Stephen Hawkins said so

Jump to Last Post 1-11 of 11 discussions (134 posts)

59
Jeramiposted 13 years ago
I Was watching Larry King last night. Forget his name.
That physicist that co-wrote a couple of books with Stephen Hawkins. He stated and Hawkins also that it has been proven in a laboratory that in a vacuum, matter appears and disappears.

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

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

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

And that contradicts scripture how??
reply report
1. 59
  DevLinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  What affect did it have on the anti-matter?
  reply report
2. 72
  getitriteposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Wow! Trying to use Physics to validate your belief in an ancient book of Bronze Age goat herders. Anyone see the desperation?
  
  What a waste of time to ponder such a desperate conclusion.
  The bible is still ridiculous, no matter what kind of new spin you try to put on it.
  
  Do you not understand?: the fact that your scripture is dubious, negates your wishful thinking.
  
  This new discovery in Physics has absolutely nothing to do with your nonsensical, imaginary God.
  reply report
  0
  Kathryn LJposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Have you read the satirical novel 'The Book of Dave'? I can thoroughly recommend it as a witty illustration of the perils of literal interpretation of texts of dodgy provenance.
  reply report
3. 92
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No. That isn't what it means. It means exactly the opposite - no gods needed.
  
  Get over it, Jerami. It doesn't matter - you can go on believing whatever you want to believe.
  
  But I do have to take issue with your "outsider". If there were such a thing, why would you assume it is a god? Why not a third year physics student in another dimension?
  
  And why assume benevolence?
  
  You religious folks come up with the silliest ideas sometimes :-)
  reply report
  59
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It doesn't PROVE anything. That is my point!
  There will always be the question about ... where did that come from. What was before that.
  The only answer that I can see to answer the "What was Before that" question is that time runs in opposite directions.
  
  And we can not accept that because we can't prove it.
  
  Why don't we put a lid on the question of a supreme entity by just saying that Nothing exists that we can not prove ???
  
  That would be like returning back to the dark ages but with sophistication.
  reply report
  92
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Again, the "Supreme entity" nonsense.
  
  Jumping to ridiculous conclusions from no evidence whatsoever. What would you call that, Jerami?
  reply report
  59
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  We all project our understanding upon any thing.
  
  what do you understand supreme entity to mean.
  Yours is more than likely to be different than mine.
  
  I guess we are the supreme entity if there is no other.
  reply report
  92
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Again, silly assumption.
  
  "Supreme" in what context? We don't know if there is life elsewhere.
  
  But even just taking what we know: We aren't the largest creatures. We are not the longest lived. We haven't been around as as species very long. We are not the strongest, fastest, most resistant to disease.
  
  Why would you say we are "supreme"? That's a short sighted, anthropocentric view.
  reply report
  59
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  We are the fastest. We can catch a cheetah .. with a bullet.
  
  We are the strongest. We can lift a house with a crane.
  
  We are most resistant to disease by taking antibiotics.
  
  It all depends upon our prospective.
  
  Take away mankind's thumbs and imagination and you are correct. We are not supreme.
  
  Therefore I would say that it is our imagination that has made mankind the supreme being here on earth.
  
  To imagine things that are not yet true?
  
  And we are supreme in this area.
  There will never be an end of that road as long as imagination survives.
  Unless our imagination imagines its own demise.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Dear me,
  
  Are you having a bad day or something? Who said nothing exists that we can not prove?
  
  The simple fact is that most scientific knowledge points to the fact that we do not need a "supreme entity," in order for the Universe to have come into existence.
  
  This is also strong suggestion that there is not a supreme entity and certainly there is plenty of proven scientific facts to show that the one your goat herders wrote about does not exist.
  
  All you are really demonstrating is lack of understanding and knowledge - both of what Hawking (not Hawkins) actually said and the conclusions it is possible to draw from that. I mean - you cannot even get the man's name right. You are getting more desperate with each thread you start.
  
  Having doubts are we?
  reply report
4. 58
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No, by the very definition of "universe" those particles that appear and disappear are part of that universe.
  
  There is no such thing as something being "outside of our universe" by definition.
  reply report
5. 83
  Don Wposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Suggesting the universe began from 'nothing' is misleading anyway. The hypothesis is that the inflation of the universe may have been started through the process of virtual particles popping in and out of existence as you describe. Physicists call that 'nothing' in relation to the energy required for it to happen (zero).
  
  So physicists are using the word 'nothing' in a way which is philosophically naive, not in the way you or I would intuitively use it. Our use of the word means no thing, or not anything. Virtual particles which pop in and out of existence are not nothing in that sense. They are of course something, but not in the way physicists describe a 'thing'. So this really doesn't add anything to the debate over the existence of a deity. All it's does is shift the question from why does the universe exist? To why virtual particles instead of no virtual particles at all?
  
  Use of the word 'universe' can be tricky as well. If you use universe as the totality of everything that exists, then if god exists, by definition god is within the universe. However the word is used differently in different contexts. For example one hypothesis suggests that there are multiple 'bubbles' of space-time. The bubble we are in is refereed to as the universe, another bubble referred to as a universe. So in that context your suggestion of something existing outside 'the universe' is not problematic at all. So it's merely a semantic argument.
  
  Also, saying something is unlikely does not allow us to say it's untrue. That's a non-sequitur. Indeed the development of matter in the universe, given the early conditions following inflation can be said to have been unlikely. We can even make the calculations to determine exactly how unlikely. Despite that unlikelihood, matter does of course exist. So we can see that the likelihood of something bears no relation to the truth of it. Therefore suggesting the existence of a deity is unlikely tells us nothing about whether it's actually true or not. Of course that assumes we are not part of a multi-verse in which there are infinite universes. Assuming the opposite though raises meta-level questions of it's own, like why a multi-verse instead of no multi-verse? Is the multi-verse part of something else (a mega-verse?!?)
  
  So it's all smoke and mirrors, with everyone suggesting their approach has less smoke and mirrors than another. At the end of the day when scientists start shouting "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain", you know that's the best place to look. More often than not you'll find some kind of misrepresentation or other. Question is, is it better to misrepresent, e.g. 'something out of nothing' or is better to simply say this is our best guess at how this happened, but we have no idea why X happens to be the case, rather than Y. Wouldn't sell many books like that I suppose.
  reply report
  59
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you very much for that explination. Believe it or not I followed that. And though I could have never in this lifetime have explained this ; your explination was "kinda" what I was thinking, sorta.
  
  It just seems that the vacuum (nothingness) that the particles were popping in and out of suggests that when they popped out here they would pop in someplace else ???
  
  And that someplace else would be that other bubble of reality that you spoke of ??
  
  Is that something close?
  reply report
6. 72
  thisisoliposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Seriously?
  
  I think maybe you should have listened to what they were saying rather than just looking at what they were explaining and then forming your own assumptions.
  reply report
  83
  Don Wposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Why's that? Is there something wrong with assumptions? If so we're all in trouble.
  reply report
7. 60
  OpinionDuckposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  genesis doesn't even make sense as the guide to how the universe was created. If you think so I have questions on my hubs that no one answers.
  reply report
  59
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  There are no answers because comments section isn't open.
  
  open the capsule and I'll leave an opinion.
  reply report
8. 60
  zexxtraposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  this note is for jeremy who said:
  
  That physicist that co-wrote a couple of books with Stephen Hawkins. He stated and Hawkins also that it has been proven in a laboratory that in a vacuum, matter appears and disappears.
  
  Doesn't that mean that there is something outside of this material world? It comes in and out of this physical world uncontrolled by our laws of physics?
  
  Does that not prove that our universe is only a small part of whatever is?
  
  Isn't that what scripture has been saying all along.
  So .. whatever God is? If it is,..
  Is outside of this universe.
  
  Jeremy, you are right on the mark. this universe could be ONE CELL in a leg of another human being or universe somewhere else for all WE know. we do not know the extent of what we are, and we are just a small part of whatever it is........jeremy you are far and beyond stephen hawkins....he's figured out lots of things, but his universe is small...yours is is infinite....mine is too...................
  reply report
80
CkhoffmanKposted 13 years ago
He was referring to different dimensions in a round about way

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

As always, this does not prove your god into existence. Sorry.
reply report
1. 59
  DevLinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I know what he wanted. I just wanted his head to explode, having to read more about it.
  reply report
2. 60
  Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Nor does it disprove the existence of God.
  
  Actually, there is nothing that can disprove it.
  
  That must drive you nuts.
  reply report
  73
  Rishy Richposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah...Nor does it disprove the existence of flying Spaghetti Monster.
  reply report
  60
  Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No it doesn't.
  
  Whats your point?
  reply report
  92
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That believing in one is just as foolish as believing in the other, obviously.
  
  Most people believe what they were taught to believe. Some of us realize early on that religion is nonsense, but most never do.
  
  Weak, easily led? Perhaps. But I think it is deeply emotional. I think you NEED to believe, that no matter what logic is presented, you will brush it aside and ignore it. I think it does stem from base insecurity and fear - you need to believe in something bigger, smarter and more perfect than yourself. A great big father figure to protect you.
  
  If that is all it is, I have no problem with it. It is unfortunate that you need to delude yourself, but if it gets you through your day, fine. It is the pushers who annoy me and the fundies who scare me. If you keep it to yourself, I have no complaints.
  reply report
80
skyfireposted 13 years ago
No.

No
reply report
52
paarsurreyposted 13 years ago
What did he actually say; please explain in simple words for an ordinary man.
reply report
67
aka-djposted 13 years ago
If there are extra dimensions, we have no proof of it other than inference. I believe the general idea of this being the case is accepted, but not proven.
Therefore, God and all matters Spiritual are likewise (theoretically) possible. Whether or not you believe it is up to you, for either proposition. It still come down to faith.
That rotton word!!! Causes so much upset here in these forums . .
reply report
1. 80
  skyfireposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If there are no proof for dimension then that doesn't mean there is any hint of existence of god. Plus going by that reasoning so-called god is trapped in same dimension as his creation and that turns down the possibility of spirituality. Spirituality theories requires dimension other than the present one.
  reply report
  67
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Spirituality theories requires dimension other than the present one."
  I say BINGO.! (Right on..)
  That's kinda what I said, NO?
  reply report
59
Jeramiposted 13 years ago
It just seems to me that nothing has been proven concerning the existence of or non existence of God.

That is all that I'm saying.

Matter coming into existence and out again.
We can say anything that we want to about this.
reply report
1. 60
  stilljustwonderinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No, we can't prove to their satisfaction that he does exist. They can't prove that he doesn't.
  I think it is totally ridiculious that all this money is spent to try to prove anything. Isn't there much better things to spend it on?
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The same could be said about unicorns and leprechauns. I can't prove they exist and you can't prove they don't exist. Therefore, you must believe in unicorns and leprechauns using the same logic.
  reply report
  59
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  By the same logic I can not with all certainty say that they do or don't. I can believe either way as you also are free to do.
  
  If I remove your free will to decide for yourself then I SHOULD be required to show you proof.
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  In other words, you are free to contradict yourself no matter how absurd, irrational or impossible it may seem.
  
  If you are shown how utterly absurd, irrational and impossible it is to freely believe in one thing and not the other, you certainly are required to show me the proof.
  reply report
  60
  stilljustwonderinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I wouldn't try to argue with you about it either way. What ever you believe, you are free to do so. If you have had an experience with a unicorn or leprechaun, you would believe they are real, and no one could convince you other wise.
  No one is required to show you proof of anything. No aspect of our lives rest on what you believe.
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That's because you have no argument.
  
  That is where you're entirely wrong, again. Our world is controlled by religious mindsets, which have serious repercussions on many aspects of our lives. Since that is the case, I do demand proof.
  reply report
  92
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, I am sure you are wrong. What could religion have to do with troubles in Isreal, with terrorism, with that mosque in New York, with presidents praying to get advice on starting wars, with arguments over abortion, stem cell research.. No, religion has no influence whatsoever.
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You're right, how silly of me not to have noticed that.
  reply report
  59
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If that is true? Religion can be seen as a branch of politics.
  We have Republicans and democrats religious and non religious. These all have an agenda. In a Democracy the Majority rules.
  For Atheists to require the dismantling of all religious affiliations is the same thing as Republicans demanding the dismantling of the Democratic party.
  
  A minority crying because they are not the Majority.
  
  Seeing it from this prospective it seems logical for Atheists to join the campaign trail. They have to follow the same rules that everyone else does.
  
  Just a bunch of mud slinging rhetoric while on the campaign trail.
  reply report
  60
  stilljustwonderinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I have agreed that some of the wars are religious wars. I just don't agree that religion is the root of all problems.
  Israel, a territorial dispute. They all want that land.
  The mosque in New York. The bombing of the WTC has a lot to do with that.
  I know athiests who don't believe in abortion and stem cell research.
  reply report
  60
  Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "That is where you're entirely wrong, again. Our world is controlled by religious mindsets, which have serious repercussions on many aspects of our lives. Since that is the case, I do demand proof."
  
  Then get busy looking for it.
  
  You demand?
  
  Demand in one hand and shit in the other, see which fills up faster.
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps, you're not aware of the Burden of Proof fallacy in which the claimant is supposed to provide the proof. One does make a statement of belief and then expect everyone else to run around proving him right.
  reply report
  60
  Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Perhaps, you're not aware of the Burden of Proof fallacy"
  
  Do you demand this?
  
  Try doing what I said and call it a scientific experiment.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  How did it turn out for you, Jim? LOL!
  reply report
  60
  Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I didn't demand anything from anybody so I didn't have to do it.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, it was just your unproven theory? HA!
  reply report
  60
  Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It seems to be a logical theory considering no one is answering his demands.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So your theory is, it's a logical theory, but unproven as yet? DOH!
  report
  60
  Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I'm sure someone has tried it, maybe pcunix.
  report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It was your suggestion as to the experiment's merit in the discussion. Therefore, it would be good for you to do a demonstration for us. A video will do just fine! (no gloves please!)
  report
  60
  Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You think that would be good?
  
  I question your taste.
  report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Your idea to begin with, what does it say about your taste, Jim? LOL!
  report
  60
  Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  But Randy, I didn't request a visual of the result.
  
  However you may question my taste, there are somethings that I do that are quite distasteful.
  
  But not that.
  report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  LOL!
  report
  92
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No theory, just what he was told. Good enough for Grandpa, good enough for Pa and on it goes..
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Why should I?
  reply report
  60
  Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Why not?
  reply report
  92
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Jim is a conservative. Conservatives simply detest change. Losing his religious fantasies would be a definite change and therefore must be avoided.
  
  It really is that simple.
  reply report
  60
  Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Pcunix is a liberal therefore he hates individual thought and relies on pack mentality to guide his distorted worldview.
  
  It really is that simple.
  reply report
  92
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Pack mentality in liberals? What utter nonsense.
  
  Of course you wouldn't know, but liberals seldom agree on anything. We are not like consrvatives, Jim: we are not afraid to have our own opinions.
  
  Why do you think the term "ditto heads" came to be? That is conservative "thought" - find out what the leader thinks and believe that.
  
  That is one of the many, many reasons I have no respect for conservative philosophy. Aside from always being on the wrong side of history, the lemming mentaiity is obvious. Ditto heads indeed.
  reply report
  60
  Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Blah, blah,blah.
  
  Go buy something with your massive wealth.
  reply report
  92
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Jim's apparent non-sequitor (I apologize for the big word, Jim) comes from a conversation in which I described what a typical middle class lifestyle was like a few decades ago. Poor Jim confused that with massive wealth. It is tragic how much conservatives have decreased expectations, isn't it?
  
  I keep telling you, Jimmy, it is not too late. You just need to open your eyes and stop listening to the lies of billionaires.
  
  Now back to conservatives and religion: because conservatives shun science (something might change!) they believe religion is necessary for an orderly society. That is why religion is such a big part of their politics: they fear that we would have rampant crime and disorder without it.
  
  Right, Jimmy? Does your tummy get all funny and achy when you think about it?
  reply report
  60
  Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Jim's apparent non-sequitor (I apologize for the big word, Jim) comes from a conversation in which I described what a typical middle class lifestyle was like a few decades ago. Poor Jim confused that with massive wealth. It is tragic how much conservatives have decreased expectations, isn't it?"
  
  No, what you tried to do was impress me with your imaginary money and called people who work for a living wage slaves.
  
  Anything you write now is just....Blah,blah,blah.
  
  Have a nice day Uncle Pennybags.
  report
  72
  getitriteposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  ANGRY CHILDISH NONSENSE!!!!!!!!!!!
  reply report
  60
  Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  60
  stilljustwonderinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Demand all ya want to. I am not trying to make you believe anything. I really don't care what you believe. Your belief has no effect what so ever on my life.
  So go ahead, demand, see where that gets ya.
  
  I have no argument about your unicorn because, I don't care if you believe it or not.
  
  What you believe is strickly up to you.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "I don't care if you believe it or not."
  
  "What you believe is strickly up to you."
  
  Fine! Don't try and convince others your beliefs are correct then!
  reply report
  60
  stilljustwonderinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not trying to convince any one of anything. Why would I try? I know that trying to push my views on people will only push them away.
  I was speaking to Jeremi when Belzedad opened this conversation.
  
  Maybe when I am speaking with another believer and a non believer joins the conversation I should ignore them? Probably since if I respond to a reply I am pushing my views. Yes, to just ignore a non believer is what I should do. Right?
  reply report
  92
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe if you want to talk to one person you should send them email.
  reply report
  60
  stilljustwonderinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I don't have a problem with some one joining in the conversation. The one who is joining in seems to have a problem with the topic of conversation.
  I'm not going to ask you a question if I know your answer isn't going to be good enough for me.
  Every one knows our belief is built on faith. So why demand proof?
  You know as well as he does what faith is. There is no proof that will satisfy some one who doesn't believe.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  What is your point?
  U beleeb - we know. So wot? IT is nonsense. We know.
  
  Thanks for demonstrating ur igrenence. I do dnot demand proof. U have none to offer. U beleeb coz it is wot jeebus sed innit. WHy would anyone ask you top offer proof of that?
  
  Thx - pleeze keep it 2 urself. Thanks.
  reply report
  60
  stilljustwonderinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Great spelling there. Shows high intelligence.
  reply report
  72
  getitriteposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  This is madness, sorry.
  How is this reasonable in any way?
  Faith in nonsense means nothing but nonsense. It's indefensible.
  reply report
  59
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  And by other deinitions of nonsense, what you have said is nonsense.
  So lets gather tobether all of the nonsense and make soup.
  reply report
  60
  stilljustwonderinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  In your opinion. Every one has one.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  And to just ignore a believer is what I should do, right?
  reply report
  60
  stilljustwonderinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You got it.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Then we may have more Jonestown massacres and witch trials! More holy wars and koran burnings are not my idea of letting things go! You don't talk for belief in superstition and I won't talk against it! Fair enough?
  reply report
  60
  stilljustwonderinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Let's see. My beliefs that I post is,
  Don't judge people,
  don't offend people,
  love one another,
  forgive.
  So, explain to me how my beliefs is causing massacre's and witch trials?
  Just because of some extremist, doesn't mean every one is.
  There are also terrorist and evil people who are athiest. Can we blame all athiest for what they do? I don't think so.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  My apologies! I mistook you for a christian!
  report
  60
  stilljustwonderinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I am a Christian. I am a Christian that follows the teachings of Jesus. All the Christians I know do. It is always the extremist who makes the news.
  The extremist, who makes the history books. Ya don't hear about the rest of us who are just trying to live in peace. Who was shocked by Westboro Baptist and Jones.
  I'm not pushing my beliefs on any one, but if you reply to me, I will answer.
  I am not trying to convince any one of anything. Why ask me a question if ya don't want to hear the answer? Why ask me a question then say your tired of hearing?
  report
  59
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Some times" they ask questions only in hopes that they can catch us with our foot in our mouth.
  
  Sometimes it happens. Sometimes it is theirs.
  
  but sometimes they just want to see what "kind" of Christian they are talking to.
  report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  As in "good christians" and "bad christians" of course!
  report
  59
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I would never call anyone a Good Christian or Bad Christian.
  
  I guess that would be in the eyes of the beholder kind of thing.
  
  Is a big crayon better or worse than a little crayon?
  Is the red crayon better or worse than a blue crayon?
  
  And if it is blue how dark of a blue is it?
  report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Or is a big dose of poison better than a small dose....!
  report
  59
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That depends on whatcha want to do with it.
  report
  92
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Isn't that wonderful? So whatever they do, as long as they are Christian, they are ok by you.
  report
  59
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You sure do have quite an imagination for putting words into other peoples mouth.
  
  Too bad it seems you don't have much when it comes to issues of sociology.
  
  Quite closed minded in fact. Your way or the highway.
  
  .
  report
  92
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Do you just make up stuff by yourself or does someone help you?
  report
  59
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think this stuff up and no one helps except for people like you that give me the material to work with.
  report
  82
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Where do you reckon those extreme views come from?
  report
  92
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Satan. Gotta be the red guy.
  report
  82
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Where would I read about satan again?
  
  Wasn't he the fallen fairy made by the boss of the fairies who made himself into another fairy then killed hisself?
  report
  92
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I suspect there was more to it. We have never heard his side, have we?
  report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I've never stated I was tired of hearing anyone's honest answers to my questions! On the contrary, I truly wonder at how the religious mind justifies believing things which are so obviously illogical compared to science!
  report
  60
  stilljustwonderinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I'm sorry. No, I don't believe I have actually heard those words from you. I have heard them from others.
  I don't mind discussing my faith with some one who is interested in how I got where I am. I am not going to participate in a conversation where I am just being ridiculed for my belief. I am not going to push my faith, or experiences on any one. Then again, my experiences confirm my faith to me.
  You have read the Bible yourself, I imagine. I haven't heard you state that. I think a lot of non faith people have. So you know belief is based on faith. It is also based on experiences.
  If you truly wonder how I got to my beliefs being firmly planted into my heart you can read my 2 hubs. If not, then don't read them.
  I am not here to push my faith on any one. We each have the right to believe how ever we believe. I respect that. I would appreciate the same consideration.
  report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I do believe you have a right to believe anything you like if it doesn't affect me or anyone else personally! But when one's beliefs affect their ability to realistically assess a situation which may adversely affect someone else, I draw the line!
  
  But perhaps you are different and would say the gods of other cults are just as good as yours! You know, non-judgmental equality for all beliefs! Or is your god the only true one!
  report
  59
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Randy,I do believe you have a right to believe anything you like if it doesn't affect me or anyone else personally! But when one's beliefs affect their ability to realistically assess a situation which may adversely affect someone else, I draw the line! You seem to think that your reality is the only one of merit. And purposefully insult and judge and belittle people purely for sport. If you call this a higher state of consciousness or a better class of people then I must disagree,
  
  But you do have the right to believe anything that you like.
  report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It is your judgment that I belittle and insult believers for sport, Jerami! This is exactly what I am speaking of! Belittlement only works if the subject is clearly ludicrous! Does one feel belittled unless it is merited?
  
  And I assure you, there is no sport in exposing ignorance and superstition! It is a matter of trying to stop the believers from corrupting our civilization! We have had enough of that already!
  report
  59
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It is your judgment that I belittle and insult believers for sport, Jerami!
  =============================
  
  To be honest ... since it will not achieve any worthwhile goal, there are few reasons that I can see other than some kind of self gratification.
  Anything that will make us feel better about ourselves is easy to justify.
  Everybody is doing it!
  That is the first justification. Once we get started it gets easier. I have a 100 of them that covers just about anything that I might want to do. Or not do.
  
  When the pack mentality kicked in ... Self justification just about tore the United States apart during the 60s.
  Had it not been for Martin Luther King and his way of fighting civil corruption. it would have burned to the ground.
  
  Everyone had an abundance of self justification.
  And still do. That don't make it right.
  
  And it don't make anything any BETTER either.
  
  I just ask that we all do a self evaluation on a daily basis.
  report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Your hubs and experiences suggest that your faith is something you want to believe and nothing more. If your prayers get answered, why don't the prayers of the starving get answered? That is the reason why your faith cannot be respected.
  report
  60
  stilljustwonderinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Actually I believe God has many names and we may all be praying to the same God, but using a different name.
  I think people some times comprehend the Bible differently. I think that is where the different views come from. I was once told that I would go to hell because I trim my hair, wear make up and pants. I don't believe it, I comprehended differently. I think that is where the extremist are coming from. They comprehend differently.
  I follow the teachings of Jesus. You know them. Judge not lest ye be judged. It isn't my place to judge any one. Jesus said, He with no sin cast the first stone. Well, I'm not perfect, so I'm not going to throw any stones.
  report
  72
  getitriteposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Like, maybe Bible Study?
  reply report
  59
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  In times of plenty we should prove or disprove anything that we can.
  
  Mr Hawking has a great mind and makes money with his books which is as it should be.
  
  But to take his book and make claims that he is saying something that he does not say is in error.
  
  To say that a car does not "have to" run on gasoline
  does not say that there in no such thing as gasoline.
  reply report
  92
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  But when there is no evidence of gasoline, when nobody has ever seen anything that runs on gasoline, what does that tell you about people who go around pretending that cars run on it?
  reply report
  72
  getitriteposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  reply report
  59
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  At one time no one imagined that the gasoline engine could run on anything else.
  
  They never imagined an automobile being propelled by anything else. Batteries and solar power was unknown. Unprovable, By your logic "Impossible".
  
  When we begin categorizing the unprovable as impossible, we have become closed minded.
  
  I believe anything imaginable is possible. Yes even unicorns. I won't buy one till I see it though.
  reply report
  92
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, the likely first automobile was steam powered. Electric vehicles also came quite early.
  
  But you missed the point. You babble about mystical forces and imaginary beings. They plainly do not exist, but you keep insisting they do.
  reply report
  59
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I am insisting that to exclude the possibility of a source from out side our system of logic having any influence here is not logical.
  
  Nor would it be logical to declare what exactly that source of influence looks like.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No one is excluding anything except your imaginary friend who wrote a book explaining what was going to come to pass.
  
  The fact that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of a source from outside our system of logic is a good reason for discounting it.
  
  You on the other hand claim to have certain knowledge. You even claim this outside source sent its only son to earth.
  
  And then you speak of logic. Too funny.
  reply report
  92
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Not "impossible". Vanishingly unlikely.
  
  It's POSSIBLE for all the molecules in the left your body to move in opposite direction to those on your right and unzip you right down the middle. It's POSSIBLE for water to just start boiling away without being heated for the same reason. Neither is ever going to happen.
  
  That's the kind of "possibility" your religion is built on. Something so completely ridiculous that no one should ever believe it - but you do, don't you?
  reply report
  59
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  When I was raising my children it never ceased to amaze me how they could always come back with a ridiculous argument that had nothing to do with what I was saying.
  
  Like they might say "You say anything is impossible, then a tree can grow with its leaves under ground and its roots sticking straight up in the air?"
  
  What does that have to do with me saying that they could become president of the US of A some day. Cause anything is possible.
  
  You do what you accuse Christians of doing. Neglecting anything that does not fit within a concept that you wish to hold onto. If you do not want it to be applicable then you insist that it isn't.
  
  Seems that we both are guilty of this to some degree.
  I admitt this. ???
  reply report
  72
  getitriteposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  But you don't need to see God to buy right into Him. Why?
  Amazing how contradicting your reasoning is.
  
  Seems to be based on something other than reason, to me.
  Could it be fear?
  reply report
  59
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  How do you know what I have or have not seen?
  
  If you have not seen something; then you presume no one has.
  reply report
  92
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If you think you have seen things other people cannot see, you need a psychiatrist.
  reply report
  59
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Everyone has seen things that some people haven't.
  
  Everyone is different.
  
  No one is exactly like you or me. So we all need help????
  reply report
  92
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Nice evasion, Jerami, but you know that is not what I meant.
  
  Have you seen things, Jerami? Angels, maybe? Do you hear voices in your head?
  
  Or are you like the rest of us? No visions, no spirit voices.
  reply report
  59
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Have I seen things ??? absolutely
  
  Angels ? I don't know. I have had dreams many times that in those dreams I was told things that came about exactly as seen in the dream.
  Fore warnings if ya want to call it that.. that this person or that were going to die. And a few have died that I didn't have dreams about beforehand.
  All kinds of dreams. Many have come true, some were averted.
  Voices ?? We all have at some time or another. When that happens we usually call it our overactive imagination.
  And turn that aspect of consciousness off.
  What is it when we imagine a thing... go look it up in a science book and discover it to be accepted as true.
  Or to imagine a thing and tomorrow or next week you see that that thing came to pass.
  
  I don't know what that thing is.... I just know that it is. And it is not for anyone else to tell me that it isn't.
  
  By any other name ..a rose still is what IT is.
  reply report
  72
  getitriteposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No I don't know what you have seen, but I do know...
  
  Those who see things that aren't real are suffering from some kind of imbalance, be it ocular or otherwise.
  reply report
  59
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  And if we chose the next 100 people that we see walking down the street and let them decide what is NORMAL ???
  
  We both might be surprised to find out that neither of us are.
  reply report
  72
  getitriteposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  I'm just gonna copy Pcunix's reply since this is your MO.
  
  Pcunix wrote:
  
  Nice evasion, Jerami, but you know that is not what I meant.
  
  Have you seen things, Jerami? Angels, maybe? Do you hear voices in your head?
  
  Or are you like the rest of us? No visions, no spirit voices.
  reply report
72
getitriteposted 13 years ago
Any conclusion drawn from a nonsensical presupposition is absurd.
reply report
80
skyfireposted 13 years ago
I'll take meaning of "supreme" as creator of universe,okay ? Then do you think creator who managed to handle the supernova, meteor showers and other destructive events will give birth to a son who ends up getting knocked down on cross ? and preaches path of only one religion ? Sounds like lamest supremacy to me.

Let's get real. Studying science gives you better perception towards what you fantasize as "supreme".
reply report
59
Jeramiposted 13 years ago
Mark Knowles wrote
The simple fact is that most scientific knowledge points to the fact that we do not need a "supreme entity," in order for the Universe to have come into existence.
---------

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

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

----------

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

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

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

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

Desperation? Not ...
Some people are trying to make the wagon go faster that the horses can run.
I'm just point that out.
reply report
1. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No. It means exactly what I said.
  
  I was merely pointing out that you actually got everything wrong. Including the name of the man you were quoting as having said something you did not understand.
  
  Smells like desperation from here.
  
  This makes no sense at all.
  reply report
  61
  Abhishek87posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Pardon my ignorance in the matter of these discussions that I find on Hubpages related to God, Supreme beings, Believers, Non-Believers, atheists and so on....
  
  I just have one simple question? Why can't we be convinced with our belief? Why does someone who believes in God need to prove it (read posting in forums) to exactly the people not at all interested (atheists).
  
  And, why are those, who deny the supreme beings, bent on blasting anyone who has any views (read hate messages).
  reply report
  52
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  They blast because they don't find any brilliant arguments.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  LOL
  As opposed to god dunnit LOLOLO
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Why is it okay to tell others god is real and bad for us to disagree with you on things we see as wrong or delusional? I'll bet some of those suicides at Jonestown could have been prevented if more people would have tried to tell them they were deluded by false beliefs! This is a good enough reason for me to keep the religious nonsense down on here! No apologies from me!
  reply report
59
Jeramiposted 13 years ago
Another thing that was discussed on Larry King
When asked about life after death . He said that there is no proof what so ever as to what happens after death.
He then added that there is no proof as to what consciousness is or where it comes from.

So wouldn't the same rules apply to consciousness as it does to a creator. No scientific proof of either ??
reply report
1. 82
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes it would appear to at first glance, but in reality you have theories and empirical evidence about the source of religiosity that strongly indicates that the mechanism can be understood.
  
  On the other hand we have a ridiculous myth that remains without any proof of any sort ever with a blatant agenda.
  reply report
2. 92
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So now Larry King is an expert on conscioysness?
  
  There is nothing mystjcal about consciousness. It is nothing but feedback loops.
  reply report
59
Jeramiposted 13 years ago
HMmmmm... I like your attitude!?!? Thanks ....

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

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

I wonder what is way over/in there"
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 Hawkins said so

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 Hawkins said so

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies