Hawking says physics proves there is no time for "Gawd".

[daws101]

They say: "Matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed."

Yet -- it's here.

So, folks like me ask: "Where did it come from?"

Their 'Answer': The Big Bang?

So folks like me ponder and then ask: "Oh. Well the stuff that was in the Big Bang that came spewing out so prolifically when it went Bang. Where did THAT stuff come from?"

They say: "It was always there BECAUSE it can't be created or destroyed."

Folks like me ponder and then ask: "Uh huh. But for 'it' to have 'always existed' aren't you saying that something can exist before it exists? For example, if there was a period in the Universe (in the nano instant of the Bang in the Big Bang) where there was no life, then life did not always exist. It got created. What created life? The stuff that came prior to life. Ok. But what created that? The precursors to that stuff. Ok. But what created THAT stuff? It was always there! But if it was always there then why wasn't life always there? Why do some things require creation but some things don't?"

correct me if I'm wrong but the BBTdoes not state anything about something coming from nothing.
what it does say is that all matter in the universe was compacted in an infinitesimally small space....

Ok.

It was compacted to a really tiny "point." But it was still there.

And, that still begs the question: Where did it come from?

To say "it was ALWAYS" there also begs the question since it doesn't answer how it could "always be there."

the honest answer is nobody really knows..
much more honest then the god did it answer.

 

[koshergrl]

"much more honest then the god did it answer. "

wtf?

 

[bobcollum]

In order to address the subject, you have to be capable of making yourself understood.

And you can't make yourself understood if you don't make use of capitalization, correct and complete sentence structures, correct pronoun useage and proper syntax.

I'm willing to help you express yourself in a manner that people will understand. But first you must admit you have a problem.

Says the person that denies multiple requests to use the quote function in order to better understand whom she's addressing.

It never stops.

 

[Liability]

Suppose you’re walking in a park one day when you are startled by a man standing right in front of you. After jumping higher than you ever have in your life, you force out the words, “Where did you come from?” The man answers, “I just created myself.”

Would you believe him? I wouldn’t. For a man to create himself before he exists is impossible, for if he doesn’t exist, he wouldn’t be there to create himself in the first place! Yet it is this rabbit out of the hat trick that Stephen Hawking uses to explain how God is not necessary for the creation of the universe.

Stephen Hawking is a brilliant man–I give him credit for doing wonderful work in physics and astronomy, especially in the area of black holes. I also admire his brave fight against ALS (Lou Gehrig’s Disease), from which he has suffered for over forty years, making him by far the longest-lived survivor of that debilitating disease. Despite his handcap, he has continued to write and lecture, and he is a fine popularizer of complex ideas in physics for people without training in the field.

However, in accepting the view that there is no God because the universe created itself from nothing, he is contradicting himself. If he said that the universe is everlasting, that it has always existed, then he would at least be holding a coherent position. But in saying that the universe “spontaneously created itself from nothing,” he falls into incoherence. If the universe created itself from nothing, then it would already have to exist to do so. Nothing can be prior to itself. Nothing can exist before it exists. If this what Hawking actually believes, his belief is just as much false as believing in a square circle. If Hawking replies that a quantum vacuum, even a “true vacuum,” produces particles and antiparticles all the time that then annihilate one another, then what he calls a “true vacuum” isn’t. His quantum vacuum is NOT nothing. Even a sea of quantum events is something. Pure nothingness is just what the word implies–no particles, antiparticles, no annihilation of particles and antiparticles, no space, no time–sheer, absolute nothingness. If Hawking’s concept of “nothing” includes more, then he is manipulating words to mean what he wants them to mean. Since his notion of “nothing” isn’t really no-thing, he does not believe that the universe created itself; in a sense, some kind of energy has always existed. I have always been suspicious of arguments such as Hawking’s, whether they posit true and false vacuums, zero-point fields, or some other pseudo-nothingness to argue that the universe arose from nothing. It may be that true and false vacuums exist, and there is good evidence for the existence of a zero-point field, but all of these items exist in some sense. The universe could not have arisen from literal non-being–and this is what Hawking would have to say to justify his claim of a spontaneous universe arising from nothing.

Does Hawking’s view explain the existence of a quatum foam of particles and antiparticles in a “vacuum”? Does it explain why enough energy arose for the universe to have arisen? Or does he say explanation stops at that point–if so, why? If he is saying that the universe is some kind of necessary being, this seems inconsistent with stellar life cycles–eventually the formation of new stars will stop, and the universe will consist of white and black dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes–and even these will evaporate. All these items are contingent–they do not have to be. Thus a necessary being is required to explain the existence of contingent things, whether those things be the universe, a zero-point field, or a “true vacuum” that really isn’t a true vacuum. Once atheists get to the point of saying that the universe created itself, they are holding a view so irrational that it would be best to halt discussion, go to a bar, have some drinks, and talk about the upcoming NFL season.

Stephen Hawking « Gratiaetnatura's Blog

 

[daws101]

In order to address the subject, you have to be capable of making yourself understood.

And you can't make yourself understood if you don't make use of capitalization, correct and complete sentence structures, correct pronoun useage and proper syntax.

I'm willing to help you express yourself in a manner that people will understand. But first you must admit you have a problem.

still deflecting, I'm manage to make myself understood to most everyone except the lack of usable grey matter people like yourself.
if you are arguing grammar then you must be out of any real contribution to this thread.

 

[Liability]

correct me if I'm wrong but the BBTdoes not state anything about something coming from nothing.
what it does say is that all matter in the universe was compacted in an infinitesimally small space....

Ok.

It was compacted to a really tiny "point." But it was still there.

And, that still begs the question: Where did it come from?

To say "it was ALWAYS" there also begs the question since it doesn't answer how it could "always be there."

the honest answer is nobody really knows..
much more honest then the god did it answer.

We don't know. That is honest. Belief in God is a BELIEF, and thus not really subject to a claim of honesty or dishonesty.

Belief in the existence of the universal everything without causation (for that's what it boils down to) is also a belief, though.

 

[daws101]

In order to address the subject, you have to be capable of making yourself understood.

And you can't make yourself understood if you don't make use of capitalization, correct and complete sentence structures, correct pronoun useage and proper syntax.

I'm willing to help you express yourself in a manner that people will understand. But first you must admit you have a problem.

Says the person that denies multiple requests to use the quote function in order to better understand whom she's addressing.

It never stops.

she must think it has too many moving parts or is the devils work!?

 

[koshergrl]

Ah, more deflection, wrapped up in ad hominem.

That was easy.

 

[daws101]

Ok.

It was compacted to a really tiny "point." But it was still there.

And, that still begs the question: Where did it come from?

To say "it was ALWAYS" there also begs the question since it doesn't answer how it could "always be there."

the honest answer is nobody really knows..
much more honest then the god did it answer.

We don't know. That is honest. Belief in God is a BELIEF, and thus not really subject to a claim of honesty or dishonesty.

Belief in the existence of the universal everything without causation (for that's what it boils down to) is also a belief, though.

confusing ain't it?

 

[koshergrl]

correct me if I'm wrong but the BBTdoes not state anything about something coming from nothing.
what it does say is that all matter in the universe was compacted in an infinitesimally small space....

Ok.

It was compacted to a really tiny "point." But it was still there.

And, that still begs the question: Where did it come from?

To say "it was ALWAYS" there also begs the question since it doesn't answer how it could "always be there."

the honest answer is nobody really knows..
much more honest then the god did it answer.

Please tell me what language that is, and explain what it means?

 

[daws101]

Ah, more deflection, wrapped up in ad hominem.

That was easy.

talking to yourself?

 

[koshergrl]

Ah, more deflection, wrapped up in ad hominem.

That was easy.

talking to yourself?

yoo talking too no.

 

[bobcollum]

In order to address the subject, you have to be capable of making yourself understood.

And you can't make yourself understood if you don't make use of capitalization, correct and complete sentence structures, correct pronoun useage and proper syntax.

I'm willing to help you express yourself in a manner that people will understand. But first you must admit you have a problem.

Says the person that denies multiple requests to use the quote function in order to better understand whom she's addressing.

It never stops.

she must think it has too many moving parts or is the devils work!?

She just has an inflated regard for her own discussions, you know because she's so insightful, and she thinks everyone else feels the same.

 

[koshergrl]

Says the person that denies multiple requests to use the quote function in order to better understand whom she's addressing.

It never stops.

she must think it has too many moving parts or is the devils work!?

She just has an inflated regard for her own discussions, you know because she's so insightful, and she thinks everyone else feels the same.

No, I know that ignorami never admit when they've been bested, so anticipate no acnowligement score on that i.

 

[bobcollum]

she must think it has too many moving parts or is the devils work!?

She just has an inflated regard for her own discussions, you know because she's so insightful, and she thinks everyone else feels the same.

No, I know that ignorami never admit when they've been bested, so anticipate no acknowledgement score on that i.

I know how you feel, believe me.

 

[koshergrl]

While being able to read this may indicate a strong mind, I'm pretty sure if you actually write like this, you're a retard:

I read can it. Write can it too i, how know properly well as but to write.

 

[Liability]

the honest answer is nobody really knows..
much more honest then the god did it answer.

We don't know. That is honest. Belief in God is a BELIEF, and thus not really subject to a claim of honesty or dishonesty.

Belief in the existence of the universal everything without causation (for that's what it boils down to) is also a belief, though.

confusing ain't it?

Yep.

Which is why I object to those who have their definitive belief (I lean toward the scientific explanations for a number of reasons) but who are completely intolerant of divergent opinions or beliefs.

If God didn't create the "everything" that was the big bang, then where did that stuff come from?

The purely science guys rely on NON answers that seem to be answers. They say stuff like "matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed." And if it can't be created or destroyed, then it must have always existed. And if that's the case they still evade answering where IT came from.

So, why the fuck are they so smug? You don't earn smug by evading the question.

 

[koshergrl]

She just has an inflated regard for her own discussions, you know because she's so insightful, and she thinks everyone else feels the same.

No, I know that ignorami never admit when they've been bested, so anticipate no acknowledgement score on that i.

I know how you feel, believe me.

Doubt it i, ololol.

 

[bobcollum]

^ Expected response.

 

[koshergrl]

betcha ewe.