Stephen Hawking says the universe created itself

[Facez]

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

[Sikotic™]

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.

[OG Hack Wilson]

big bang theory makes sense



god banged the universe and got her preggo

[C-BLUE]

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

[Anunikke]

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.

[Triple OG Rapsodie]

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?

[Triple OG Rapsodie]

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?

[Triple OG Rapsodie]

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?

[Fraxxx]

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.

[Anunikke]

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.

THere is actual avatar porn out there if your interested.

[C-BLUE]

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.

[Anunikke]

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

[Triple OG Rapsodie]

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.

[Teddy Roosevelt]

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.

[Triple OG Rapsodie]

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.