West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: The Overfiend on October 18, 2010, 11:05:03 PM
-
Damn....I just thought of this shit, so I googled it and that mutherfucker Hawkins beat me to it....already has book out on it...Look at that fuck leering at me in his chair! >:(
http://www.bruneinews.net/story/680210
Stephen Hawking says the universe created itself
Brunei News.Net
Thursday 2nd September, 2010
A new book written by famous British physicist, Stephen Hawking, claims that God did not create the universe and the "big bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics.
Britain’s award-winning physicist says in the book, "The Grand Design," which he wrote with Leonard Mlodinow, a US physicist, that God had nothing to do with the big bang.
Hawking argues it is not necessary to invoke God to "get the Universe going."
In an excerpt from the book, published in the Times, Hawking says that spontaneous creation is the reason there is something, as opposed to nothing, and that unravelling a complex series of theories would explain the universe.
He says: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."
The book is to be published on September 9th.
In his previous writing, "A Brief History of Time," Hawking accepted the possibility of a creator, saying the discovery of a complete theory would allow humans to "know the mind of God."
-
I was waiting for somebody to post this. Waiting.
If there wasn't a Creator why would there be death?
If there wasn't a Creator why does everythang happen to work on time? You callin' chance?
He sayin' this universe self-created itself into one big giant coincidence? Holeee fuck. That is crazy. Now, I suggest for those on the board who are gonna knock someone for stupidity, I say read the following, slowly that way there, comprehension on another's behalf could TAKE PLACE. What if God is uncreated? And self-creation is an action right? How could somethang self-create itself? Doesn't somethang already have to 'be', in order for it to act? The same field this guy practices in, explains to us, cause and effect, cause and effect, cause and effect. So there has to be a cause for self-creation. Creation, no matter what's put in front of it, creation itself is an effect. Ain't it? The Big Bang theory for example, is the cause? And life is the effect? But how could there not be a cause for The Big Bang?
So how is it unlogical that somethang, out of space (which humans still can't begin to measure or understand), but anyways, how is it unlogical that somethang, out of space, uncreated, CAUSE somethang to create, making US believe it is self-creation. Oh my, what a thought. By the way, I love the fact that we have no idea and that will never will!!!! Ha HA ha.
So now after some valid thoughts, go ahead muthafuckas bring up Jesus Christ. I don't know nuttin' bout God, but I'm taught to understood he is bigger than what our minds could even conceive. And it ain't The Bible teaching me that, but Science Textbooks. So bong bitch, bong.
-
:)
-
his wife also beats him up
-
I was waiting for somebody to post this. Waiting.
If there wasn't a Creator why would there be death?
If there wasn't a Creator why does everythang happen to work on time? You callin' chance?
He sayin' this universe self-created itself into one big giant coincidence? Holeee fuck. That is crazy. Now, I suggest for those on the board who are gonna knock someone for stupidity, I say read the following, slowly that way there, comprehension on another's behalf could TAKE PLACE. What if God is uncreated? And self-creation is an action right? How could somethang self-create itself? Doesn't somethang already have to 'be', in order for it to act? The same field this guy practices in, explains to us, cause and effect, cause and effect, cause and effect. So there has to be a cause for self-creation. Creation, no matter what's put in front of it, creation itself is an effect. Ain't it? The Big Bang theory for example, is the cause? And life is the effect? But how could there not be a cause for The Big Bang?
So how is it unlogical that somethang, out of space (which humans still can't begin to measure or understand), but anyways, how is it unlogical that somethang, out of space, uncreated, CAUSE somethang to create, making US believe it is self-creation. Oh my, what a thought. By the way, I love the fact that we have no idea and that will never will!!!! Ha HA ha.
So now after some valid thoughts, go ahead muthafuckas bring up Jesus Christ. I don't know nuttin' bout God, but I'm taught to understood he is bigger than what our minds could even conceive. And it ain't The Bible teaching me that, but Science Textbooks. So bong bitch, bong.
If there is a creator why would there be death?
SHit doesn't happen/work on time at all, ask the dinosaurs.
Also "The universe created itself" is not yet the accepted theory, some people think the big bang occured when 2 other universes within the multiverse colided.
Another theory is that the big bang happens as a result of the end of the (old) universe.
-
Awesome news, but nothing new. In my opinion this makes more sense than a god-created universe. Or at least more sense than the claim that a single religion has the correct explanation of the creation. My 2 cents.
PS, I'm a happy owner of
http://www.ps2netdrivers.net/7990/becker.grand.prix/
:-P
-
Look: I'm in no mood to discuss this creation shit anymore since we will never know the origins of the world in our lifetimes if ever and it will always be speculation no matter how logical or illogical those speculations may be.
However, I will say this: Stephen Hawking pulls bitches while in a wheelchair. Dude divorced his wife and started fuckin with the bitch that was his nurse. HE LEFT HIS WIFE AND STARTED FUCKING THE SAME WOMAN WHO CHANGES HIS DIAPERS AND WIPES HIS ASS!
For that, he is my hero.
-
Nobody knows how this thing started, but it's very easy to put god in when you don't know the answer. This is what every religious moron does when they don't understand something. It's almost like throwing the towel in the ring and saying 'I give up'. They've done this since the beginning of man. Thankfully they were slowly forced to change their childish assertions when science put a monkey wrench in their whole program. I also think it's truly laughable to hear a religious nut try to boost his case by pointing to causality. How come you don't use that with god you fuccin idiot? If god put this whole thing in motion then who the fucc put god in motion? Who created the creator? You see where I'm going with this. This is what religious people do. They put a limit to their questions.
-
Nobody knows how this thing started, but it's very easy to put god in when you don't know the answer. This is what every religious moron does when they don't understand something.
HAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
How ironic... Again. Science does the same exact shit.
I don't know how you come to these solid conclusions that modern day science experiments and theorys somehow lessens evidence of a God. I have no fuckin idea how people do that.
The superior complex shit is played out. And that's all this is about, as I'm fuckin' learning here. 'Becuz science say this, becuz science say that, therefore you are stupid and unenlightened and I know more than you.' I mean if you choose not to believe in a God, I do respect that, who am I not too. But for niggas to belittle others for believing in a superior being, is STUPID. And one of the most ridiculous concepts. It's like you can't even have a discussion becuz when a thought gets brought up, 'the enlightened extra superior Atheist's' only comeback is a remark of calling names. So really how superior is that? Ego hurts, don't it, when a person doesn't have no fuckin' idea how to respond or answer to some valid ideas. So let's play the dozens like we in grammar school, word? Really. You are puttin' faith into a ever-changing study. It's a study of observations...than they give it a name. That's all it is. And you are puttin' faith into people conducting the experiments. Okay, how does that differ anymore from a belief like mines? How? It doesn't and ya'll know it. But instead, just come back and tell me I'm an idiot. Trying to down someone just to make YOUR intellect look better, is lame men. Humility = wisdom, not strong vocabulary and perfect grammar, and I'm not downing education by saying that. Becuz proper education should = humility. Crazy when you spend hours reading and educating yaself, than you find out, you don't really know nuttin' at all. But looks like in some cats cases shit has the adverse effect. :-\ Didn't anybody's grandmama teach anybody anythang here?
If god put this whole thing in motion then who the fucc put god in motion? Who created the creator? You see where I'm going with this. This is what religious people do. They put a limit to their questions.
I definitely just said shit bout that. But whatever. It's one thang to throw insults and another to build off a discussion. So whatever I'll take my titles as a fuckin' retarded ass idiot with stupid ass beliefs, who otherwise should believe is some homo ass pink elephants and giant spaghetti monsters, Santa Clauses and Tinker Bell looking ass Tooth Fairys, and Jesus Christ and Adam and Eve becuz I :stupid:. So I sorry.
-
Is any body else starting to think QT left to research the subject and not sound like an idiot talking about the wind?
I don't belittle people who believe in a superior being, I belittle people who believe in it a certain way.
Dude we used to seriously try to learn you about this but we fucking gave up.
People conducting experiments, that's exactly what I like about it.
I can touch people, I can check their maths and see if and where they fuck up
-
Homie you can not SEE the wind, how is that stupid. Can you SEE it? It was on the topic of visualizations. I was talkin about thangs naked to the eye. You see?
A certain way? Ikke, come on my nigga.
-
the only time you can "see" the wind is when it's sweeping up debris (i.e. a tornado)
-
They said before they don't believe in God becuz they can't see him, but I says you can't see air neither. So how bout a better point, I implyed by sayin' that. I don't know why but that's stupid. ???
-
Coming up with a god doesn't actually answer any questions. What created the universe? Okay God did? What created God? You see that? It's just replacing the question with what's basically the same question.
-
If He exists outside time and space, as we know it, how does he have to be created? How do we know there isn't somethang bigger than Space??
-
If He exists outside time and space, as we know it, how does he have to be created? How do we know there isn't somethang bigger than Space??
So.....if you don't feel its necessary for this god to be created by something, then why do you think its necessary for the universe to be created by something? My point being, you feel so compelled to come up a creator, but you completely ignore the creation of the creator. It seems a waste of time because you aren't really answering the question of how things came to be.
You laugh at the idea that the universe created itself. But now you're saying that God created itself? Just replace God with Universe and you'd be saying the same thing.
-
How is saying the Universe created itself any different then saying God created the Universe? They are both "something out of nothing" theories.
-
http://www.youtube.com/v/mlnXRoCn7Lk?fs=1&hl=en_US
-
Nobody knows how this thing started, but it's very easy to put god in when you don't know the answer. This is what every religious moron does when they don't understand something.
How ironic... Again. Science does the same exact shit.
The difference between a person of faith and your modern day scientist has to do with their perspective. Most scientists don't rule out god, but people of faith never rule out god. After all, they don't wanna go against their faith. Their main focus is always on god and therefore it becomes their main theory when dealing with things they don't understand. This is why faith prevents people from having a broad perspecitve and that is why there is less room for improvement. So please don't compare scientific theories (which is plural) to the single theory of god you fucking idiot. Science does not fall into the same trap. When scientists don't know the answer, they use millions of theories with valid evidence behind most of them. You have one single theory that you cling on like a cocksucker and not only is there NO EVIDENCE to give it a little weight, but there's NO EVIDENCE to prove god's existence either. NONE! You call that a valid theory? It wouldn't hold up in bullshit court. Yes I know you've taken issue with my namecalling, but it's very hard to hold back when you're dealing with this level of stupidity. I hope you as a Christian man will forgive me for that.
I don't know how you come to these solid conclusions that modern day science experiments and theorys somehow lessens evidence of a God. I have no fuckin idea how people do that.
First of all there is no evidence of a god, but I will definitely let you know as soon as they discover something. Have faith.
And you are puttin' faith into people conducting the experiments. Okay, how does that differ anymore from a belief like mines? How? It doesn't and ya'll know it .
I hope for your sake you will one day figure out the difference between the material world and the spirit world.
If He exists outside time and space, as we know it, how does he have to be created? How do we know there isn't somethang bigger than Space??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I'm gonna answer this one after I have some shots first.
-
How is saying the Universe created itself any different then saying God created the Universe? They are both "something out of nothing" theories.
I want an Atheistic response to this.
-
How is saying the Universe created itself any different then saying God created the Universe? They are both "something out of nothing" theories.
I want an Atheistic response to this.
yeah I fail to see how everything in existance just appeared out of nowhere
matter don't create itself
-
So please don't compare scientific theories (which is plural) to the single theory of god you fucking idiot.
:banana:
When scientists don't know the answer, they use millions of theories with valid evidence behind most of them.
And it is ever-changing. So you are basing beliefs on somethang that could be proved wrong by another theory tomorrow.
I don't know how you come to these solid conclusions that modern day science experiments and theorys somehow lessens evidence of a God. I have no fuckin idea how people do that.
First of all there is no evidence of a god, but I will definitely let you know as soon as they discover something. Have faith.
No shit Sherlock, so it does not LESSEN evidence of a God.
-
How is saying the Universe created itself any different then saying God created the Universe? They are both "something out of nothing" theories.
I want an Atheistic response to this.
For one. It's a scientific theory. There is actually a difference between that and a theory that centers largely around the spirit world.
-
How is saying the Universe created itself any different then saying God created the Universe? They are both "something out of nothing" theories.
I want an Atheistic response to this.
yeah I fail to see how everything in existance just appeared out of nowhere
matter don't create itself
As if The Big Bang Theory isn't coincidental enough, they also gotta say the effect it had, 80 foot tall Dinosaurs, oh and than, US, is all by mere chance.
-
How is saying the Universe created itself any different then saying God created the Universe? They are both "something out of nothing" theories.
I want an Atheistic response to this.
For one. It's a scientific theory. There is actually a difference between that and a theory that centers largely around the spirit world.
Scientific or spiritual, they are both theories with little evidence. And were is Hawking's evidence that the Universe created itself? It seems more like philosophy and rationalizing to me.
-
When scientists don't know the answer, they use millions of theories with valid evidence behind most of them.
And it is ever-changing. So you are basing beliefs on somethang that could be proved wrong by another theory tomorrow.
Yes I am lol, but not all theories can be ever changing. We are talking about theories right? You do know what a theory is? Let me try and put this in the most simplest way possible. Theories can not tell you for certain how something got started and that is why they can't give you solid answers. Every time a scientist presents a theory, he is not saying, 'I know the answer'. He's saying 'This could be the answer'. So he's also saying 'I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER'. Unlike you I have a very broad perspective and I don't limit my questions. Idiot.
I don't know how you come to these solid conclusions that modern day science experiments and theorys somehow lessens evidence of a God. I have no fuckin idea how people do that.
First of all there is no evidence of a god, but I will definitely let you know as soon as they discover something. Have faith.
No shit Sherlock, so it does not LESSEN evidence of a God.
You implied there was evidence. Glad you admit there's no evidence. This is progress.
-
How is saying the Universe created itself any different then saying God created the Universe? They are both "something out of nothing" theories.
I want an Atheistic response to this.
For one. It's a scientific theory. There is actually a difference between that and a theory that centers largely around the spirit world.
Scientific or spiritual, they are both theories with little evidence. And were is Hawking's evidence that the Universe created itself? It seems more like philosophy and rationalizing to me.
There is also a difference between evidence and no evidence.
-
How is saying the Universe created itself any different then saying God created the Universe? They are both "something out of nothing" theories.
I want an Atheistic response to this.
For one. It's a scientific theory. There is actually a difference between that and a theory that centers largely around the spirit world.
Scientific or spiritual, they are both theories with little evidence. And were is Hawking's evidence that the Universe created itself? It seems more like philosophy and rationalizing to me.
There is also a difference between evidence and no evidence.
There's also a difference between left and right. What's your point?
-
How is saying the Universe created itself any different then saying God created the Universe? They are both "something out of nothing" theories.
I want an Atheistic response to this.
For one. It's a scientific theory. There is actually a difference between that and a theory that centers largely around the spirit world.
Scientific or spiritual, they are both theories with little evidence. And were is Hawking's evidence that the Universe created itself? It seems more like philosophy and rationalizing to me.
There is also a difference between evidence and no evidence.
There's also a difference between left and right. What's your point?
You really think that someone of Hawking's stature would present a theory based on mere belief? With god, you got nothing but mere belief.
-
How is saying the Universe created itself any different then saying God created the Universe? They are both "something out of nothing" theories.
I want an Atheistic response to this.
For one. It's a scientific theory. There is actually a difference between that and a theory that centers largely around the spirit world.
Scientific or spiritual, they are both theories with little evidence. And were is Hawking's evidence that the Universe created itself? It seems more like philosophy and rationalizing to me.
There is also a difference between evidence and no evidence.
There's also a difference between left and right. What's your point?
You really think that someone of Hawking's stature would present a theory based on mere belief? With god, you got nothing but mere belief.
We'd have to wait for Hawking's book to come out before that can be determined, but from what has been revealed from the book so far, that's all it seems to be. And God is not just mere belief. The concept of God at it's most basic label is just that the physical world as a beginning and end. Therefore something outside of the physical must be responsible for it. From that you get hundreds of religions, sects, and cults.
-
First of all there is no evidence of a god, but I will definitely let you know as soon as they discover something. Have faith.
t.
i never understand when atheists say something like this how can man prove God's existence i mean how is it possible to test God's existence, God is not a physical law like gravity or special relativity, i mean this is what God says concerning man: Romans 1:19-20 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. (20)For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
i mean God says to look all around you look carefully/deeper at life/creation, he has given you all of the proof you need, it depends how you are looking at it.
i dont know what Athiets expect, maybe God to physically appear and actually speak to them for them to believe (even then it would be God proving his existence and not man proving God's existence) and even then, there would probably be some scientist trying to say, "well that wasnt God you see when the mind is under a lot of stress it likes to create its own God in order to deal with the situation at hand"
oh yeah and on the topic of the universe creating itself, the reason why this is probably not true is because of laws like the First law of thermodynamics and that energy/matter can neither be created nor destroyed, so there had to be a beginning, i mean even if you believe that the universe came from other universes which came form other universes etc you still have to explain where the matter came from to create these universes. this might answer Rapsodie's question (also the second law of thermodynamics might apply here)
science and God do not have to be mutually exclusive (its only people who make it so) as someone one said Science explains how and God explains why
anyway, there is a good article on refuting this Theory by Stephen Hawkings written by a scientist
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-explain-universe-God.html
-
Christians will never accept the Big Bang Theory because they have been taught from a young age that it is a stupid idea.
Athiests will never accept Intelligent Design because they are convinced that the existence of God is a stupid idea.
There is no evidence towards either theory AND shitting on each other's theories is equally retarded.
I just want some alien pussy.
(http://rule34-images.paheal.net/_images/086f6501bc674d88ef0123f6f2169062/399074%20-%20James_Cameron%27s_Avatar%20Na%27vi%20neytiri.jpg)
-
big bang theory makes sense
god banged the universe and got her preggo
-
Christians will never accept the Big Bang Theory because they have been taught from a young age that it is a stupid idea.
Athiests will never accept Intelligent Design because they are convinced that the existence of God is a stupid idea.
There is no evidence towards either theory AND shitting on each other's theories is equally retarded.
Except there is evidence towards the Big Bang Theory. It doesn't prove a goddamn thing, but every scientific theory has to have it's pillars. The argument for intelligent design is so weak I shouldn't even have to waste my breath on it. If every man, woman and child had a MADE BY JESUS birthmark on them then MAYBE I'd buy into that shit. Because as of right now, god is doing a very very very good job at hiding himself and if he's revealed himself to idiots like Pat Robertson or Louie Farrakhan and not to a real nigga like myself and you Sik, then I don't think I'd like to serve that piece of shit.
Here's a nice lil article
Big Bang
In the Beginning
The Big Bang model of the universe's birth is the most widely accepted model that has ever been conceived for the scientific origin of everything. No other model can predict as much as the Big Bang model can.
A common question that people ask is "What happened before the Big Bang?" The phrase "in the beginning" is used here to refer to the birth of our universe with the Big Bang. In the creation of the universe, everything was compressed into an infinitesimally small point, in which all physical laws that we know of do not apply. No information from any "previous" stuff could have remained intact. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, the Big Bang is considered the beginning of everything, for we can never know if there was anything before it.
History of the Big Bang Model
The Big Bang model had its beginnings with Edwin Hubble's discovery in 1929 that, on large scales, everything in the universe is moving away from everything else. The only explanation for this was that the universe was expanding in every direction, and it was taking galaxies along with it.
The next step towards the Big Bang model was to take this process in reverse - that is, to go back in time. If the universe is "blowing up" like a balloon as time progresses, then what would happen if you were to run the timeline backwards? What was the universe like in the past?
If the universe is currently growing, then the universe was smaller in the past. There must have been some point in time when the universe was half its current size. Then there must have been a time when it was half that size. If you continue to run time backwards, there must have been a time when the universe was an infinitesimally small point*.
This is the basic idea behind the Big Bang. All matter and energy existed in an infinitely small point of infinite density a long time ago, and has since been expanding as our universe. One important note here is that the Big Bang was not an explosion in the universe, but rather it is an explosion of the universe. Therefore, there is no "center" of the universe from where the Big Bang started.
*In calculus, this is an adaptation of "Zeno's Paradox." Through this process, Zeno presented the paradox that a runner could never actually complete a race: They go half way, then three-quarters, then seven-eighths, and so on, but never do they get to finish the race. In calculus this is paradox is solved, but with the Big Bang, it can be used to show that the universe was not ever "nothing," but must have existed in an extremely tiny space at some time in the past.
Main Evidence
The Big Bang is the leading theory that almost all astrophysicists believe explains the origin of the universe. This is because all observations so far made support the Big Bang theory; there are four main lines of evidence that are most-often used.
The first was discussed above: The expansion of the universe. The universe is expanding now, so in the past it must have been smaller. If it were smaller in the past, then there probably was a time when it was infinitesimally small. One could ask why don't we think that it might be expanding now but it could have been shrinking before and we just don't know about it. The answer is that there is simply no mechanism that we know about that could accomplish this transition on a universal scale.
The second line of evidence is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) that was discovered in 1965 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson from Bell Labs. They were working with a microwave receiver, but were getting noise from every direction they pointed the receiver. It was coming from all over the sky at what seemed to be exactly the same frequency. This was the first evidence for the CMB, and they later shared a Nobel Prize for this discovery.
The CMB is an "echo" left over from when the universe was approximately 300,000 years old, as predicted by the Big Bang model. As something becomes compressed, as matter was when the universe was young, it becomes hot. The actual "heat" comes from particles' movements - the faster they move, the more energetic they are, and so the more heat we see. The universe was so hot before it was 300,000 years old that atoms could not form. Because of this, photons - particles of light - could not move around, for they kept reacting with electrons.
Therefore, during this period, the universe was effectively opaque. Once the universe had reached 300,000 years old, atoms could form, and electrons were now bound to a nucleus. Once this happened, photons could move about freely. This "first light" is the CMB, and its existence is a very strong indication that the Big Bang occurred.
The third major pillar of the Big Bang theory lies in the abundance of the different elements of the universe. The theory predicts that certain amounts of hydrogen, helium, and other elements should be made. Observations have shown almost exactly the amounts that are predicted.
The fourth piece is that the Big Bang theory is the only one that comprehensively lays down a framework for the eventual evolution of the universe as we observe it today.
http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/cosmos_bigbang.html
-
How is saying the Universe created itself any different then saying God created the Universe? They are both "something out of nothing" theories.
the universe and the "big bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics.
My God created it, the laws of physics.
Come on man that was in the first fucking post.
-
How is saying the Universe created itself any different then saying God created the Universe? They are both "something out of nothing" theories.
The only difference is that we actually know the universe exists. Why bother involving an invisible and mystical all-powerful entity?
-
How is saying the Universe created itself any different then saying God created the Universe? They are both "something out of nothing" theories.
I want an Atheistic response to this.
For one. It's a scientific theory. There is actually a difference between that and a theory that centers largely around the spirit world.
Scientific or spiritual, they are both theories with little evidence. And were is Hawking's evidence that the Universe created itself? It seems more like philosophy and rationalizing to me.
Hawkings theory isn't really based on anything. It's a speculation. But its a speculation that doesn't involve mystical all-powerful beings. Hence I'm more willing to hear it out than the Christian biblical stories?
-
If He exists outside time and space, as we know it, how does he have to be created? How do we know there isn't somethang bigger than Space??
So.....if you don't feel its necessary for this god to be created by something, then why do you think its necessary for the universe to be created by something? My point being, you feel so compelled to come up a creator, but you completely ignore the creation of the creator. It seems a waste of time because you aren't really answering the question of how things came to be.
You laugh at the idea that the universe created itself. But now you're saying that God created itself? Just replace God with Universe and you'd be saying the same thing.
QT you plan on offering a response to this?
-
I was waiting for somebody to post this. Waiting.
If there wasn't a Creator why would there be death?
If there wasn't a Creator why does everythang happen to work on time?
So now after some valid thoughts...
No way I'm gonna get sucked into this bullshit again, just this: Anybody who thinks these were valid thoughts should look for a legal guardian. Should come in handy in the long run.
-
Christians will never accept the Big Bang Theory because they have been taught from a young age that it is a stupid idea.
Athiests will never accept Intelligent Design because they are convinced that the existence of God is a stupid idea.
There is no evidence towards either theory AND shitting on each other's theories is equally retarded.
I just want some alien pussy.
(http://rule34-images.paheal.net/_images/086f6501bc674d88ef0123f6f2169062/399074%20-%20James_Cameron%27s_Avatar%20Na%27vi%20neytiri.jpg)
THere is actual avatar porn out there if your interested.
-
If He exists outside time and space, as we know it, how does he have to be created? How do we know there isn't somethang bigger than Space??
So.....if you don't feel its necessary for this god to be created by something, then why do you think its necessary for the universe to be created by something? My point being, you feel so compelled to come up a creator, but you completely ignore the creation of the creator. It seems a waste of time because you aren't really answering the question of how things came to be.
You laugh at the idea that the universe created itself. But now you're saying that God created itself? Just replace God with Universe and you'd be saying the same thing.
QT you plan on offering a response to this?
I've tried this with him, but he's never said god created himself. I think he's more comfortable with the idea that god's ways are above our understanding. To him, god is above space and time. He'll respond, but he's gonna need to prepare first.
I was waiting for somebody to post this. Waiting.
If there wasn't a Creator why would there be death?
If there wasn't a Creator why does everythang happen to work on time?
So now after some valid thoughts...
No way I'm gonna get sucked into this bullshit again, just this: Anybody who thinks these were valid thoughts should look for a legal guardian. Should come in handy in the long run.
You could say that again, but he's never gonna hear you. To him, these thoughts are as rational as 2+2 equals 4. I'm actually beginning to feel sorry for him.
-
Is any body else starting to think QT left to research the subject and not sound like an idiot talking about the wind?
NObody else
-
If He exists outside time and space, as we know it, how does he have to be created? How do we know there isn't somethang bigger than Space??
So.....if you don't feel its necessary for this god to be created by something, then why do you think its necessary for the universe to be created by something? My point being, you feel so compelled to come up a creator, but you completely ignore the creation of the creator. It seems a waste of time because you aren't really answering the question of how things came to be.
You laugh at the idea that the universe created itself. But now you're saying that God created itself? Just replace God with Universe and you'd be saying the same thing.
QT you plan on offering a response to this?
I've tried this with him, but he's never said god created himself. I think he's more comfortable with the idea that god's ways are above our understanding. To him, god is above space and time. He'll respond, but he's gonna need to prepare first.
That's what I think, but then he might as well just say the universe is above our understanding. Bringing in a god doesn't actually answer any questions.
-
How is saying the Universe created itself any different then saying God created the Universe? They are both "something out of nothing" theories.
The only difference is that we actually know the universe exists. Why bother involving an invisible and mystical all-powerful entity?
Because we are not debating that the universe exists, we are debating how it was created. Hawking provides no proof for his universe created itself theory (which violates the conservation of mass principle). Therefore I can't accept it because it has the same flaw as creationism: no evidence.
-
How is saying the Universe created itself any different then saying God created the Universe? They are both "something out of nothing" theories.
The only difference is that we actually know the universe exists. Why bother involving an invisible and mystical all-powerful entity?
Because we are not debating that the universe exists, we are debating how it was created. Hawking provides no proof for his universe created itself theory (which violates the conservation of mass principle). Therefore I can't accept it because it has the same flaw as creationism: no evidence.
There's no proof for any of this. Since we have no evidence, all of this is speculation. However, there is clearly a difference between Hawking making up some theory and an all-powerful divine being. We know the universe exists.
-
How is saying the Universe created itself any different then saying God created the Universe? They are both "something out of nothing" theories.
The only difference is that we actually know the universe exists. Why bother involving an invisible and mystical all-powerful entity?
Because we are not debating that the universe exists, we are debating how it was created. Hawking provides no proof for his universe created itself theory (which violates the conservation of mass principle). Therefore I can't accept it because it has the same flaw as creationism: no evidence.
There's no proof for any of this. Since we have no evidence, all of this is speculation. However, there is clearly a difference between Hawking making up some theory and an all-powerful divine being. We know the universe exists.
I feel like we are going in circles here. The question is not whether the universe exists. Everyone knows it does. The question is how it was created. Hawking saying the universe created itself and Creationists saying God created the universe have the same flaws since they both lack any real evidence. Beyond the Big Bang, their isn't any proof one way or the other.
-
Is any body else starting to think QT left to research the subject and not sound like an idiot talking about the wind?
NObody else
If he did, then he did a horrible job. most people learn and grow, but with him, it's almost like he's gone backwards. it's obvious religion has been a huge part of his entire life. He's constantly talking about what he was taught and how our views go against everything he was taught. I think his emotions have gotten the best of him. You see him make comments like "You don't tell a nigga there's no god". What the fucc is that about? And because of those emotions, I believe he's gotten more religious than before and that's why I think he's making less and less sense. This is what religion does to the weak minded. It's almost like cancer. You go from being to stupid to being brain dead.
-
How is saying the Universe created itself any different then saying God created the Universe? They are both "something out of nothing" theories.
The only difference is that we actually know the universe exists. Why bother involving an invisible and mystical all-powerful entity?
Because we are not debating that the universe exists, we are debating how it was created. Hawking provides no proof for his universe created itself theory (which violates the conservation of mass principle). Therefore I can't accept it because it has the same flaw as creationism: no evidence.
There's no proof for any of this. Since we have no evidence, all of this is speculation. However, there is clearly a difference between Hawking making up some theory and an all-powerful divine being. We know the universe exists.
I feel like we are going in circles here. The question is not whether the universe exists. Everyone knows it does. The question is how it was created. Hawking saying the universe created itself and Creationists saying God created the universe have the same flaws since they both lack any real evidence. Beyond the Big Bang, their isn't any proof one way or the other.
The universe exists. Hawking is speculating about spontaneous creation.
Creationism uses a divine entity that is not known to exist to explain the universe's creation.
They are both ideas with no real evidence behind them, but do you not see that one of them at least tries to have a basis in reality and the other asks you to conjure up an all-powerful entity? One is more "reasonable" than the other simply because it doesn't involve the supernatural.
-
If He exists outside time and space, as we know it, how does he have to be created? How do we know there isn't somethang bigger than Space??
So.....if you don't feel its necessary for this god to be created by something, then why do you think its necessary for the universe to be created by something? My point being, you feel so compelled to come up a creator, but you completely ignore the creation of the creator. It seems a waste of time because you aren't really answering the question of how things came to be.
You laugh at the idea that the universe created itself. But now you're saying that God created itself? Just replace God with Universe and you'd be saying the same thing.
QT you plan on offering a response to this?
I - feel - that - the - universe - was - created - by - somethang - becuz - I - don't - believe - in - coincidence. A term coined by scientists who can't figure out why thangs happen. If there is a reason why you eat, a reason why you drink, a reason why you sleep, there's gotta be reason why we live. You can pose some LAME ASS examples all day to try to refute this next statement, BUT THIS WORLD IS MADE IN PERFECTION. The way your blood pumps, your digestion system, your brain, the way the Earth rotates the Sun, the way you breathe, how you breath and intake oxygen, how the plants breathe, reproduction, rain that brings forth plants, growth of crops. How could you sit there in your chair and tell me THAT ISN'T DESIGN. HOW? Look here, we have these questions called the Five W's. Remember, we learned them in elementary? Who? What? When? Where? Why? I'ma ask them again. You think bout this now. Who? - What? - When? - Where? - Why?
Why does God have to be created if he is in a different realm? Above what our minds EVEN CAN COMPREHENDED! God could be uncreated, UNCREATED, in a place where a living human being will ever get to or ever measure or find. An uncreated force, that CREATED space. You ever heard the song, Don't Play With God, He Ain't Nothing To Play Wit?
Look I don't know how anythang can self create itself, I DON'T KNOW, OKAY I DON'T KNOW. But after all these THOUGHTS, I start thinking about thoughts. Thoughts, what the fuck is a thought? Damn, there has just gotta be somethang extra ordinary above US!
-
Is any body else starting to think QT left to research the subject and not sound like an idiot talking about the wind?
NObody else
What do you mean? Like as in reading? Yes, yes I have. That is where I spent 7 months. In books. :nahnah:
-
Is any body else starting to think QT left to research the subject and not sound like an idiot talking about the wind?
NObody else
If he did, then he did a horrible job. most people learn and grow, but with him, it's almost like he's gone backwards. it's obvious religion has been a huge part of his entire life. He's constantly talking about what he was taught and how our views go against everything he was taught. I think his emotions have gotten the best of him. You see him make comments like "You don't tell a nigga there's no god". What the fucc is that about? And because of those emotions, I believe he's gotten more religious than before and that's why I think he's making less and less sense. This is what religion does to the weak minded. It's almost like cancer. You go from being to stupid to being brain dead.
LOL at weak minded. I'm not the one who deserts thinking, wondering, and humility, to follow some arrogant, 'rebellious', egotistical idea. Shut de door, keep out de devil.
-
This is a stupid discussion. We are arguing about speculation. Pinning one person's speculation against another when neither has any proof is just fuckin retarded. Almos tlike Christians and Muslims arguing how their religion is more truthful than the other.
-
LOL at weak minded. I'm not the one who deserts thinking, wondering, and humility, to follow some arrogant, 'rebellious', egotistical idea. Shut de door, keep out de devil.
Are you serious?
-
This is a stupid discussion. We are arguing about speculation. Pinning one person's speculation against another when neither has any proof is just fuckin retarded. Almos tlike Christians and Muslims arguing how their religion is more truthful than the other.
Let's not forget we're discussing a book that nobody here has read.
-
^ So that's pretty ignorant. To try and down it, and you haven't even read it. :nawty:
Proves my point about the 'rebellious' idea of Atheism.
LOL at weak minded. I'm not the one who deserts thinking, wondering, and humility, to follow some arrogant, 'rebellious', egotistical idea. Shut de door, keep out de devil.
Are you serious?
Dead ass.
*See above.
-
^ So that's pretty ignorant. To try and down it, and you haven't even read it. :nawty:
Proves my point about the 'rebellious' idea of Atheism.
LOL at weak minded. I'm not the one who deserts thinking, wondering, and humility, to follow some arrogant, 'rebellious', egotistical idea. Shut de door, keep out de devil.
Are you serious?
Dead ass.
*See above.
Hawkins book, don't tell me you've read it.
Rebellious idea of atheism?
Spoiled kids wanting to piss of their parents usually turn to islam not atheism.
-
Oh, I thought you meant The Bible.
-
^ So that's pretty ignorant. To try and down it, and you haven't even read it. :nawty:
Proves my point about the 'rebellious' idea of Atheism.
LOL at weak minded. I'm not the one who deserts thinking, wondering, and humility, to follow some arrogant, 'rebellious', egotistical idea. Shut de door, keep out de devil.
Are you serious?
Dead ass.
*See above.
To me, rebellious = denying proven truths such as scientific theory in order to feel comfortable believing a fairy tale.
-
Haha! I make this topic and come back to see how its going and find its got over 50 replies, was not expecting that! ;D
Maybe God created himself....same thing as the universe created itself....
-
Haha! I make this topic and come back to see how its going and find its got over 50 replies, was not expecting that! ;D
Maybe God created himself....same thing as the universe created itself....
Maybe God is an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics :P
-
Haha! I make this topic and come back to see how its going and find its got over 50 replies, was not expecting that! ;D
Maybe God created himself....same thing as the universe created itself....
Maybe God is an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics :P
Maybe God created the laws of physics.
-
Haha! I make this topic and come back to see how its going and find its got over 50 replies, was not expecting that! ;D
Maybe God created himself....same thing as the universe created itself....
Maybe God is an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics :P
Maybe God created the laws of physics.
Maybe I'm Satan himself...using scientific theories as weapons for my cause.
-
I believe it. He got ur mind.
-
Haha! I make this topic and come back to see how its going and find its got over 50 replies, was not expecting that! ;D
Maybe God created himself....same thing as the universe created itself....
Maybe God is an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics :P
Maybe God created the laws of physics.
If that were the case, it would disprove the most common image of God.
Maybe Satan's depiction in the bible is just trash talk like a politics would use.