Bibowenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, no. I've got a better idea....how about the topic?
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I didn't need poor Stephen to tell me that no gods are necessary.
  
  I feel sorry for him. He toadies up to the Catholic Church, seems to worry a great deal about about offending religious belief - he may be a brilliant physicist but he has serious psychological issues. You can see it all through his popular writing.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  LOL! Didn't expect you to! It's a sticky subject for believers because they have to admit they only trust science when it suits them!
  reply report
  88
  Bibowenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "...believers....have to admit they only trust science when it suits them!"
  
  What does this mean!?
  
  And this is the reason I choose to stay on the topic and you can't? I'm sure you have an explanation...
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  We are on topic. Perhaps you need some assistance seeing that? Why don't you pray on it?
  reply report
  88
  Bibowenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Why don't you have a thought instead of a reaction? The topic isn't Brenda's intellectual prowess. The topic is about Hawking and Big Bang cosmology. Addressing Hawking's religious predilections says nothing about his cosmology. And the reason is.....even if all the things about Hawking that you said were true, his Big-Bang model could still be sound.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Again, you are the one who keeps bringing up Brenda.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  For your refusing to answer? Sure, I have an explanation for that! LOL!
  reply report
  60
  wilmiers77posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Godwin, we all are living unto ever increasing faith in something. We, Christians, are unto faith in God thru Jesus. There is weak faith and strong faith. Most of all, there is faith without doubt which can move a physical mountain, heal the sick, and rise the dead. It can change time.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Move a mountain?
  
  But no limbs. Raise up the (not) dead? But no limbs.
  
  Where does it say "no limbs" in your nonsense book?
  reply report
  60
  Jeramiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The best that I can understand , If god created the earth, he also created the laws of physics at the same time.
  
  OK that is a; which came first eggs or chickens thing.
  
  According to my understanding he can take a broken person and change them into a beautiful and full person. He takes dire circumstances and terns them around. If an arm was to grow back where one isn't , then why not a head or a leg?
  
  We end prayer with; But not my will but Thy will be done.
  To expect "HIM" to break those laws that he established for "US" to keep just to answer our wish request would be a childish expectation.
  He does not break the laws of physics (which he established) in order to fulill his will; he uses them or manipulates them for his purpose.
  Kinda like we do.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Growing limbs breaks no physics. Every one of us grew what we have now.
  
  Try again, Jerami. Pray on it.
  reply report
  60
  Jeramiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  If that is the case we then don't need him to do it.
  
  All we gotta do is just do it then if it doesn't break the laws of DNA, which is a physical law last time I checked.
  
  However? your answer was funny. Ha
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You don't think a soldier with no arms NEEDS them????
  
  I know someone who lost both arms in Iraq. Aside from his daily struggles, don't you think he would like to hug his children or caress his wife?
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Regrowing limbs breaks no laws of DNA either, Jerami. Do you know nothing about science?
  reply report
  60
  Jeramiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Seems as thou you have been watching too many cartoons.
  Do you know nothing about science?
  If it isn't happening in nature, then it is not within natures laws to do so, or it would be happening.
  
  Do you think that it would be happening if God wasn't preventing it?? That isn't the case,
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Limbs grow in nature, Jerami. Actually, we (humans) likely will be able to regrow limbs soon enough. But your prayers never could.
  
  Prayer is bunk.
  reply report
  71
  earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Pcunix I was reading some time back about the potential to regrow limbs in the future.
  My dad was an amputee, so I had an interest in the subject.
  report
  0
  klarawieckposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You guys are relentless!
  report
  71
  earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You left out honest, straightforward, non delusional.
  report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Give me a documented case of a mountain being moved by a believer! Yeah, I know about Oral Roberts healing the sick. I knew he was a fake when I was a child! And the dead being raised? There is no proof of this ever happening either! There was no man named Jesus, you know!
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No hate. We feel sad that you need this fantasy.
  
  We feel astounded that you ignore the plain evidence right in front of your eyes. We do get angry when you use your fairy tales to retard progress or to justify persecution.
  reply report
  88
  Bibowenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Another example that proves my point that atheists 1) can't address the topic and 2) they turn the topics into attacks on the faithful.
  
  What "plain evidence" are you referring to?
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The plain evidence that there is no supernatural being. The evidence that prayer is powerless.
  
  THAT evidence.
  
  People may have once been gullible enough to believe some nutter stumbling off a mountain muttering about burning bushes, but today raving loonies like that end up in hospitals, don't they?
  
  It's incredible that some of you still cling to this nonsense.
  reply report
  66
  FranyaBlueposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  We know that prayer doesn't work : you cannot pray back even a missing finger, nevrr mind anything else.
  
  That is evidence against your fantasy.
  reply report
  72
  aguasilverposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Praying back a missing finger is a bad example concerning prayer, feeling the 'jolt' as a prayer is said over a man with an enlarged heart, told he was probably going to die, and then told that his heart has returned to normal size after prayer, would suffice.
  
  Or seeing an alcoholic, survivor of many rehab treatments, fall like an oak tree when prayed for, and awaken four hours later clean and sober, when he tells you that in rehab he has gone five days in cold turkey pain before he dried out, that's prayer.
  
  To those blinded by Satan, these things mean nothing, except a threat that must be decried at all times, in some vain hope that if you utter your nonsense long enough, we will be silenced.
  
  But those of us who have faith, and have seen God at work, will praise Him daily, no matter how loudly you screech.
  
  Indeed the more you wriggle and squirm, the more we are encouraged to praise God and correct your inane remarks.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So you can pray for hearts and cancers but not limbs?
  
  Where does your book explain what can be prayed for?
  reply report
  72
  aguasilverposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Actually I seem to remember that limbs have been prayed for successfully also, you can pray for anything you want to, within Gods will or His permissive will.
  
  Normally He will answer a prayer where the faith of the recipient (note: not the person praying) is strong enough to believe and where the recipient actually trusts God.
  
  The activation of prayer has a heavy dependence upon what we believe in our 'heart' and will confess (proclaim) with our mouths.
  
  Of course, no belief, or worse still active scepticism, bears no results normally, as God does not 'do' party tricks to please or persuade smug non believers.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No limbs have ever been restored, not once and never will ve.
  
  Study after study has shown prayer to be useless against disease. Every single time.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You think that soldiers who have lost limbs just are not prsying hard enough, then?
  
  Great excuse.
  reply report
  72
  aguasilverposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Read the post again and stop just trying to make smug remarks.
  report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I have read it.
  
  By your reasoning, at least some should have their limbs restored. None have. None ever will.
  
  Prayer is a lie.
  report
  72
  aguasilverposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Then it is a 'lie' that believers have seen proven true with their own eyes.
  
  You really cannot speak about that which you have not experienced in such terms, of course you are free to push your agenda as much as you wish, but you are fooling nobody.
  report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You are the one trying to fool.
  
  No limbs ever have or ever will be restored. Prayer is bunk. A lie to comfort the weak.
  report
  72
  aguasilverposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I dust my feet of you PC, you are like a record stuck in a groove, repeating the same old mantra time after time, in the hope that like Hitler, if you repeat the same lie often enough, you will be believed.
  
  The gulf between your understanding and the truth is almost as large as your ego.
  
  BTW why do you have that ridiculous wig on that makes you look like Ronnie Woods on a bad day?
  report
  60
  qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  pcunix: HERE, HERE! standing applause! Take a bow! :-)
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I can't. The wig would fall off.
  reply report
  60
  wilmiers77posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Pcunix, things not seen framed the things seen. Thing not seen is eternal; things seen is temporary. The Infinite Potentiality is eternal.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Spaghetti is wheat. Up is down. Words are syllables. Forever is yesterday.
  
  Nonsense is nonsense.
  reply report
2. 51
  paarsurreyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Physics is just one field of life; it is not the whole of it. To speculate on the whole while researching in one field is not a valid thing to do. Nothing new there!
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The sciences are intertwined! They support each other! Can you say this for the many religions? I seriously doubt it because these ignorant beliefs are constantly at odds with each other. They all disagree with the adherents of the others!
  reply report
60
Jeramiposted 14 years ago
Pcunix wrote:
No hate. We feel sad that you need this fantasy.

We feel astounded that you ignore the plain evidence right in front of your eyes. We do get angry when you use your fairy tales to retard progress or to justify persecution.
=================================

Progress marches on regardless of what us little people think and do.

The only thing that comes to mind right now is stem cell research.
Where do we draw the line when it comes to killing one person to make others life more pleasant?

Lets assume that a cure for all diseases can be found. Then what. People live forever? Is stem cell research going to cure hunger. And even if it did; Soon we would have to sleep standing up cause there is no placee to lay our heads.
reply report
1. 86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, research and science can eventually solve these problems.
  
  No thanks to people like you who will always be trying to drag us backward.
  reply report
  60
  Jeramiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not trying to drag anyone backwards or forward.
  I am trying to make their own progress.
  
  And it is a shame that you think little ole me can halt your progress. Yes I say your progress because you make your own.
  
  For you to claim credit for the advancements in science is a bit False don't you think.
  
  You get credit for your own progress only.
  I take blame for my own lack there of. Only my own.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  People LIKE you, people with extreme religious belief, retard scientific progress.
  reply report
  60
  Jeramiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Please show me how I do that. I haven't left the house yet today.
  show me how I am holding society back and MAYBE I'll quit it.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You are promoting your religion, spreading the lies, encouraging others. You do it here frequently.
  
  You are part of the problem, whether you understand or not.
  reply report
  60
  Jeramiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  By what I understand you to be saying .. until everyone else in the world thinks like you do, "THEY" are causing a problem. HUMmmmm
  When YOU stop considering the potential validity of beliefs other than YOUr own Your brain is in danger of being closed.
  
  That might bring science to its knees
  
  I sometimes wish that I was as convinced as you are that I was right and everyone else was wrong.
  Then I think "NOT" cause that much confidence must be too much of burden to carry.
  
  If we were not on the internet, but walking the street and told everyone that has a diferent opinion than our own, that they were stupid; We would be running as fast as we can for safety.
  
  No one is going to agree with EVERY THING that anyone else believes.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Not EVERYONE, Jerami. Only the excessively religious, like you.
  reply report
  60
  Jeramiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  And YOU are promoting your beliefs as well.
  
  You are part of the problem, whether you understand or not.
  
  There are two sides to every story.
  Life would come to a standstill if there wasn't.
  reply report
  88
  Bibowenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  But the religion bashers have made it clear that you are not to have a view point. You're not qualified because you're religious.
  
  This is what is called "religious bigotry." They are comfortable bashing the Faithful even though there are laws that protect you. Imagine what they'd be like if you had no legal protections.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I will stand and defend religious freedom. I have done so all my life. But i won't pretend there is any truth in it
  reply report
  60
  Jeramiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That's right! Yea, my beliefs are causing earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, crop failures, and starvation.
  I'm bad.
  
  If I would just think like them all of these troubles would just go away.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Why do you respond with nonsense? Are you incapable of underdtanding how religion has been fighting science for millenia? Do you need a history lesson?
  reply report
  60
  Jeramiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I don't need to see a 500 year old history book. I know about that. Science got over that a long time ago.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Much more recent.
  reply report
  88
  Bibowenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You think Hawking is ancient history, your source materials are going to be behind the historical curve on this one. The view that the relationship between religion and science is best characterized as one of antagonism is a myth that was propagated in the 19th century mostly by two books:
  
  History of the Conflict between Religion and Science by John William Draper
  
  History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom by Andrew Dickson White.
  
  These works have been assessed as being mostly myth. History of science historians like Gary Fengren and Colin Russell have put forward a "Complexity Theory" which better accounts for the relationship between religion and science than the ideological drivel that issued from anti-Christian zealots influenced by the Enlightenment.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I do not stand in the way of science. Atheists have no dogna that restricts research. Atheists have no dogma about any subject. Individuals might, but atheism implies nothing. Your religion does.
  reply report
2. 71
  earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Actually Jerami it is pretty solid that the earth's population is going the other way soon and will top out.
  .. and there is no need to kill or hurt anyone to obtain the cells anymore either.
  reply report
  60
  Jeramiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know i that is a good thing or not.
  
  But think about it. If death was extinguished.
  Wouldn't we have to prohibit new births??
  
  Imagine if that were to happen. We lived for ever?
  
  We would want to find a way to take a time out away from that existence.
  Maybe "create" life on another planet.
  And then if we could temporarily inhabit physical form on that planet; Kinda like astral travel. When that body dies,we gotta go back to work where we came from.
  
  I think that would be the inevitable outcome if we were to eliminate death on this planet.
  
  Sorry
  I was having a SCI-FI moment.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  We will eliminate death from old age soon enough. I probably won't see it, but my children might (assuming that the Tea Party and religious crazies don't push us back into the dark ages again).
  
  There will still be death from accident, murder and suicide - plenty enough for people who want to raise another set of children or their first.
  reply report
51
paarsurreyposted 14 years ago
Truthful Religion encourages science to progress.
reply report
66
awareposted 14 years ago
did Stephen say that there is no god? has he concluded that?
reply report
1. 86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  If he did, he will probably change his mind tomorrow. He has tried to avoid this conclusion for years. No doubt he is lying awake looking for an excuse to come back with the opposite.
  reply report
66
awareposted 14 years ago
Stephen rules in my book . i aint saying i believe in everything he says. and i like it that he changes his mind it shows that hes still thinking. and willing to question his own.
reply report
1. 60
  wilmiers77posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  aware, I love and admire Stephen H. but us Christians have the right to respond to anything that challenges our faith. Although, for H. to say that the universe ignited by the rules of physical laws and inspires and reinforces people to not believe that God did it, we must respond and witness that God make the something in which Stephen is observing. God first and Stephen followed at a later date and observed the something that God created.
  reply report
  60
  qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  May I ask what this "god thing" is you speak of so reverently?
  There is NO monotheistic scripture that describes "it" in terms other than conjecture and opinion!
  Religious faith is all I can determine as your basis for a belief in this "god thing."
  Pls! Be bluntly precise when answering me...that is if you can offer any CREDIBLE response...which I doubt.
  Qwark
  reply report
  60
  qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'm waiting for an answer from Wilmiers...?
  reply report
60
Jeramiposted 14 years ago
qwark wrote:
May I ask what this "god thing" is you speak of so reverently?
There is NO monotheistic scripture that describes "it" in terms other than conjecture and opinion!

Qwark
==================================

Jerami ...... I do not how to describe something while leaving out opinion .

How could I describe you without using opinion and conjecture. I can't. And you can't do that with me either.
reply report
60
qwarkposted 14 years ago
AS you all know, by this time, I never respond to those who have nothing credible to offer.
There is no doubt that rational "hubbers" know to whom I am referring. :-)
reply report
75
skyfireposted 14 years ago
Spiritual force is assumption, there is no Proof for Soul.
reply report
1. 51
  paarsurreyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  If there is no soul there is no life; simple mass of flesh but no life movement.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Then bacteria have souls?
  
  How wonderful! Do they weigh the same as human souls?
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Prove what you claim, will ya ?
  reply report
2. 86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Nor any reason to posit such.
  reply report
3. 0
  cosetteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  i feel that just because there is no proof doesn't mean something is invalid. the Big Bang itself is considered a theory, as is the Theory of Relativity and evolution, even. man, i would hate to think that we are all just masses of carbon-based flesh and water and that when we die, we die- that's it.
  
  no soul? really? i think we have souls. i even think some creatures are very spiritual, like horses and whales, for example.
  
  omh haha
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  There are mountains of evidence to support relativity and evolution but none to support souls.
  
  I do find it rather interesting the belief in that which has no evidence trumps that which does.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Whether you hate to think it or not, that is truth.
  reply report
  0
  cosetteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  i know, you guys. i know...there are things that make sense, which is why i believe in them...The Big Bang, evolution, etc.
  
  i don't know why i believe in the soul, even though there is no scientific proof of such things. i guess i am aware of it...our life force, which is, to me, more than just synapses firing. it is a spiritual energy, a cosmic blueprint of our individual spirit self, much like DNA is for each physical human body.
  
  crazy? maybe. but i believe anyway.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Sure. If it comforts you and you aren't harming others, I have no problem.
  
  I like to believe that the good aspects of religion outweigh the bad. I'm probably wrong, but I like to believe it.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  There is a soul, everything has a soul, a field of energy that organizes and retains information. The problem is language. The concepts are fragmented into many different ways that we more often than not fail to see glaring connections. We are too steeped in the emotional association of words that we fail to see converging thought and disciplines.
  
  I find stephen hawkings findings have no contradiction to the assertions of the ancients, it is just the words used that causes the confusion. It's a fragmentation that requires we clarify the meaning of each archaic word. Then, then it unfolds. What we know now, we've known before but in a different way.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  A field of energy not able to be detected by any instruments.
  
  Balderdash.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  my dear, the thing is a field of energy. Everything is a field of energy. That is not balderdash. That is physics. I'm not talking about auras here. I am talking about things as energy stabilizing and organizing as matter. It s just a whole lot of nothing at the very minute level of existence.
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Nope, he's right, that's balderdash.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  a camera can detect it.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No it cannot.
  
  Try checking this nonsense before you post it.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  the camera detected your face because I see it, correct? you are an energy field at the very minute level of your existence. That is all you are, you organized in this way for whatever reason, but if I observe your very essence, the truth is, depending on how I look at you, you are both energy and matter. you are an energy field and at the very minute level of observation, you are no different from the chair you are sitting on, correct?
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  Fine. But no souls, which is what I assumed you were getting at.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The point is if you get the definition of soul and compare it with what everything is, you'll see a similar idea.
  
  soul:
  the immaterial part of a person; the actuating cause of an individual life
  
  so the point is to de-superstitionalize terms that are actually quite obvious in meaning. There is no spirit other than the one that runs your laptop. it is the same as the spirit that moves you, that makes you feel. In its very essence, the laptop is running on the "spirit" of the earth, the movement of the water, the energy trapped in fossil fuels. We get vitality from what we eat, and when we do not have food, we die...our spirit leaves us, we lose energy.
  
  Spirit shares the same pictograph as Ox-power and strength, wind and breath...translation spirit is energy.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well, at some level we agree. But it is like saying that -20 F is a large amount of heat. It is in a technical sense, but not for beings whose body temp is where ours is.
  
  So yes, we are no different from a rock. Except in complexity, and that does matter.
  reply report
  60
  qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Cecil:
  You are an
  "energetic" breath of fresh air! ...so well put! TY:-)
  reply report
  56
  andromidaposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I agree with you, expect the fact that a chair has no consciousness . Thanks for your excellent explanation.
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The camera detects photons (light) that reflects off of the face into the camera. The face itself does not emit light.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, that is incorrect. We do emit faint light. Not enough for a camera, but we are light sources.
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  We emit thermal radiation due to the heat of our bodies.
  reply report
  63
  prettydarkhorseposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Hey Cecilia, how are you, kumusta?
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  eto, pinoy pa rin. ikaw? (as always, still a pinoy, what about you?)
  reply report
  63
  prettydarkhorseposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I am fine, Pinoy of course! Take care!
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  LOL. Proof ?
  reply report
  0
  cosetteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  hmm, interesting. i do think there are many things we revisit and examine from another new angle and bolstered with new knowledge. thanks!
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  true, we casually use words and are not aware of how a word became such.
  
  I would expound but that that would be off topic.
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Big-bang, evolution has a lot of proof. Theory of relativity is in alpha-infancy. When things claimed have no proof then they become part of either hypothesis or religious philosophy.
  
  Sorry but that's your opposition towards facts.
  
  Okay, the problem is what you think without proof is wishful thinking.
  reply report
0
klarawieckposted 14 years ago
Yes, let's take the verdict of a bitter man, one with neuro muscular dystrophy, one who is surely pissed off at God for not granting the one thing science hasn't been able to give him - GOOD HEALTH.
reply report
1. 75
  skyfireposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That's offensive remark. I mean do you know contribution of hawkin to begin with ?
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Of course she doesn't. None of them know anything except that they think this is meaningful.
  
  Listen up: it isn't. It is just Stephen finally giving in to what he knew was true many years ago. It is a yawner; we don't care.
  
  Now if the Pope said it, yeah, I would be excited. Hawking, no. Big "duh".
  reply report
  88
  Bibowenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  For a guy that doesn't care about the topic, you sure talk a lot about it....
  reply report
  0
  klarawieckposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I don't mean to be mean... but if I had such health conditions I would also be extremely upset at God.
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Who told you that he's upset at god ? How come someone who's atheist get upset at god ?
  
  Hawkin's ain't Anti-theist. He's more of atheist-agnostic.
  reply report
  0
  klarawieckposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Hey, I feel bad for the poor guy! He's in bad shape! I'm not upset at him for saying that. I do understand his point of view. I'm just saying that some people who are about to die or go through a terrible illness get upset at God, or life itself. They find no logic in having faith or believing in a higher entity while coping with the unfairness of having to go through such challenging experiences. I do respect his work and I appologize if I sounded offensive. I've had a hard day... Sorry. It's not like me to talk like that. Now I feel terrible.
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It's alright klara.
  reply report
  0
  klarawieckposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Noooo... it's not alright... You made me cry skyfire!
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Noo
  reply report
2. 86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I doubt that he ever believed in that nonsense. He is far too bright. But he was afraid of saying it.
  reply report
75
skyfireposted 14 years ago
Irony is hawkin's current good health is because of science. I wonder why god was so pissed off with him
reply report
55
TruthDebaterposted 14 years ago
I don't think Hawking is qualified to make the claim it's impossible the universe was created. If he or anyone else does, this is usually an assumption by faith. No one also is qualified to say the universe was created, this is also assumption by faith. Faithful assumptions and opinions are not "science", they are "philosophy". I think Hawking should first try to figure out a unifying theory to explain randomness in quantum physics along with figuring out how life began before making such assumptions.
reply report
1. 75
  skyfireposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I wonder what is qualification criteria other than being physicist. Or is that your as usual "i don't think so hence that is not fact" ?
  reply report
  55
  TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks. What is his main evidence for making this claim? If I think so or no, I usually try to figure out why I thought it. Unless he has scientific evidence that can be tested for his claim, it isn't science, it is philosophy and faith.
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It was not philosophy or faith when he thought about black holes, radiation and other particle physics stuff. His current claim could be assumption based on the empirical evidence for big-bang and order out of chaos but that doesn't make him out-of-qualification.
  
  But then again, person with this profile is not qualified for making assumptions on physics then i wonder since when people with no knowledge about biology start to give advice on condoms (pointing towards pope) or person who denies facts with stuff like "i don't think so hence it's not fact" starts to dismiss something with philosophy and faith ?
  reply report
  55
  TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks. I didn't know there was empirical evidence on those things you mentioned, where is his solution to dark matter? Many of the things you mentioned are still highly debated, even between scientists.
  I didn't say he wasn't qualified to pose scientific theories, I claimed his physics work has nothing to do with philosophy and faith for or against a creator unless he has specific scientific evidence for his claims. When did it become alright for scientists to make claims without evidence? I do not agree with pope or religion, so I obviously don't think they should debate things they contradict or disagree with without evidence.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That is exactly what it is.
  
  Religion has nothing to cling to but stubborn blindness.
  reply report
75
skyfireposted 14 years ago
You can google if you wish to, there is plenty of evidence for the big-bang & order of chaos. LHC has confirmed the existence of dark matter. How come dark matter has related to trashing empirical evidence of these two ? Solution of dark matter ? Go on... tell me how solution of dark matter trashes the empirical evidence of big-bang ?

Really ? Surprise me.

How come physics has nothing to do with formation of universe ? Go on.. tell me.

Ever heard of hypothesis ? Science works on the basis of "verification & falsification" which includes many hypothesis unlike "God did it" or " we need god" for which there is no evidence so far.

That point comes from the word "qualification".
reply report
1. 55
  TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks. If the big bang was conclusive, there would be empirical evidence and less debate between scientists. How did LHC confirm dark matter and observe it?
  I don't know the solution of dark matter, maybe hawking should have studied this instead of atheist philosophy.
  The universe formed physics, physics didn't form the universe. If physics formed the universe, it should be able to form the answers to dark matter an randomness.
  Just because hawking is qualified and intelligent in physics doesn't mean he's qualified and intelligent in philosophy.
  I agree science works on evidence and testing, all the more reason scientists shouldn't try to be philosophers making faithful statements in order to cause controversy and up his book sales.
  reply report
53
me90posted 14 years ago
so what are you doing and haveing for supper and do you have 100 dollars becuase if you do email me ok lol and call me 905-688-3292 ok so call me on fridays like not tommorw i'll call you and tell you when you can call me on mondays
reply report
72
tritrainposted 14 years ago
Well, being the omnipotent Being that I am, I say he's right.

But what do I know anyway...
reply report
75
skyfireposted 14 years ago
Debate is about inflation theory which follows big-bang and singularity in big-bang.

I smell some frustration.

Re-read physic books. Universe works on laws of physics.

He didn't made assumption from philosophical point of view.

Why? Book sales from pope, donald trump is allowed when they stirh controversy but not scientist ? Why you're so much prejudiced about scientists ?
reply report
1. 55
  TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks. I am not frustrated, I enjoy your comments. So you are admitting there is debate over big bang or inflation.
  I agree the universe follows physics laws and order, it also has unknown elements of randomness.
  Why are you assuming I don't disagree with religious assumptions and book sales? The difference is that I expect more from a scientist than a religionist, also the thread is about a scientist, not a pope.
  How is an assumption about a creator or no creator science and not philosophy?
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Debate is about inflation which follows after the big-bang and not about big-bang.
  
  If hawkins made remark wrt to philiophy and his book then your argument is valid but he made the remark when dawkins visited him so that was on scientific point of view.
  
  When a certain assumption discards all the possible empirical evidence and tries to state a concept which comes from emotion and self-bias then it has philosophical point of view. When someone states that there is a creator, then burden of proof lies on that person for the proof. It's not philosophy department when it comes to proof/evidence.
  reply report
  55
  TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks. Do we know how dark matter works and drives inflation?
  If hawkings would only write a book about fractions and physics, it may not be a bestseller. I think it is obvious he would throw some controversial philosophy in to up book sales and promotion, what bookseller doesn't?
  What does dawkins visiting him mean? This only gives more evidence it was atheist controversial philosophy rather than science. Dawkins is well know for his controversial philosophy on youtube.
  Are you saying I am biased against hawkins and science? What emotional attachment is making me biased against them?
  Who stated there is a creator? We all know who stated there isn't one, so proof lies on hawking to support his claims.
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Q1- Ans: No.
  Q2 - And: Controversy ? Come on, universe formation discussion always end up getting sting by religious people. Why you bother about that ?
  Q3- Ans: Dawkins had meeting with hawkins as usual like any other science person do. What you bringing up sounds like glenn beck and conservative way of bickering people.
  Q4- Ans- No, from your post it is clear that you're anti-atheist and agnostic who wants to sting science now and then to push creationism theories.
  Q5- Ans -It's not my interest what is your attachment.
  Q6- Ans- No. Burden of proof is always on the people who stated there is creator. That includes pseudo-agnostics, religious people.
  reply report
  55
  TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks. A2 - The point is science should be above controversy and stick to science, and leave philosophy to controversy. A3- A science meeting? lol Dawkins is a evolutionist, not a quantum physicist.
  A4- Please stop making false insulting assumptions. Science should want to be questioned and argued because it covers more variables. When science and atheists get mad at someone questioning their scientific belief, that belief becomes a religion.
  Q6 - Burden of proof is the one that makes the claims, for or against, agnostic doesn't pick either, so it doesn't have to proove anything when it hasn't made the assumption.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  This IS science. Your inability or unwillingness to understand that does not matter.
  
  He is not philosophising. He is saying he sees nothing in physics that needs a creator.
  reply report
  55
  TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks. Can he prove this with testable scientific evidence that would pass the scientific method or is this simply opinion based on his work in quantum physics? Science is making claims with evidence, not assumptions and faith. What is his evidence for this if you believe he is not philosophising to sell more books?
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Prove it?
  
  You haven't bothered to read this whole thread, have you?
  
  He may think he has proved something. I wouldn't agree. His pronouncement will probably make the cover of Time but it is unimportant.
  
  I don't need Hawking to know there are no gods and no matter what proof he had, you would find a way to keep believing in your sky fairy. Neither of us cares what Hawking says.
  reply report
  55
  TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks. It seems the atheist philosophical assumptions follow one another. Are you admitting hawking's claim is based on faith and assumption? How do you know I believe in a sky fairy, do you know what agnostic is? How do you have evidence a creator is impossible when no one else does?
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  His evidence is based on his understanding of physics. If his physics is wrong, then he could be wrong. We will have to wait. I bet we both will be long dead before we have a full understanding of physics.
  
  Creator or god? I won't argue that a creator is impossible. A god is. A complex thing has to be composed of simpler things. It had to evolve, just as we did. It woukd not be a god.
  reply report
  55
  TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks. "I won't argue that a creator is impossible. A god is."
  I believe this is what creates much controversy and confusion. Many of atheists will say they believe a god is impossible without specifying they are speaking of a religious god. But a god is not limited to a religion, someone can believe in creation without religion and title the creator god.
  If we don't know if there is or isn't, how could we possibly know it would follow the same rules of physics?
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  By using your head.
  
  Any complex thing must be composed of simpler things. I don't care what imaginary physics you want to conjure, complexity is not homogenous.
  
  So if you posit a "god", it came together from non-god pieces and therefore is not supernatural, not all powerful and so on. It is a foolish conjecture to start with, because it is unnecessary - a complex, sentient being accidentally assembled and then created our universe? Far more reasonable to assume what our physics assumes.
  
  Or, if we had actual evidence of a creator (a copyright notice on the back side of the sun), it would still be far more intelligent to conclude that creator evolved over time. It might be something to be in awe of and respect, but it wouldn't deserve worship.
  
  (Demanding worship and obedience is an obvious human trait anyway and ought to be enough by itself to tell you this religious stuff is made up)
  
  So, sure, a creator is possible, but not needed and cannot be a god unless you want to redefine the word.
  
  There are no gods. Religion is bunk. All it takes to know that is the brains that evolution gave you.
  report
  88
  Bibowenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  God is the best explanation for why anything exists. Atheists have abandoned reality in suggesting "the universe just exists" or that "it comes from nothing." This is an idea in retreat.
  
  Second, it's not necessary to explain God's origins (He doesn't have any since He didn't "come" from anywhere) to answer the question "why does the universe exist"? God can be the sufficient reason for the universe without our explaining the nature of His existence.
  
  You seem to enjoy these declaratives without a supporting rationale ("There are no gods. Religion is bunk). I'm starting to enjoy (I'm not quite there yet) reminding you and everyone that you're wasting people's time.
  
  It takes little to tell people to use their head; it takes more than venting to demonstrate that you are using yours.
  report
  60
  qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Bibowen:
  I shall offer you a challenge. I'll assume you are a believer in monotheism. If I'm incorrect, ignore this question.
  Pls provide for all of us scripture in any monotheistic tome that defines this "god thing" you mention in terms other than conjecture and opinion.
  Oh, and by the way, there is no such thing as an "atheist" as you refer to the word.
  Qwark
  report
  88
  Bibowenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The definition that I use for "atheism" is the standard one that you would find in any dictionary.
  
  I'm sure that you don't speak for "all of us." If I go through the trouble of compiling these passages, are "all of us" going to read it?
  
  Do your own research if you really want to know.
  report
  75
  skyfireposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Ans 1: He's not publishing science book or journal or paper but a personal book.
  Ans 2: So ? you mean to say biologist can't meet astrophysicist ? LMAO.
  Ans 3: Insulting assumptions? Show me. When you question science you should come up with proof rather than your "i don't think so" arguments. Your assumption of scientist meeting for agenda and atheist philosophy isn't insulting assumption. I see.
  Ans 4: Re-read burden of proof fallacy.
  reply report
  55
  TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks. 2- What does Dawkins know about physics, he hardly knows about evolution and he has studied it his entire life. Any scientist that makes assumptions isn't a very good scientist.
  3-You have to give me his evidence for saying a creator is impossible for me to argue the point. I didn't make any claims there is a creator.
  4-What is the burden of proof fallacy?
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Ans 2: Dawkins hardly knows evolution ? LMAO. Thanks for laughs.
  
  Ans 3: Why you need proof of creator for their meeting? just curious
  
  Ans 4: Burden of Proof: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie … proof.html
  
  Thanks for this. LOL
  
  reply report
  55
  TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks. A2- Alright, he knows a good bit, but I think I could stump him on a few questions. So I don't think he knows as much as he thinks he does.
  A3- If he made the statement the universe doesn't need a creator, I would expect evidence backing his statement. I don't need anything from him, but it would only be proper since he made the claim.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  He is saying that he can see nothing that requires any external impetus. That is not philosoohy.
  
  If I don't water my plants and find them dead, I may wonder why.
  
  Apparently, over the course of time, we humans have come to understand thst plants need watering. I was late to that understanding, but my wife patiently led me away from my theory that closet elves were sneaking out and poisoning them. Once I grasped what we call her "water theory", the plants have done much better.
  
  Hawking has decided that no make believe sky fairy is needed to explain the universe. Science, not philosophy. Can I understand his logic? No, but I don't need him to tell me what is obvious.
  
  Moreover, even if he had come to the opposite conclusion, that would only be a creator, not a god. A third year advanced physics student in another universe could be a creator, so religion would still, as always, be pablum bunk for the masses.
  reply report
  51
  paarsurreyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Who cares what he has decided? He can decide for himself, not for us.He is just a human being; apt to err as anybody could. Why should we follow his thoughts out of his field; he knows nothing of.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I have said exactly that several times here. I am an atheist, but his pronouncement is meaningless.
  reply report
0
klarawieckposted 14 years ago
And where are Mark and Beelzedad in all this?
reply report
1. 86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Mark may still be banned, unfortunately. Beezledad is every bit as careless, so he could be aldo.
  reply report
71
earnestshubposted 14 years ago
Golden, I gotta know mate!
Have you ever seen an elephant fart.
I know it's pathetic but I just have to see that momentous event for myself.

Off to utube!
reply report
1. 67
  goldenpathposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  To be perfectly honest, no. The closest thing to an elephant we have in Iowa are really, REALLY, big men and women who literally have to walk into a grocery store sideways just to get in. However, my answer sounded appropriate though not doctrine or personal revelation. I would gladly sit down with a root beer in hand right next to my good bud ernest and watch a good "movement" of air from an ailing elephant.
  reply report
  71
  earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  72
  aguasilverposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  But be careful you don't sit BEHIND said elephump!
  reply report
60
Jim Hunterposted 14 years ago
Stephen Hawking doesn't believe in God.

But he does believe in extraterrestrials, spacemen if you will.

So its ok to believe in martians but not ok to believe in God?

You guys crack me up.

The really funny thing is most of you will actually think that Hawking is right about little green men while laughing at a christian.

I hear banjo music playing.

You sher gots a purty mouth.

reply report
1. 86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Like any intelligent person, Hawking is aware that the odds of there NOT being life elsewhere in the universe are infinitesimably small. There is no comparison to baseless religious belief.
  reply report
  60
  Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Perfect example.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, I think it is. As most of us are aware, the odds in favor of life elsewhere are staggeringly large - to the point where it is impossible for any intelligent person to not believe that it exists. That doesn't mean that we'll ever converse with space traveling lizards as you falsely attribute to Hawking, but it does mean that you have to be extraordinarily clueless or stubbornly religious (or both) to insist that life exists only here.
  reply report
  60
  Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "That doesn't mean that we'll ever converse with space traveling lizards as you falsely attribute to Hawking"
  
  I never attributed that to Hawking.
  
  You falsely attributed that to me.
  
  Where is the evidence that there are beings from another planet?
  
  How can you believe with out any evidence of existence in ET's?
  
  This all seems so familiar.
  
  Watch out for the noodley appendage.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Falsely?
  
  I quote:
  
  Stephen Hawking doesn't believe in God.
  
  But he does believe in extraterrestrials, spacemen if you will.
  
  So its ok to believe in martians but not ok to believe in God?
  
  You guys crack me up.
  
  The really funny thing is most of you will actually think that Hawking is right about little green men while laughing at a christian.
  
  Let me repeat myself again, Jim: no intelligent person will think that extraterrestrial life is unlikely. No INTELLIGENT person.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I think that extraterrestrial life (in the manner you're referring to) is highly unlikely.
  
  On your measuring scale, I am indeed not intelligent at all. LOL
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  On what basis do you hold such an opinion? Do you know anything about the size of the universe, the number of stars, the probability of planetary systems, the presence of amino acids in space and on comets?
  
  Do you have any knowledge of these things? Please do enlighten us with your analysis of the likelihood of non-earth life.
  reply report
  60
  Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "Please do enlighten us with your analysis of the likelihood of non-earth life."
  
  She believes in non-earth life.
  
  Just not your version of non-earth life.
  
  I know, it confuses you.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, are you speaking for Brenda now?
  
  So - she thinks their might be non-intelligent life, perhaps?
  
  Again, simple analysis shows that intelligent life elsewhere is very likely. Smarter than we are, dumber, the same, different ideals, who knows?
  
  Space travel? Looking more and more unlikely, but so did powered flight in Da Vinci's day, so again who knows?
  
  Will you respond to this as Brenda or as Jim?
  reply report
  60
  Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I will respond to this as who I am.
  
  It is widely known on hubpages as to what Brenda believes.
  
  She makes no secret of it, nor apologizes for it.
  
  If you have a problem with me answering for her you'll just have to get over it.
  
  I know I have.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Did I say I had a problem, Jim?
  
  I don't have a problem with any persona you want to assume. Speak as me if you want. Speak for Silly Sarah Palin if it suits you. Give us some Tea Party wisdom and be sure to do it in your usual careful, they aren't ever going to pin me down to any statement of fact style.
  
  Do you think anyone but you and the other naive conservatives care what you have to say? You know very well that all we do is talk right past each other. It's just a silly badminton game, bashing the little birdie back and forth and keeping score in our own heads.
  
  You likely don't care a bit what Hawking says about gods and as I have explained here and elsewhere, I don't either. It's argument from authority, something no intelligent debater will bother with. It doesn't matter.
  reply report
  60
  Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  And yet you persist.
  report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You send me the shuttle, I'm going to send it back. I probably have far more free time than you do
  report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  What do you know of the size of the universe and such things?
  Only things that other people have told you?
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, no, Brenda, I looked in the Ultimate Reference. You know - the Bible.
  
  Where did you look?
  reply report
  60
  Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Falsely!
  
  I quote:
  
  "That doesn't mean that we'll ever converse with space traveling lizards as you falsely attribute to Hawking"
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, so typical Jim.
  
  Because I didn't use your EXACT words, I'm lying about what you said.
  
  Right, Jim. "little green men", "martians" and "spacemen" do not equate to "space traveling lizards" and are completely unrelated and it was vile calumny on my part to say such a thing.
  
  You are quite the word-weasel, Jim.
  reply report
  60
  Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "little green men", "martians" and "spacemen" do not equate to "space traveling lizards"
  
  That is correct, they do not equate.
  
  Let me see if I have it.
  
  It is total insanity to believe in God because there is no evidence he exists?
  
  But, intelligent people believe in the existence of "space traveling lizards" even though there is no proof that they exist?
  
  And you don't see the problem, thats what really is typical.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I can't help your inability to understand that, Jim. I have explained it as best I can, but you do not see it.
  reply report
  60
  Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I understand your position perfectly.
  
  Its a shame you can't.
  
  Hello?
  
  Anyone home?
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  But you plainly do not.
  
  You can't see any difference between a calculation of likely odds for life on other planets and the utterly unnecessary and quite un-indicated belief in a god-thing.
  reply report
  60
  Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  report
2. 86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  This is the post where Jim said he didn't do what he actually did, which is to falsely attribute beliefs in "spacemen" to Hawking.
  reply report
71
Rishy Richposted 14 years ago
I admire Hawking not only as a scientist but also as a human. He is a symbol of struggle & is a perfect example of the power of our will. When you talk about faith & believe, you should take him as a prime example! If there is any good side of having faith then here it is! Its having faith in yourself not in an imaginary entity which you cant even define correctly!!

Given his limited physical ability & health conditions, he has contributed so much to mankind that I doubt any other human with such limitation will be able to achieve such ever! Most of us here are middle edged hubbers who hardly researched in any significant labs for any significant period of time or achieved any significant award for contributing in science. Thus it should be clear that Hawking has an understanding of laws of physics,nature & life more than any of us. So before putting your judgment about Hawking think twice (preferebly 100 times) whether are you qualified enough to judge his words?

Neither Aristotle nor his fellow greek citizens were 100% correct about life & creation but point to be noted that Aristotle was more correct. Same thing applies to Galileo, Keplar, Ibn Sena & the others. Humans are prone to mistake & unfortunately those scientists were deprived from the privilege of being son of God...rather they were pure humans who contributed to our knowledge more than any sons of Gods! Yes, none of them were 100% correct but all of them were much much more correct than the fellow citizens, religious groups & the masses of people of their time. So theres high possibility that if anyones right here its Hawkings & it will be realized a one day for sure!

Remember, most of us will be forgotten over time but Hawking will be alive in history as long as mankind & its intellect survives.

Cheers!
reply report
1. 86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  We are in the internet archives - we'll survive with him :-)
  reply report
  71
  Rishy Richposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Good luck with that! ...btw what if your sites crash?
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Do you understand what the Archives are?
  
  Here's a hoot from my past: http://web.archive.org/web/199902030101 … rence.com/
  reply report
60
Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years ago
reply report
63
prettydarkhorseposted 14 years ago
I can't be bothered by this, still like the rest - majority of scientists they don't believe in GOD.

Still he didn't disprove the existence of GOD -- only that GOD is not that omnipotent-- still God exists hehe
reply report
60
Jim Hunterposted 14 years ago
By the way, Hawkings does believe in the existence of space aliens.

He even thinks we should fear them.

Be vewy,vewy afwaid.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Space/ … d=10478157
reply report
1. 86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Believing that something is likely is not believing in them Jim.
  
  It's much like the difference between a Deist and a Born Again. A person who thinks alien life is likely is intelligent. A person who thinks our leaders are shape changing reptiles is a fruitcake.
  reply report
  60
  Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "Believing that something is likely is not believing in them Jim."
  
  Yes it is.
  
  Especially considering he is warning us of their possible actions.
  
  What else would a REASONABLE person conclude?
  
  Sorry, never mind.
  reply report
  58
  Dave Barnettposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  God was the "Bang", God was the singularity, God was the event, the cause, the effect, the action which caused the reaction. You are not where you THINK you are. You perceive from a bacterial veiw, that which is WAY beyond the scope of your thoughts on the subject. You all think SO SMALL!
  reply report
  60
  Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Am I good bacteria or bad?
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well, I sure wouldn't want you infecting me.
  reply report
  58
  Dave Barnettposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Stephen was caught contradicting himself.
  reply report
  60
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Which will make him go blind according to Leviticus.
  reply report
  60
  Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  And its illegal in several states.
  reply report
  60
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Mandatory in some.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, sure.
  
  Give us ALL of your wisdom.
  
  Oh, you probably just did. Sorry.
  reply report
2. 58
  Dave Barnettposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  SSSSHHHH! That is the sound which trumpeted our arrival in this vacuum. That sound has persisted since that moment. before that. complete silence. Black holes and singularity. Life is of the universe, and we do not know how massive life can get to be, nor do we know how much of what we call "ourselves" survives beyond this mortal plane. We contain impressive amounts of pure energy locked inside each and every atom. We are on the verge of impressive things. All the evidence that SETI has produced suggests that we are alone. No technology has been detected, though we have searched for decades. The only thing we have to fear is fear, itself. EVERYTHING recycles. Our dust falls to the earth, our water returns to the eco-system, but we are more than dust and water. Thought exists, therefore, it doesn't simply cease to exist. Nothing ever simply begins to exist, nor does it end. Energy is eternal. it existed before the bang, for it to be existant AT the bang. The first law of motion dictates that there was existance and "movement" before the bang, and that motion is highly unlikely to cease. The galaxies on our outer edge recede at a speed beyond the speed of light. Galactic time travel? Can't change or stop. Just hold on.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You obviously know nothing about SETI or the chances that it ever will detect anything.
  
  Too much Universe. Far too little time spent and so very much more time needed.
  reply report
  58
  Dave Barnettposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  EXCUSE ME? I was a contributor to SETI and the L-5 Society. SETI when they lost their government funding, and L-5 cause the plan sounded cool. Never met Stephen, but follow his work. Don't make such bold statements about people you don't know.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'm going by your statements only. If you understand, you would know that your previous claim is foolish.
  reply report
  58
  Dave Barnettposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The only foolishness in understanding is believing that mankind is in possession of the absolute knowledge. Depending on science alone leads to a technocracy that detests the human spirit, and if you believe that spirit doesn't exist, then you have never seen it crushed. There is more in heaven and earth... Met Sagan, (religious, astro-physicist and astronomer, met Asimov, writer and philosopher (atheist) And Rod Serling, writer. Me, I tend to walk in places more related to Serling.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Sagan was not religious. Plainly you never read much he wrote.
  
  But so what? Argument from authority. Meaningless. Believing in "spirits" - nothing I can respect.
  reply report
3. 51
  paarsurreyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  He believes in space aliens; so alongside being a Scientist; his other side is superstious; a human being expert only in his own field, layman in others.
  reply report
60
Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years ago
reply report
1. 58
  Dave Barnettposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Cool picture!
  reply report
72
aguasilverposted 14 years ago
Found this in the Daily Telegraph, good article...

"No religion has ever been rendered obsolete by facts or observations, but this happens to most scientific theories, at least in the long run. Science advances over the wreckage of its theories by continually putting theoretical ideas to experimental test; no matter how beautiful a theoretical idea might be, it must be discarded if it is at odds with experiment. Like any other human activity, science has flaws and does not always flow smoothly, but no one can seriously doubt the progress it has made in helping us understand the world and in helping to underpin technology."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop … ebate.html

So like Hawkins's History of Time, where he spend the first third of the book explaining why all the previous theory's were redundant and wrong, his new book will also be discarded on the scrapheap of scientific 'facts'.

But I guess he will sell a few copies.
reply report
1. 71
  Rishy Richposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Religion has been more pathetic throughout the course of history. Its simply because of their pursuance of the law called 'My way or high way'. Overtime they also evolve like science does but they simply refuse to accept it! 5000 years ago, your ancestors probably worshipped many gods or natural objects like Sun, moon all at the same time. Now you dont worship Sun anymore... because science has explained what Sun really is! Soon your descendants will not follow what you are so proud of!
  
  Let me provide a short list of those religions which performed pretty bad in the course of history & doesnt exist anymore:
  
  SUMERIAN RELIGION
  BABYLONIAN RELIGION
  ASSYRIAN RELIGION
  EGYPTIAN RELIGION
  GREEK RELIGION
  MITHRAISM AND ROMAN RELIGION
  GERMANIC AND NORSE RELIGION
  MAYA RELIGION
  CELTIC
  
  Point to be noted: Sumerian, Egyptian or Greek scientific knowledge still exists today & still plays important part in our understanding but their religion doesnt!
  reply report
0
cosetteposted 14 years ago
oh, i'm not religious.
reply report
1. 86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Fine. But I see nothing wrong with irrational beliefs that harm no one and comfort the believer, religious or not. I might still make fun of them just the same
  
  Now Cagsil, on the other hand, detests that sort of thing. Shrug..
  reply report
0
cosetteposted 14 years ago
you're right, it is 'irrational' - it is something that hasn't been rationalized away by computers and numbers-crunching etc.

i don't think Man has ALL the answers.
reply report
1. 86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Give us time. That's the value science brings that religion cannot.
  reply report
  0
  cosetteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  wow.
  
  that sounds just a touch arrogant, if you don't mind my saying so. many great thinkers like Newton and Einstein believed in God, just so you know. the world and the Universe reveal new secrets every day. a bunch of carbon-based life forms on one little blue planet couldn't possibly ever have all the answers to all of the mysteries of Life and the Universe.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Einstein didn't believe in any active god.
  
  But even if he did, that's just argument from authority and is meaningless. Many great minds have insisted many foolish things - grand pronouncements about evolution, relativity, traveling faster than sound: great experts proved horribly wrong.
  
  Religious belief comes from an emotional need, not from rational thought.
  reply report
  0
  cosetteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  now, see...that word 'religious' kinda bothers me. i used to be religious. Catholic. religion is like being handed a set of books and maps and tools and go out and apply what you have learned in the Bible and practice it.
  
  spirituality is just walking in the woods and looking at the stars and the Moon and hearing the wind rushing through the trees and the birds calling to each other and feeling it all move through you. or maybe going into a really old church you know one of those with stained glass and altars and it's all quiet and serene and even though it is bright and harsh outside, cars and buses rushing here and there, inside this sanctuary it is quiet and cool and dark. and then you feel safe.
  
  well, i guess you see me as lving in la la land or something but these things move me and touch my spirit - you know, that thing we aren't supposed to believe in
  
  well i have to go back to work now. it was fun discussing this with you!
  reply report
2. 58
  Dave Barnettposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  We don't know everything about Earth (most of it) What makes anyone think we know everything about ANYTHING? I do know that WE are the strngest thing on this planet, probably in this solar system, likely, in the galaxy. Could we be the strangest in the universe? We may never know.
  reply report
0
cosetteposted 14 years ago
wishful thinking? if you knew me you would know i have never been one to indulge in wishful thinking. i saw the world quite clearly from a very young age. and i don't know what it is that makes me believe in the soul. but if you need a label, that's your prerogative i guess. (and i do believe in the Big Bang and evolution and Einstein's theories, fyi.)
reply report
75
skyfireposted 14 years ago
"Appeal to popularity fallacy. "

Thinkers are on both side of the fence. One can even quote steven weinberg, carl sagan and many other scientist being atheist. But that way we'll end in discussion with above said fallacy.
reply report
1. 0
  cosetteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  oh boy
  
  i was not trying to execute some form of fallacy or argument. i was simply pointing out that scienctific achievement can be accomplished by individuals who also believe in God, since Mr. Unix seemed to be saying that scientists are all clinical without a trace of spirituality.
  reply report
75
skyfireposted 14 years ago
That's true. But that doesn't mean we should push hypothesis in reality department without empirical evidence.
reply report
75
skyfireposted 14 years ago
Lol.

True.
reply report
1. 58
  Dave Barnettposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Little raindrops, debating the existence of the ocean.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Mystical Dave, thinking he knows something he doesn't.
  reply report
  58
  Dave Barnettposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Pcunix, thinking she's some kind of psychic, and knows what I think. Do you know my wife? I base my beleifs on several personal proofs of the existence of something. I say personal, because no witnesses. Just a glimpse. I believe in fate, and destiny, because of cause and effect. I know that any trajectory can be accurately predicted, including our movement from point A (birth) to point B (death) if a person were to have the proper data in their possession to do so.
  reply report
82
Tom Cornettposted 14 years ago
I printed numbers and a name of a woman on a sticky note. It is stuck on the bottom of my computer. What are your theories about the number and the name. That should be much easier than discovering how the universe began. Make a scientific guess.

Get it right...I will bow to your genius.
reply report
67
Paradise7posted 14 years ago
I think what Stephen Hawking was after wasn't to deny that God exists. He was after the initial causes of the universe. He looked at the whole thing from a science/physics point of view, looking for a physical explanation, and found one.

That doesn't preclude a God. God still remains unproven, and always will. That doesn't mean there ISN'T one. I've heard an awful lot of sloppy thinking on this topic. Stephen Hawking would be the first person to say, "You can't prove a negative proposition."
reply report
67
ceciliabeltranposted 14 years ago
e=mc squared and all that.
reply report
1. 58
  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Actually it's E=mc^2 which is a short version of the actual formula. It means that energy and matter are equivalent.
  reply report
67
ceciliabeltranposted 14 years ago
example:

Pictures of space now:
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/04/26/a- … g+Boing%29
reply report
56
andromidaposted 14 years ago
That is just Hawking's personal opinion based on his mathematical intuition. In his book " A brief history of time" he claimed the role of a god for the creation of this universe. But now he is saying that the creation of our universe does not need a god- it is a spontaneous phenomenon. But he never said that there is no God,he is just saying that the starting phase of creation does not need any intervention-it can happen spontaneously. What if in the coming years Hawking says that the was wrong.

The moment of creation is being tried to recreate at CERN's massive Hydron collider( a particle accelerator), but due to technical problems it still could not perform any experiment.I guess only, if this experiment is successful, then it might give some clues about moment of creation. And Hawking's research in theoretical & astro-physics might indicate many things possible outcomes,because a mathematical equation might have many possible answers. Such a complicated thing like Bing Bang is entirely based on mathematical formula, but the theories and the practicals are not always the same, though theoretical physics can predict something with certain level of confidence or probability.But there are many variables that are overlooked,history of physics suggest so, so it may even take 100 more years to have a more comprehensive theory about the Bing Bang, or even after 100 years Bing Bang theory might be a totally obsolete theory, who knows.
reply report
0
cosetteposted 14 years ago
i still don't understand how the Uinverse could 'create itself from nothing'. i mean billions of years ago, the Universe sprouted from intense gravitational pressure, like in a black hole or something but where did that come from?

i think God put the stuff out there and arranged everything in a precise mathematical way and then allowed everything to just progress on its own. the Universe is huge. what's beyond that? like, at the end? does it even have an end?

and i am not arrogant enough to think humans, however brilliant, will prove whether souls exist, or God...we are just one race of people on one planet in a very vast Universe.
reply report
1. 71
  Rishy Richposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  & how did God create itself from nothing?
  
  God is our answer to everything we cant answer!
  reply report
2. 58
  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Since our entire universe is all matter/energy and we know that matter/energy can be borrowed and sometimes returned and sometimes not, depending on what happens to it, we can conclude that all the matter/energy in the universe was borrowed and never returned from it's source. For example, the Hawking theory of a black hole is a good example of borrowed energy, some being returned to the BH and some being released.
  
  Hence it is the source of all the matter/energy in the universe that is in question.
  reply report
70
waynetposted 14 years ago
God doesn't exist, because he told me he'd be on holiday for awhile!
reply report
65
Greek Oneposted 14 years ago
Stephen Hawking can't even get laid.. why should I listen to anything he says?
reply report
1. 0
  klarawieckposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That's what I said! But then Skyfire made me take it back. He MADE me!!!
  reply report
  65
  Greek Oneposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I wouldnt think there was a God either if I didnt have an orgasm in the last 10 years
  reply report
  0
  klarawieckposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Is that why you've been neglecting the church lately? Has it been that long?! lol
  reply report
  65
  Greek Oneposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Why would I need to go to Church every Sunday.. I live with an angel
  
  reply report
  0
  klarawieckposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Aw! Greek, you do have a sweet side! I bet your wife is a very happy woman!
  reply report
  65
  Greek Oneposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Of course she is, I great her Iranian-style when i come home every night
  reply report
  0
  klarawieckposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  LOL
  Good night!!!
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Stephen Hawking has concluded....

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Stephen Hawking has concluded....

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies