'God did not create the universe'- Stephen Hawking

Jump to Last Post 1-23 of 23 discussions (241 posts)

65
pisean282311posted 12 years ago
God didn't create the universe -- it was actually a result of the inevitable laws of physics, British physicist Prof Stephen Hawking has concluded.

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

what do you think about it?
reply report
1. 0
  Twenty One Daysposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hawkins, like any other scientist is seeking validity.
  His earlier statements contradict, or more likely, express a slow distancing of himself from the concept of an entity defined as god, which would place him in a very awkward place, given the nature of present day scientific society and its internal view of itself. To avoid self implosion, distancing oneself from appearances of sensational practices is very common.
  
  I noticed the news reel includes his two exact statements defending the god concept, then slowly pulling back. Also noteworthy is his physical deterioration, as the brain is a muscle as any other and is effected. Lastly, his years spent trying to meld quantum with Einstein is quite challenging, if not impossible, even dismissing Newtonian theories. Here is the best part of what he said:
  
  1. Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing" -what would that nothing be, is my question. If gravity is the something, the sustainer, what manifest that gravity.
  
  2. "If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God." -even this is maddening, since it implies specifically the discovery of a complete theory. Yet, theory is not to be discovered, rather uncovered, through the founding principle of all [ modern] science -the scientific method. The application cannot be both the action and the origin, else it would be god so to speak. (which is yet another glimpse at seeing science as simply another idol religious practice). If this is the ultimate human triumph of reason, than all other reason is dismissed, making this the only reason --that is the theory itself. The icing on the statement is applying god to the theory or being the theory discovered. That is remarkable coming from a physicist since such a theory is not even toyed with/touched by quantum [mechanic] physicists.
  reply report
2. 56
  exorterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  why are we not seeing the spontaneous creation of people today?
  Because God does not work that way!
  reply report
  74
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Spontaneous creation of people?
  
  What do you call all the births that are created around the world by the human species? I would say the "gods" have been hard at work, just like Jesus always said- "You are all gods".
  
  Each individual human can spontaneously create another human being. Hmmm....nice power to have huh?
  reply report
  56
  exorterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I will pray for you
  reply report
  65
  pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  @cagsil...
  reply report
  83
  dostersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "just like Jesus always said- "You are all gods"."
  
  Jesus never said that. Perhaps you are thinking of
  "For you are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus" Galatians 3:26, which was written by Paul the apostle.
  reply report
  78
  BDazzlerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  He didn't "always" say it, but he did say it once ... See John 10:34 for the context.
  reply report
  83
  dostersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  When he said
  
  “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’?"
  
  He was quoting Psalms (poetry):
  
  “I said, ‘You are “gods”;
  you are all sons of the Most High.’"
  Psalm 82:6
  reply report
  78
  BDazzlerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I agree, I was simply responding to the word "never". That's why I provided context.
  reply report
  65
  pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  jesus saying once doesnot matter?...
  reply report
  76
  DoubleScorpionposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Actually Jesus did say something to this effect...St.John 10:34 says "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" referring to Psalms 82:6 "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High."
  reply report
  57
  Dave Barnettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  How many times he gotta say something? Do you like repeating yourself? Makes you feel like no one's LISTENING! Stephen's theories are cool. But, theories are theories. Kinda like the God theory. Personally, I don't like caps, so I'll do this....god. We are not created SPONTANEOUSLY. You ever tried to get in a girls panties? Not always easy. Sometimes, yes. Always? No. Besides that, you need little spermies and little eggs. Nothing spontaneous about that. And don't forget foreplay....
  reply report
  83
  earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  or any other way for that matter, except in the minds of the chronically gullible.
  reply report
3. 57
  Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The laws of physics, as we know them, came about as a result of the universe being created. The known forces split apart during the first moments of the Big Bang due to the immediate cooling effect of Inflation.
  reply report
  78
  BDazzlerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thus we will always pay more and get less. Have you seen the price of produce these days!?
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The laws of physics, as we know them, came about as a result of the universe being created. -I disagree, those laws results in humans attempting to explain those physiques at a distance, rather than engaging them as they once did. All laws stem from human necessity.
  
  The known forces split apart during the first moments of the Big Bang due to the immediate cooling effect of Inflation - proof positive or "perhaps"? And to add, the cooling effect of inflation is endless expansion.
  reply report
  57
  Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Not the laws of physics, they were here long before we were.
  reply report
  57
  Dave Barnettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, the laws of physics were in place before the creation of the universe. Sorry, I'll try not to contradict you.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So are you saying that 'god' is the law of physics?
  reply report
  78
  BDazzlerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That is essentially what Hawking said.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Then what is the problem?
  reply report
  78
  BDazzlerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I don't have a problem with Hawking at all. I don't think God's existence can be proven logically.
  reply report
  82
  skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No he didn't said that.
  reply report
  81
  Shadesbreathposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, he kind of did.
  
  Here's a quote:
  "The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second. If you like, you can call the laws of science 'God', but it wouldn't be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions."
  
  An article referencing the quote is here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scie … verse.html
  reply report
  82
  skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Check the quote. What he believes and what he asks those who choose to believe is different.
  reply report
  81
  Shadesbreathposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That's a semantic point. He's saying he believes in the laws of science, which you can call God if you please. What you call it changes nothing. It's still physics. God is physics or physics is physics. It's all words. The only confusion is coming from people who are spending all their time on the words instead of listening to what he means and has made perfectly clear that he means.
  reply report
  82
  skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Agree.
  
  I'm sure now believers will flock around this quote and will proclaim that- hawkins is another person in the list of believers for their "appeal to authority" argument for creator.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hawkin's is not referring to "A Creator" of all things as in universal totality or even a single religious entity (nor is he refuting it) - only attempting to explain creation through these things called laws of physical experimentation (which is limited, even though it abounds with possibilities).
  
  These laws/experiments are what he refers to as God.
  reply report
  78
  BDazzlerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  This is what he said .. you can call the laws of science 'God', but it wouldn't be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions."
  
  So, that is why I said to Sandra "essentially".
  
  YOU specifically said, No he didn't said that.
  
  Which both you and I have shown that he did.
  
  So, admit your bias, as I admit mine and get over it.
  reply report
  82
  skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  How come it was my bias ?
  reply report
  78
  BDazzlerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You contradicted me based on non-fact ... That is bias.
  reply report
  82
  skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I posted knowing your bias to a non-fact.
  reply report
  78
  BDazzlerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  AH, so your bias is against me personally. Got it. Thanks, that's all I wanted to know!
  
  Just call me a liar to my face and be done with it.
  report
  82
  skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  My that post was in disagreement after reading your view in this post:
  
  http://hubpages.com/forum/post/1196890
  
  In the world of hypothesis & empirical evidence, everyone starts with a lie and gets axed in the process of verification.
  report
  78
  BDazzlerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The logic is sound. It neither proves nor disproves anything and shows how both points of view have a valid point.
  
  There is no bias.
  report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Gadzooks!! Stop already. your both biased okay! Geeze... I mean you are both 'unbiased' okay!
  report
  78
  BDazzlerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, I'm biased... no doubt ... just that one post wasn't
  report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  everybody is biased. please. even me.
  report
  78
  BDazzlerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm absolutely biased, but that's only because I'm right
  report
  82
  skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Okay.
  report
  92
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah. And you can call a table "god" too, but so what?
  
  I think Einstein, like Hawking, feared religious backlash.
  reply report
  54
  Janis4808posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm thinking in his condition, Mr. Hawkins isn't fearing religion. In fact Stephen Hawkins welcomes all ideas on theories of life. I've met the man. In fact he is more prone to believe that life will eventually break out of this solar system and into the vast unknown.
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  at that level of observation, there is no need to fear religion. He will just say what he thinks.
  reply report
  92
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think in the past he was afraid to confront religious belief.
  reply report
  78
  BDazzlerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Speaking self-bias. This is.
  reply report
  82
  skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Check this: http://hubpages.com/forum/post/1199769
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Agreed. Hawkin's didn't refute Creation existence, nor can he say to any length that there is no Creation based on those laws. Those laws of physics would be G/god. Hence why I say, laws are the G/gods of man. This protects the consciousness and gives it purpose.
  Within logic alone Creation cannot be explained, experienced or applied unconditional. Equally, it cannot be done by sensation.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  A scientist idea of 'creation' is vastly different from the 'religious' idea of creation. Don't muddy his thoughts or works to suggest he was or ever would give credence to the 'biblical' destroyer.
  
  After all, 'mainstream' religionists believe that the "creator" is something that can be seen, felt, talked to, Jesus or whatever else you can come up with just so it fits.
  
  On the other hand, the 'beginning' has not yet been definitively defined so 'god' cannot be definitively defined.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hi S/R.
  This has been my argument against both science/sensation for years. Because what is termed God by sensation (religion) and used by science to refute that term are both incorrect. If an entity called "laws of physics" is pronounced G/god by science, it would be no greater than an entity pronounced G/god by sensationalists.
  
  All of existence is Creator.
  This is the thing that seems to be so aloof to people.
  There is no individuality or singular entity...
  reply report
  92
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, yeah, we are stardust, kumbya.
  
  The universe is not sentient. There are no gods.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  do you mean synthetic a priori?
  Or just a lack of tangibility according to our perspective of it?
  reply report
  92
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Let me put it simpler words.
  
  There are no gods.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hmm. I am inclined to agree that the term G/god is false and the terms applied by science or sensation with regard to it are false and purely self indulgent. But am not certain it applies with what you are saying, PC. Ps, you said that earlier, which is why I am trying to clarify.
  
  Edit: I apologize. I was including qualia as part of the tres priori and omitting quality regarding both sides of the House. My bad.
  reply report
  92
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Our universe could have been the creation of a third year physics student in another universe. That is not a god.
  
  There may be living things far more intelligent and more powerful than we are. Those would not be gods.
  
  No god-thing answers prayers. No thing created us - we evolved. When you die, you cease to exist as a sentient organism. You have no soul. There is no heaven. Jesus was just a man if he existed at all. He was not resurrected and he is never coming back.
  
  There are no gods sums that all up.
  report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for clarifying?!?!
  report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think that 'religion' uses science to vindicate religious ideology. When people like Hawkin disagree, they get upset.
  
  All of existence is not "Creator". Like I said, science and religion have a completely different understanding of what that actually means.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  All of existence is not "Creator".
  Valid or subjective?
  
  Like I said, science and religion have a completely different understanding of what that actually means. Not entirely. The approach is different and even at odds semantically, but in actuality, they are equally the same principle. [and in my own opine, redundant ritual systems aka religiously systematic, to the point of being morbidly ugly.]
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And again, you are trying to use his sentiments to further a religious ideological belief. So much so that in effect, you are trying to use his 'words' to the religious benefit.
  
  You are more than likely to keep doing it too because you just don't get it and you prolly never will.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What?? lol. And WHAT religious system, pray tell, would that be. By name, if you please. As, anyone in here can validate for you, I am as far from religion as one can get. Maybe even further. So, it appears you deliberately wanted to touch someones term paper. Sorry, but I will offer a brownie button. Marcus has three already. Such a good school boy.
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The words we apply are hiding their essential conceptual relationships.
  
  Like for instance gods..."there are no gods"
  
  but what is a god? they are the personification of universal concepts that describe the forces of nature
  
  god of thunder, zues, defeated the titans, the forces of chaos and created the world. his power is in the lightning bolt.
  
  aphrodite, goddess of beauty and love...personifies relationships and harmonies of nature that is very similar to earthly ones.
  
  gods are forces that shape reality.
  
  and the breakthrough is there is only one G-d. One universal force of nature...and this is true.
  
  we refuse to see these things as anthropomorphisms of an ancient people who cannot communicate their insights otherwise. We insist in the fragmentation, where there is none. Right james?
  reply report
  92
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That is a fiction, not a breakthrough.
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  that is a symbolic use of words in order for you to understand what was meant.
  report
  92
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It is babble. There are no gods, no universal consciousness, none of that malarkey.
  report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Very good. I just used it one post back: qualia. This is the law override switch. It fragments, personalizes the conscious perception of the priori. Thus, fashioning titles or singular entities defined as G/gods. To humans, anything void of conscious self is god, because they cannot qualify/quantify it as anything else. Laws of physics, mathematics, ritual practices equally prove this. These are why humans designed such systems, because applying the non-system cannot be individualized. To experience quality, look at the sun setting on the beach over soft rippling waves. To "qualia priori" ~a mere speck of Free Will~ understand you are the setting sun, the waves, the beach expressing Creation within and without you. The consciousness is only the gravity of the two forces of light -project & reflect. Humans are the absorb. This is what the consciousness was designed for...
  
  ps, hi stranger.
  reply report
  0
  klarawieckposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm sorry Pcunix but Cecilia is right. There is only one universal force of nature and that is what some people refer to as GOD, others as Creator, others as Spirit. I've never seen spirituality as being different to science. Don't understand why the arguing, really. There is no point.
  reply report
  57
  Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I would have to agree with Pcunix in that it's all malarkey.
  report
  92
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There is no evidence of any such thing. I understand that you NEED this, but it is not real.
  report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What do you mean? e is NOT equal to MC squared?
  report
  92
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No evidence for gods.
  report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  no evidence for forces of nature? I think we already know that chaos organized and resulted in life and the ecosystems.
  
  that is what they are but personified to explain in terms that can be accessed. then as time went by the luminary dies and we are left with poorer and poorer versions of the original teaching.
  report
  57
  Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  E = energy
  m = mass
  c^2 = speed of light times the speed of light
  
  Hence, a very tiny bit of mass converts to massive amounts of energy. On the flip side, it takes massive amounts of energy to convert to a tiny bit of mass.
  report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  once again a demonstration of you not getting the point.
  report
  57
  Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  When you use a formula that you aren't familiar with in the context provided, it made no sense at all.
  report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  don't do it, Ceci. lol.
  
  We know, they were equally intelligent, even if we base it just on social development, architecture, agriculture and languages. Not even to include the forging of metals -mostly used for early united science-sensation practices. Terms like dark matter, and others are only modern terms defining the same ancient concepts or observations. These words used today existed before today's science and religion, of where both exist to begin with. The expressions/experiments might be more involved --or not.
  
  One of my older papers in history, I said something to the effect of today's post century ideas are simply re-fabricated experiences, ideas and possibly even experiences of people in nearly every culture, who had a clearer and closer understanding of it all than today.
  report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  yes, it is an addiction. lol. sometimes though someone new gets it. lol.
  report
  0
  klarawieckposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Beelyboy... you following me? Get your mustache out of the religious forums! lol
  report
  57
  Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I thought you wanted me to follow you around.
  
  Man, are women ever fickle.
  report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks klara
  report
4. 72
  LeslieAdrienneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Pisean 282311
  
  Really???!
  reply report
5. 43
  Frank Menchiseposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I would like to point out that Stephen Hawking states that God did not create the universe, he does not say that God does not exist, therefore one is lead to conclude that, Stephen Hawking may believe that the universe and God have always existed and they work in conjunction with the natural laws of physics.
  reply report
67
aguasilverposted 12 years ago
I think I posted the topic a few minutes before you!
reply report
1. 65
  pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  sorry i didnt see it...
  reply report
  67
  aguasilverposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No problem, it needed to be posted, who cares which one they 'answer'!
  reply report
51
paarsurreyposted 12 years ago
'God did not create the universe'- Stephen Hawking

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

2.He should clarify what he understands from the word "God".
reply report
1. 65
  pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  what i read and saw in his video by word god he means god as described by religion...which has qualities like intellect , ability to forgive , ability to judge and such stuffs...he states that gravitational force is true hero of universe which in turn is assisted by other forces to create , build and maintain universe...
  reply report
  51
  paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Does the above come in the field of Physics? I don't think so. He should not have stepped out the field of Physics to say anything about God; as an ordinary lay man he is free to say anything right or wrong though.
  reply report
  64
  I am DB Cooperposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well it seems as if he's saying that the laws of physics allow for a universe without a god in the traditional sense. The so-called "unexplainable" is explainable through an understanding of the physics of the universe.
  reply report
  92
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Gee, the biggest "Duh!" of the year award has to go to Stephen, I guess.
  reply report
  51
  paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well, I don't believe that there is any contradiction in religion and science. The Creator-God Allah YHWH has created the Universe with perfect systems, which we discern as sciences; but He is not physically among them.This is one manifestation of Him.
  
  The other manifestation of Him is through Word revealed on the Messengers Prophets; the purpose of which is to quide humanity in the Ethical, Moral and Spiritual realsm. We need both of them.
  
  We respect Scientists in their fields and the Word revealed in which is useful in the broad spectrum of life.
  
  Thanks
  
  I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
  reply report
  65
  pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  @paar i understand that you believe that religion and science are two different things...but my friend both are outshoot from same questions and thoughts..religion tries to answer questions like who created the world,why are we here, what after death and such things..it tries to answer them..while hawkings too tried to answer them in his own way...you are rejecting him without even going through what is basis of what he is saying?...first give him unbiased reading...check facts...what proof does he have?..just because he doesnot speak from some book , doesnot make him wrong...does it?
  reply report
2. 83
  earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I have read and followed Hawking's career for 10 years paarsurrey, and you ain't no Stephen Hawking!
  reply report
  51
  paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I have not claimed to be one. You may continue studying for the next 50 years about Hawking's career; I don't mind.
  reply report
  83
  earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Read your own post.
  reply report
  0
  klarawieckposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ernest you are mean! You needed a teacher like me when you were a teenager! I'd get you straightened out boy!!!!
  reply report
  83
  earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I was already responsible for my family's income by time I was a teenager.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think she wants to "school" you in another way! bounchica bownow.
  reply report
  0
  klarawieckposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Me too, but I'm not mean! (clear throat)
  reply report
  83
  earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I am not mean! You may be confusing meanness with my love of truth. I do not like liars, and call them on it.
  
  I Never get answers though, just aspersions on my character from people who not only know nothing about me, but sweet fanny all about life in general.
  
  Oh... is that mean?
  reply report
  0
  klarawieckposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm still pulling out the ruler Ernest!
  reply report
3. 63
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  for once I agree with you
  reply report
78
BDazzlerposted 12 years ago
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. "

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, if Gravity = God ... That would, of course, explain why we consider theology and physics both "weighty subjects".
reply report
1. 0
  Twenty One Daysposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  well said.
  reply report
2. 65
  pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  @BDazzler you are perfectly right and may be so learned saints say it is difficult to know god..because god is summation of forces and gravity being primary in it...how can living human being concede that non living forces are actually in control...
  reply report
  78
  BDazzlerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Or, perhaps, as they used to say in the old Star Trek episodes ... "It's life Jim, but not life as we know it".
  reply report
  65
  pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  possible..it is quiet possible..just look at religions of the world right now..none can trace themselves back to 5k..may be 5k years down the line , current religions wont even exist...in same way science too would evolve and find/conclude new things..so what you say is possibility...
  reply report
3. 83
  dostersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  From an article on the subject: "Hawking says a new series of theories made a creator of the universe redundant"
  
  I think you have shown why.
  reply report
4. 82
  skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Speaking self-bias. This is.
  reply report
83
earnestshubposted 12 years ago
21 you managed to crack me up again! Stephen Hawking's brain has got a while to go before the "muscle" in it fails to the degree I see here!
reply report
1. 0
  Twenty One Daysposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  says you, Doctor Jung?!
  
  damn it, Jim, I'm a doctor, not a sociologist
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  ps, Earnest, you know he (and many other "scientesticles") emphatically states all matter exists, yet also equally states matter comes into existence from nothing. i still have yet to see and physicist or metaphysic get passed their own noses. But it must be fun building the Vegas Quality Hotel & Casino to store all those luck nuts, eh?!
  
  Jung & Juice, the new religion...
  reply report
  83
  earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You are out of date again 21. It's all post Jungian now!
  Hillman, Von Franz et al are aging too.
  Know any post Jungians?
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Campbell
  reply report
52
cherylelemmonposted 12 years ago
I need inspiration in my life, and I think reading a novel would be a good idea. I've narrowed the author I want down to Stephen Hawking, because I've heard things about his books that seem to be of interest to me. I want a book that makes me think, perhaps something about physics

Natura Cleanse
reply report
92
Pcunixposted 12 years ago
Let us not forget that ANYTHING Jesus is said to have said is apocryphal, having been fabricated by others long after his (also mostly or wholly apocryphal) life.
reply report
63
ceciliabeltranposted 12 years ago
I was just talking about this with my husband. The universe seems to have sprung from nothing.
which is why, I find it so consistent with the pictograph reading of genesis

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

Of course the Hebrew grammarians will disagree with me and so will everybody else in this forum. Yeah, but who cares. It was there, it's just an interesting thought.
reply report
1. 57
  Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Not even remotely.
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  sure.
  reply report
2. 81
  Shadesbreathposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No, I think there is an argument that can be made that Genesis might represent a technologically and scientifically-primitive man's capacity for understanding an explanation of how the universe began. It doesn't take too much imagination (or too many games of "the telephone game" in grade school) to be able to recognize how there is at least a plausible case for that.
  
  I can imagine God coming down and explaining it to some backwoods yokel many thousands of years ago. I can see the guy leaning on his spear, strokin' his flea-infested beard between two grubby fingers and sayin', "Yup, yup, I reckon I got all that." Then he went back to the village and tried ta 'splain it to ever'body else. What happened afterward is the flawed religions of today.
  
  I'm not saying that's what I believe, but I think the argument can be made. Frankly, it's always amazed me that Christians don't work harder to do that sort of thing. The "dust" that made humans can easily be understood to be the elements themselves, which are nothing more than star dust... etc.
  reply report
  78
  BDazzlerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That is closer to what I think that just about any other thing I've heard on this subject. I think the reason you see such adamant adherence to certain things is the traditions that came from an attempt at preventing the introduction of "telephone game" errors.
  
  For example, the Hebrews had a "check sum" error check on their scrolls and if the numbers didn't add up, the whole thing got burned. This was expensive in terms of time and material so the religious types got very strict.
  
  What we have now, for traditional reasons, rather than pragmatic, is a lot of people with the same strict attitutdes regarding religious writings.
  
  Oral story telling tradition across all cultures is fascinating for it's mnemonic methods. (Not to say error didn't creep in, but substantial efforts were made to curb the "telephone game" phenomenon.) That's a subject I always meant to pursue more.
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  exactly.
  reply report
3. 82
  skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Not plasma and gravity, but sounds like manipulation of verses.
  
  Let's see Genesis 1:27 :-So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
  
  So let's see the variation of god's images
  
  I think when bible was in publishing, they forgot to cover various images of god in that verse. Stuff like this happens ya know.
  
  How many variation of his images were said in original verse ?Just curious.
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That's the thing, see. When you read it in its original form, you will understand it differently.
  
  It is not how it looks but in its "like" - ness. I always talk about mandelbroth sets here. And I suspect not a lot of people understand what it implies. It implies that the large is exactly the small in infinite directions. Meaning, everything organizes back to its starting point. It is called orbits of zero.
  
  So if you're thinking G-d looks like our face, then that is really a laugh. But our image and likeness is the same not in the external way, but internally.
  
  I hate repeating myself but here is the link again (for the upteenth time) http://www.ted.com/talks/henry_markram_ … crets.html
  
  the finding is, when you ignore how it looks from the outside and photograph the brain when it looks on the inside, what you see is a starry night sky. So, the universe out there looks exactly like the universe in our brain.
  
  The image and likeness applies to the thing that generates our consciousness.
  reply report
  58
  Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "when you ignore how it looks from the outside and photograph the brain when it looks on the inside, what you see is a starry night sky. So, the universe out there looks exactly like the universe in our brain".
  
  You have just described something that my mind has known, but hasn't been able to put down into words.
  Thank you. That is very clearly put.
  reply report
4. 57
  Dave Barnettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Cececlia. This is why I fight so vehemently, because they'll read it, and not SEE it.
  reply report
5. 0
  Twenty One Daysposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Which reaffirms the point, I think. The concept of 'G/god' is human. To say the collective consciousness was created as 'G/god' makes things a little clearer, but nonetheless unattainable, by the human conscious collective.
  So, how does one prove the application of the consideration?
  
  This is something that is baffling both sides of the house.
  Both attribute it to laws. But those laws are man-made to be god-made, else to be *poof* or *bang* *oye*.
  
  Neither can support the application without.Nothing is something. Something is nothing. Scaled balancing on a [insert anecdote here].
  
  Could it be neither? Could it be the human consciousness came into being, not as the entity, self-made, self-evolving, self-defining, but came into being to gravitate the totality of Creation? This makes much more sense (to me).
  
  Gravity is absorptive.
  The others are projective, reflective.
  reply report
66
waynetposted 12 years ago
I like Stephen Hawkins...He tells it like it is!
reply report
63
ceciliabeltranposted 12 years ago
My point is, the ancients are describing their understanding of the universe using terms that are available then. But when you strive to understand their meaning, you will see that it is no different from what we are observing now.
reply report
1. 0
  Twenty One Daysposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  nods in agreement.
  reply report
82
skyfireposted 12 years ago
No. This is called as manipulation of verses just like what you did to relate it with plasma and gravity. I did it with looks of humans for that verse.

For me it implies order out of chaos.

Again, manipulation here. We can show the variety of thoughts for the same object-internally.
reply report
1. 63
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's not manipulation. All bible translations are interpretations.
  
  It really said Two Beginnings create Elohim, the heavens and the earth. (with heavens defined by its pictographs as consumable waters and active waters, also read as fiery waters...plasma.)
  
  You can choose to read it from its translation of two translations or you can write it in its original pictographic form using the Hebrew words as guide and read the ideas associated with the pictographs taking out the grammar and religious interpretations. I read it in pictograph and this is what i read.
  
  The one in the bible is the manipulation. I just read it technically and that's what I saw. I could be wrong, but hey it makes more sense than the hogwash in print right now.
  
  I am not going to dismiss the idea that maybe we read it wrong, because, you see , when you read it they way they meant it long ago...there is no contradiction.
  reply report
  82
  skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There is contradiction. Do you expect poetic verses to have reference of plasma ? What's next ? Dark matter in some another verse ?
  reply report
2. 63
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well, there is really no argument here because you have not seen it. I can't post it here simply because I do not care to do the excessive amount of work necessary to convince you.
  
  All I'm saying is, there are many different ways to read the ancient texts. The one based on proto-sinaitic texts and the traditional definition of these ideograms do agree with today's understanding.
  
  Even the way the words used are being described are explaining the nature of these concepts as understood by the ancients.
  
  They were not stupid. They learned all the things we are learning today long ago. They are just calling it different.
  
  And our dear everyday joe and jane are reading it the wrong way.
  reply report
  82
  skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "Even the way the words used are being described are explaining the nature of these concepts as understood by the ancients."
  
  Not manipulation huh ?
  
  They were not stupid. They learned all the things we are learning today long ago. They are just calling it different.
  
  Assumption. They didn't learned all the things we're learning today.
  
  And our dear everyday joe and jane are reading it the wrong way.
  
  So it requires manipulation to suit what religion wants ?
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I am not religion.
  
  If I lived in the inquisition, they would burn me at the stake. I am just saying, the things we are arguing about are one and the same.
  
  for example:
  
  the spirit of G-d is in everything = we are all made up of energy
  G-d created the world = the planet was formed by forces of energy
  There is only one G-d = It is all energy
  
  Am I saying G-d is energy? No. I am also saying the thing that our sacred texts refer to as G-d is the universal creative nature of that invisible force we call energy.
  
  The terms we use for our sciences masks that we actually have found proof of G-d, the universal force that creates and influences all we know.
  
  G-d is not energy to me G-d is all. Energy, Time, Matter, Experience Consciousness. They are after-all beginning to converge into one thing - the infinite movement of + filling -. The No thing that rotates endlessly and in so doing creates all that is.
  reply report
3. 63
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  For example, you said
  For me, it implies order out of chaos.
  
  what is chaos?
  
  In mathematics it is defined as: A dynamical system that has a sensitive dependence on its initial conditions.
  
  The ancients have the same symbol of chaos for water and consciousness. it is the ancestor of the letter w and m. It pertains to waves. now tell me what you see when your consciousness is measured...what do you see, undulating waves. Now tell me what you see when the random stock market is measured...once again undulating waves. did they know this, i don't know. but chaos, water and consciousness are only similar in one way, they come in undulating waves.
  reply report
  82
  skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Here is the flaw:
  
  You assume ancient people were too smart such that we're just studying their stuff. Which is far-fetched assumption and that makes me wonder what tempts them to write scriptures in mystic verses instead of clear symbols.
  
  Let's admit it- our ancestors were not smart for things like dark matter, plasma and computer. No matter how we choose to twist things with verses the problem is it shows gaps in knowledge of generation which is unexplainable knowing your assumption about ancient people being too smart and capable of not losing knowledge (all that data) they learned in their time.
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Its not an assumption. It is based on evidence.
  
  Ever heard of the Great Forgetting? Many scientists and archeologists are discussing this with their faces on it.
  
  They had a different technology, but they had technology nonetheless. If you wipe us all out now save for some peasants in a remote island in the philippines. what do you think an ipad would be to their great great grandchildren? a mirror with an apple on the back. and if you open it, lots of metal things and wires.
  reply report
  92
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That is not evidence. It is foolishness.
  
  We existed as humans. We had no great technical knowledge to forget.
  
  Science fiction nonsense. Fantasy for adolescent minds.
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  this would be the assumption.
  reply report
  82
  skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry i can't buy this assumption. Why ? Because if our ancestor were that smart they'll not let the data go out in void just like that. If i choose to go by your assumption then i have to accept that more than 3000 years of knowledge got lost with great forgetting or just like that. Sorry, if they were smart enough to discover quantum computing, plasma and dark matter then their sane mind will try to find ways to hold this information in some form at some place irrespective of environmental condition or any changes in civilization.
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  they did, they are called ideograms. that is why we can access them now. They also had the rosetta stone.
  
  The problem is not in the storing, the problem is in the reading.
  
  The Hebrew Letters are folded ideas of universal concepts.
  
  concept of 1, the first manifestation, force represented by the OX head
  concept of 2, the second manifestation, enclosure, house, represented by pregnant woman or house
  concept of 3, the third manifestation, path represented by a camel.
  
  Try describing the big bang to a six year old and see if you don't sound like a stupid moron.
  reply report
  82
  skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Once again you and james made assumption here that they knew everything. They didn't. They passed what they knew. What you claim about rossetta and ideograms when relating to plasma, dark matter shows the manipulation of earlier civilizations thoughts. This stuffyou can't prove because you backed it up with great forgetting or loss of civilization stuff.
  Too much sci-fi stuff is not good when we end up asking for evidence.
  
  At one corner you assume ancestors as know-it-all for us and in another you put them in such lame place that they can't defend their civilization, knowledge and end up to great forgetting or natural destruction.
  
  Do you think if mayans were that intellectual to give human sacrifice for gods ? And then again such knowledgeable civilizations perished just like that huh ? I wonder which god got pissed off. Think about it. Though we do exhibit many behaviors like ancients there is more development(evolution of thoughts and culture) in comparison to earlier civilization.
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That's because you don't know that in iran they have pottery shards dating all the way back to 12,000 years. In the last ice age, the fair skinned people emerged from iran. And Iran is Ayran...Aryan..the source of all vedic and some say even judaic wisdom. with Brahmins as Abrahamins. A reference to david was recently found that revealed that he existed
  
  They have found batteries in these areas. They knew about polarities. They knew about the position of the stars in the cosmos, the significance of equinoxes, they had an advanced and more accurate numerical systems.
  
  It is not assumption, it is profound evidence. They did not know everything. Just as we do not know everything. But they arrived at similar conclusions.
  
  http://www.deep-ecology-hub.com/the-gre … tting.html
  
  just to prove to you that the great forgetting is not an assumption but an established development in the study of archeology
  reply report
  82
  skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Quote me from peer-reviewed journal about what you claim about ancestors- (not just great forgetting).
  
  Great forgetting phenomena managed to erase everything except the point that there was great forgetting that caused this. Awesome.
  reply report
  67
  alternate poetposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It is not hard to see this process - look at the intelligent design crowd, if their twaddle really took over it would require getting rid of all the 'old' discredited books, getting rid of all the intelligent people, you know like religion has done several times in the past.
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/m … 4/art00004
  
  Quote:
  "Excavations in 1977 at the KM2 site near Kemondo Bay west of Lake Victoria in Kagera Region, Tanzania, provided abundant evidence for an ancient technology, dating to the first six centuries A.C., that shared many similarities to the living iron-smelting technology. Excavations during 1978–1979 at the KM3 site, also located near Kemondo Bay, yielded physical evidence for the antiquity of the preheated process and provided definitive proof for a technology similar to the process in historical times. These discoveries affirm that one of the most advanced technologies in the ancient world developed in Africa independent of European influence."
  
  Authors: Schmidt, Peter R.; Avery, D. H.
  Source: Journal of Field Archaeology, Volume 10, Number 4, 1983 , pp. 421-434(14)
  Publisher: Maney Publishing
  
  I'm sorry but I have to pay again to actually quote the text. but there are ample of proof. All you have to do is look.
  reply report
  82
  skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No issues. I'll see if i can get hands on that.
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well, if you have an earnest search, you'll find what I told you before. The great forgetting is a real archeological theory, not an assumption.
  reply report
  82
  skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'll take a look at that.
  5:00 am here, off to life.
  report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  geez! go get some sleep. Otherwise your brain won't make a breakthrough today. Sleep is when all you hear and see connects to a new understanding. sleep tight
  report
  82
  skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks. Breakthrough ? LOL. Soft engg rarely get projects that are even close to breakthrough.
  
  Later. Have a good day (or evening maybe).
  report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  yeah...people are leaving the cafe. I better head home and actually work. geez look at the time.
  report
  67
  alternate poetposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  This sounds just like Chinese ! little concept packages that have a wide and deep meaning but (often) no direct definate object. Great for poetry and social stuff but not so good for science ?
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  that is the only way they connected the concepts. universal concepts tend to appear in various levels of existence but the laws still apply.
  reply report
  0
  klarawieckposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Both science and spirituality are concepts that are too great to understand. Any spiritual person who thinks they know what's happening out there is out of their mind (that includes me of course) and anyone who thinks science has all the answers is as crazy as well. Science continues to evolve, it is not a closed book. What seems like unreasonable now might become factual in the future. In other words, we are all full of it! lol
  reply report
  92
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  True enough. But far better than 'god done it"
  reply report
  0
  klarawieckposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ok, I take it back. I am not crazy! lol
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  far better than the forces of nature did it? don't think so.
  reply report
  92
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Forces of nature are not a god.
  
  All this mystical nonsense is just happy babble. It means nothing.
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  that is what was meant by the word "gods". it was just distorted.
  report
  92
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If you apply different definitions, anything can mean whatever you want it to mean.
  
  Undrr discussion here, a god is a sentient being. All you are doing is confusing things; your point (whatever it may be) belongs in some other thread.
  report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  but underneath the constant growth and complexity is a pattern that recurs. you can see that pattern, the fractal of truth that underlies all. this is called transcendence. It does not take a buddha to transcend bullshit. It only takes self-honesty and courage. do i see sense. yes i do. That's it. and that's all.
  reply report
  0
  klarawieckposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, that's true, but even though we are being exposed to the same fractual of truth, your conclusion will be very personal. What you sense will be perceived differently by someone else.
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  true, but although we are all uniquely wired, we share a common hardware. hence jung's collective consciousness idea. we are all born, we are exposed to emotions and hunger and need and fullfillment. This is our universal vocabulary--our humanity. Hence the constant personifications of universal concepts.
  reply report
  0
  klarawieckposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  My eyes are getting tired... I read "we are all uniquely weird" lol
  I was going to agree with you 100% on that one! lol
  I have to go. Heading to Goodwill to find old records nobody wants.
  report
  57
  Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Of course, especially when you don't understand it yourself.
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  yes! it must hard for you.
  reply report
  57
  Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Not at all.
  reply report
0
klarawieckposted 12 years ago
Yooooohoooooo... Ding Ding Ding!!! I'm here!!! What did I miss?!
reply report
1. 64
  luvpassionposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hi klara...
  
  Teri
  reply report
  0
  klarawieckposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hey Teri, what's up?
  You reading these people?
  Stephen already forgot about what he said, and here they are... killing each other over a statement.
  reply report
82
skyfireposted 12 years ago
In between, i'm checking profile picture of klara. Hmm...
reply report
1. 0
  klarawieckposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hey!!! lol
  reply report
0
sandra rinckposted 12 years ago
This is what I find truly fascinating.

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

"god" no, aliens... I say yes!
reply report
1. 63
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  ew, and that is why you like Mark Knowles.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Who said anything about Mark?
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  mark thinks the aliens did it.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Like little green men or something much more sinister? lol
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  no like blondes who call themselves the annunaki sort.
  reply report
82
skyfireposted 12 years ago
If we replace God with aliens then it sounds like RAEL philosophy. I disagree with it because if they're the reason why we're here then what reason they've to hide from us is beyond me. Besides that whole jesus, muhammad play and other religions will end up in big drama which i think is not the way it is. These prophets had their existence to explain universal god- not seeding god like aliens. In both cases, we lack sufficient evidence.

If aliens are the reason we exist - then theists are like lab rats thinking about not-living the box in which they're kept because of fear of keeper and atheists are like lab rats thinking WTF is this and how can i get out of here and agnostics lab rats are like this may or may not be the box. :-P
reply report
1. 92
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And again - alien creators would not be gods. They would have evolved from simpler things.
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  yes i agree. aliens would not be gods, they would be well aliens.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Then that would make us???
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  aliens elsewhere.
  reply report
63
ceciliabeltranposted 12 years ago
you: there was a tiny tiny dot that exploded.

child : whats an explosion?

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

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

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

child : what's matter ?

you Matter, all the things around you.

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

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

But you can understand it, only you have words that the little girl does not. so you use the words she understands...and that is where religion began and knowledge became forgotten.
reply report
1. 0
  klarawieckposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well? Did it start with a firecracker or not?!
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
2. 82
  skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ya know this sounds like story of Einstein and his teacher. Do you get the fallacy ?
  reply report
  0
  klarawieckposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  This is what I think - you can kill me after I say this!
  
  Stephen's opinion of God is as important as Jesus' opinion of Science. WHO CARES?!
  reply report
  82
  skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  True.
  reply report
  65
  pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  @klarawieck i disagree.hawking is not speaking on religion..he is strictly speaking on subject in which he has worked for his entire life...domain of who,what,when,why,how of universe belongs to his genre..he is not talking about something which is doesnot know...spirituality and science are off shoot of same human brain and its question...science travels path of observation,proofs,disproofs and such things while spirtuality relies more on presumptions ...spirituality is more colorful..i agree on that..but that doesnot mean hawking is speaking what he doesnot understand...
  
  coming to who cares?.stephen is not prophet who wants to be followed...he wrote what he concluded...it is open to rejection or acceptance or more research...
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  not a fallacy. einstein as a child did not understand the big bang.
  reply report
  57
  Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Uh, the Big Bang theory actually relies on Einsteins theory of General Relativity. How could he have understood it?
  reply report
0
DavidWS10posted 12 years ago
The "Big Bang" theory is just that, a theory; and it is about as plausible as a tornado hitting a junkyard and assembling a perfectly flyable Boeing 747.
reply report
1. 92
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, boy, it is all downhill from here.
  reply report
2. 0
  sandra rinckposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Praise Jebus! It is far more likely that Jesus came down and assembled the perfectly good Boeing with just one breath!
  reply report
  82
  skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  and then let people screw him on cross...
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Jesus! The things you guys say about a man suffering on a cross!
  reply report
  0
  klarawieckposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  They'll be roasted in the afterlife! lol
  reply report
  82
  skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That's because if any person who managed to split the ocean, cure others and claims to be a son of god if gets screwed by mere mortals then we have nothing left to feel respected about.
  
  He's just another human. Someone will talk against him, me or any other person on earth like this in such case.
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I agree that he's human. But walking on the ocean is based on a Jewish metaphor for waters.
  What he was doing was remaining calm among hot heads.
  
  Also turning water into wine is a metaphor for turning ordinary folk into people of substance.
  
  He was a man, but a great one. He understood the nature of human consciousness. It was Jung who said that the Jews were masters of the consciousness. He also knew the belief was crucial to healing. look at the placebo effect.
  
  As I said, it is not what is written, it is how it is read.
  reply report
  65
  pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  you know what is biggest problem with all major religions?...read between the lines things..walking on water as you said is metaphor..then why create confusion at first place..why not use calm among hot heads at first place..why use phrases which can be subject to interpretation...religion should be as simple as possible so that every one can get it ...
  reply report
  83
  earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I hope he doesn't screw it up again!
  reply report
3. 83
  earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Nice analogy!
  You may well be right! Very long odds indeed!
  
  No where near as long as "god dunnit" tho!
  
  We have Hubble and that is no fairytale.
  reply report
4. 57
  Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Or, as plausible as an invisible sky fairy creating a human being from dust?
  reply report
74
CkhoffmanKposted 12 years ago
I think if Stephen Hawking says something... we should probably listen

The man has unmeasurable amounts of intelligence that people of devout religion or superstitious belief probably can't grasp it.
reply report
1. 83
  earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think you nailed it.
  reply report
2. 51
  paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  He has intelligence which works in Science; in Religion his intelligence is miserably meaningless.
  reply report
  83
  earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There is no intelligence in religion!
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  true, religion is strictly about rituals and faith...faith meaning answers that you believe without proof. this is not intelligence.
  
  however faith is the interim to doubt, and doubt is the beginning of real questions that lead to answers.
  reply report
  83
  earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  unless you get caught in the religion I would say.
  reply report
  65
  pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  @paar why do you say so paar?
  reply report
63
ceciliabeltranposted 12 years ago
as·sump·tion (-smpshn)
n.

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

The Great Forgetting is an established archeological theory. Is it false or not, we don't know yet. But it is not an assumption.
reply report
64
What's Newsposted 12 years ago
People kill me how they think they are to smart for religion. None of us can claim to be completely right, but some of us still do.
reply report
65
Thunder Vixenposted 12 years ago
He didn't say he proved god doesn't exist he just concluded from his new study which proves that life could have been created by itself that he himself does not believe. I think it's an outstanding discovery, this took years to find out the possibilities of the universes.
reply report
1. 65
  pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  quiet right...
  reply report
52
theipadtesterposted 12 years ago
Have been reading Stephen Hawkings for over more than 6 months now and i just realised that the more you read of him the more you start believin in his theories.He is soo convincing!!
reply report
1. 60
  Druid Dudeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If you had a hold of a piece of string, and all you knew was that you were holding a piece of string, could you tell if you had it by the end? What if it were the beginning of the string? When we aim our telescopes and fine hi-tech instruments into space, no matter where we aim, we are looking at the past. What if the past, instead of always being behind us, could somehow, periodically be in the future, and not the past at all? One can never assume that one has found the beginning of anything, if one cannot perceive the other end. Figure this statement out.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Too easy DD.
  Past is human metaphoric for what they perceive was or future what they perceive will. The thing is, no matter which end of the string they are holding, they are still in the same place, holding a string --in Stephens case, a string theory. So in theory, he is holding a string at either end. Which actually means there is no string, only the consideration/possibility of a string and the necessary desire to hold it at its end...
  James.
  reply report
  60
  Druid Dudeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Elegant. The polar duality under which banner all matter is gathered, and the subsequent nature of polar reality through the creation called Universe, evidenced in part by the very energies which produce the gravitational field, in Earth's case, a chaotic field with polar anomalies increasing over aperiod of time which the Mayan's somehow nailed pretty darn close, suggests that such polarity shifts are nothing new and hardly a characteristic of Earth and Earth alone. This must cause us to question the nature of perceptual reality on the physical plane. Time is complex, and thow it's flow is one directional, the vagaries of those things caught within it, may not always move with that flow. More like a leaf in a mountain stream, making it's way to the sea.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  'Zat mean god dunnit?
  reply report
  60
  Druid Dudeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hey, Mark! Did you read something there which confuses you on the subject? You're a hard man to please, but reading what isn't there is unbecoming a rational man, even one who thinks so highly of Phil Collins and the boys. If you see God hidden somewhere in my words, then, it could only be our Father in Heaven who has revealed it to you.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No - all I saw was meaningless gibberish. Perhaps the polar duality of CREATION had me confused. Who knows? Inch alla.
  reply report
  60
  Druid Dudeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Not into atomic structure huh. Duality of nature. Polar opposites. Magnetism, you know, Positive and negative poles. Earth has 'em or is that somehow news to you. People have them of is Bi-polar disorder a fanciful lie I slipped in somewhere? Electricity, Einthoven's triangle. Anything even ring a bell in there. Jesus, you are blind guy. Assuming you thik you know something. You must sit on the can for days at a time. You are so full of it. Careful. The others might see, and you'll no longer be able to hind inside your pseudo intellectualism.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And this has exactly what to do with Hawking's statement? Jesus? Zat wot god sed? Bi-polar? Oh - you mean manic depressive?
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And rightly so. Reality is (at present to humans) light cubic times necessity --necessity being the variable that manipulates and reflects (solidifies/physic material). The projective and absorptive expressions of energy seem to be the mystery (to humans) since 99% of their waking hours are spend absorbing light from around them and then using that same absorptive expression to project and reflect the energy of the universe. This is the illusion : it appears real, it is measurable in increments (time), has an end point or start point. All the while it as an absorptive expression filtered through the millions on neurological fibers that make up the brain. And the brains function is to spit out a solution or expression so the eyes see, ears hear, body moves, feels, etc. So, it will --out of necessity-- spit out a series of like properties to satisfy the query.
  reply report
61
jwdudleyposted 12 years ago
There are so many people who do not believe in the Creation by God. When you look at the depraved condition of this world and the lack of humanity, all the crimes, all the wars, all the diseases plus the hunger throughout the world, man has failed to help improve matters. Each and every year that passes by this system of things just keeps getting worse. At the rate mankind is going it won't be much longer when this total system will collapse. If there is no God - what, then, is going to save us from utter destruction. Personally I am thankful to believe that there is a God - one who is deeply concerned with our welfare and will soon rid this earth of all it's corruption. No God, No Earth to live on. No universe with all it's marvelous creation to astound us with it's marvel of beauty. Yes, there is a God.
reply report
1. 57
  Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Notice that religious believers have had control of the world during this time? That speaks volumes.
  
  Mankind could easily save itself if it gave up the delusions and madness of religions.
  reply report
  60
  Druid Dudeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Nope, wrong there. If majority rules, then China rules too. After them, why India of course. Strength in numbers. And if you are referring to the plethora of Apostate churches, I belief your data strem is outta whack. What about "Everyone would be wandering after the Beast" Are you that convinced of the illusion that has been set upon your dinner table? Then, by all means....pig out!
  reply report
  60
  Druid Dudeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  US Supreme court HAS RULED that atheism IS religion. GEEEZ!
  do your parents know how you spend your time?
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sweet! Now we can evade taxes too! Awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Count me in. No taxes for atheists. LOL Talk about driving the numbers up.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Cool beans! But wait a minute, I'm agnostic! In order to not have to pay taxes I will have to move one way or the other. Not fair!
  reply report
  60
  Druid Dudeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry. Special rules for stuff like that. BUT iI do have an interesting thought on a certain legal "loophole", but I've sworn not to share my best stuff with difficult sheep.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I am so distraught! LOL!
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No worries Randy, the clause that protects atheist protects agnostics too. Silly inmate, challenged the system and won. Even in the prison system, pushing god is big business.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Another "secret plan" is it? You're just full of it...er, them! LOL!
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  My senses are telling me that the "loophole" is put them all in prison first! What a wise guy.
  reply report
  60
  Druid Dudeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Agnosticism fit the same definition that the US Sup Ct used for their determination. Such is not the same with the loophole.
  reply report
  57
  Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm sure you have a point there, but it eludes me.
  
  I have no idea what you're talking about.
  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)

'God did not create the universe'- Stephen Hawking

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

'God did not create the universe'- Stephen Hawking

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies