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

[Youwerecreated]

Actually, that is Creationism not Atheism. Creationism says no thing (God) created everything from nothing.

Science, in the proven First Law of thermodynamics, says there never was nothing and there never will be nothing because energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That means that energy has always existed and will always exist in the EXACT SAME TOTAL QUANTITY. It is quite common for dishonest Creationists to substitute Atheism for Creationism, as your post did, in a feeble attempt to get Atheists to defend creating something from nothing and thus validating Creationism.

Motion is change in location over time. Without time there is no change in location, and so there is no motion.

Further, since space cannot exist without time, without time there is no space, and nothing for matter to exist in.

So where did this matter come from for the big bang to happen ?

Sure looks like there is a creator according to the laws of physics.

except you have everything ass backwards!

Time exists ONLY in terms of motion, not the other way around as you have it, which I'm sure you know since I have explained it to you on other threads. Therefore you are deliberately trying to be deceptive.

Can motion begin without time ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I'll bet you money that this simplistic viewpoint was created by someone that believes Moses lived for over 160 years.

Book it.

You guys are still avoiding the questions.

 

[Ariux]

I'll bet you money that this simplistic viewpoint was created by someone that believes Moses lived for over 160 years.

Atheism: The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing, and that's how the universe came to be. (Therefor, according to shit-for-brains-and-body Hawking, there's no time for God.)

Yeah, that's so much more credible than believing Moses lived to 120 years (not 160). But, let's suppose 160, still no contest.

 

[bobcollum]

I'll bet you money that this simplistic viewpoint was created by someone that believes Moses lived for over 160 years.

Atheism: The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing, and that's how the universe came to be. (Therefor, according to shit-for-brains-and-body Hawking, there's no time for God.)

Yeah, that's so much more credible than believing Moses lived to 120 years (not 160). But, let's suppose 160, still no contest.

No Mr Tard, your assumption that atheists and science chalk it up to "nothing", is where the over-simplicity lies. The same over-simplicity that allows anyone to believe that Moses lived approximately 100 years past the average life expectancy for the time.

Science is constantly searching for answers, and will actually change a stance or two if the evidence suggests that it should. Religions assume the work has already been done and searching for answers isn't needed.

 

[bobcollum]

I'll bet you money that this simplistic viewpoint was created by someone that believes Moses lived for over 160 years.

Book it.

You guys are still avoiding the questions.

There's a question? Where?

 

[Ariux]

No Mr Tard, your assumption that atheists and science chalk it up to "nothing", is where the over-simplicity lies. The same over-simplicity that allows anyone to believe that Moses lived approximately 100 years past the average life expectancy for the time.

Science is constantly searching for answers, and will actually change a stance or two if the evidence suggests that it should. Religions assume the work has already been done and searching for answers isn't needed.

Wrong, shit-for-brains fool. If "nothing" is over simplistic, then give the the non-overly simplistic simple answer: From what did the Big Bang come? What is the cause?

Moses lived to 120. That's not 100 years past the average life expectancy for the time, shithead. Further, since when is an average life expectancy the limiting factor in how long it's possible someone might have lived? Damn, you're stupid.

 

[bobcollum]

No Mr Tard, your assumption that atheists and science chalk it up to "nothing", is where the over-simplicity lies. The same over-simplicity that allows anyone to believe that Moses lived approximately 100 years past the average life expectancy for the time.

Science is constantly searching for answers, and will actually change a stance or two if the evidence suggests that it should. Religions assume the work has already been done and searching for answers isn't needed.

Wrong, shit-for-brains fool. If "nothing" is over simplistic, then give the the non-overly simplistic simple answer: From what did the Big Bang come? What is the cause?

Moses lived to 120. That's not 100 years past the average life expectancy for the time, shithead. Further, since when is an average life expectancy the limiting factor in how long it's possible someone might have lived? Damn, you're stupid.

It's an unknown at this point, most of it lies in the realm of theoretical astrophysics. There is nothing anywhere that states astrophysicists have concluded that the big bang came from nothing. Concluding that it was nothing would be the equivalent of a religious person merely believing that a deity created it, with no means to prove it. I'm sure you still won't get it.

Rabbinical Judaism calculated a lifespan of Moses corresponding to 1391–1271 BCE;[6] Christian tradition has tended to assume an earlier date.

Depends who you ask I guess, though I'm sure you feel your opinion is the most valuable.

 

[Ariux]

It's an unknown at this point, most of it lies in the realm of theoretical astrophysics. There is nothing anywhere that states astrophysicists have concluded that the big bang came from nothing. Concluding that it was nothing would be the equivalent of a religious person merely believing that a deity created it, with no means to prove it. I'm sure you still won't get it.

Atheists have concluded that there was nothing and then nothing happened and that's why we're here. This is Hawking's argument against God, that there was nothing so there couldn't have been God. But, you're just too stupid to follow what Atheist "authorities" are saying.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I'll bet you money that this simplistic viewpoint was created by someone that believes Moses lived for over 160 years.

Book it.

You guys are still avoiding the questions.

There's a question? Where?

There has been a few asked by both myself and liability.

The origins of energy ? the origins of matter ?

 

[bobcollum]

You guys are still avoiding the questions.

There's a question? Where?

There has been a few asked by both myself and liability.

The origins of energy ? the origins of matter ?

Science is still working on things, I've said this repeatedly throughout the thread.

It has made more strides in the past 100 years than all the years monotheistic religions have existed.

Sorry I don't have, nor am willing to pretend that I have all the answers.

 

[edthecynic]

You guys are still avoiding the questions.

There's a question? Where?

There has been a few asked by both myself and liability.

The origins of energy ? the origins of matter ?

They have already been answered. Matter is a form of energy. Energy has no origin, it has been proven that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Just because you do not like the answer does not mean it is not the answer.

 

[bobcollum]

It's an unknown at this point, most of it lies in the realm of theoretical astrophysics. There is nothing anywhere that states astrophysicists have concluded that the big bang came from nothing. Concluding that it was nothing would be the equivalent of a religious person merely believing that a deity created it, with no means to prove it. I'm sure you still won't get it.

Atheists have concluded that there was nothing and then nothing happened and that's why we're here. This is Hawking's argument against God, that there was nothing so there couldn't have been God. But, you're just too stupid to follow what Atheist "authorities" are saying.

No, I just don't have a vendetta against atheism as you do.

By all means, look through the formulaic side of this theory he has and come up with your own theory to counter it.

 

[Liability]

There's a question? Where?

There has been a few asked by both myself and liability.

The origins of energy ? the origins of matter ?

They have already been answered. Matter is a form of energy. Energy has no origin, it has been proven that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Just because you do not like the answer does not mean it is not the answer.

Wrong.

If matter is a form of energy and energy is a form of matter (splitting an atom of matter "releases" a shit load of energy which does destroy the matter but leaves the equation intact), then you haven't answered diddly dick.

For if matter and energy (can change form but) cannot otherwise be created or destroyed, then where the fuck did "it" come from in the first damn place?

Another way of stating it is "nothing can exist prior to itself." But your initial condition, your basic premise, requires that something exist prior to itself.

You don't comply with your own conditions but label your facile assertions "law."

You really are not very bright.

 

[edthecynic]

There has been a few asked by both myself and liability.

The origins of energy ? the origins of matter ?

They have already been answered. Matter is a form of energy. Energy has no origin, it has been proven that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Just because you do not like the answer does not mean it is not the answer.

Wrong.

If matter is a form of energy and energy is a form of matter (splitting an atom of matter "releases" a shit load of energy which does destroy the matter but leaves the equation intact), then you haven't answered diddly dick.

For if matter and energy (can change form but) cannot otherwise be created or destroyed, then where the fuck did "it" come from in the first damn place?

Another way of stating it is "nothing can exist prior to itself." But your initial condition, your basic premise, requires that something exist prior to itself.

You don't comply with your own conditions but label your facile assertions "law."

You really are not very bright.

It's tough to argue with someone who at least pretends not to know what they are talking about. Splitting an atom does not destroy matter, it simply breaks the atom into smaller parts releasing the energy that held the parts together.

Again, since it has been proven that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it always existed "in the first damn place." And my basic premise is not your Straw Man "something exists prior to itself" but that there is no such THING as nothing. There never was nothing and there never will be nothing. Everything is energy in some form.

 

[hortysir]

Gen 1: 5 And the evening and the morning were the first day.

2Pe 3:8 Dear friends, don't forget that for the Lord one day is the same as a thousand years, and a thousand years is the same as one day.

But one evening and one morning is still 1 day, and a thousand years is 365,000 evenings and 365,000 mornings.

At the very dawn of creation how much time did it take for the earth to make a full rotation or a full revolution of the sun?

 

[edthecynic]

2Pe 3:8 Dear friends, don't forget that for the Lord one day is the same as a thousand years, and a thousand years is the same as one day.

But one evening and one morning is still 1 day, and a thousand years is 365,000 evenings and 365,000 mornings.

At the very dawn of creation how much time did it take for the earth to make a full rotation or a full revolution of the sun?

The Earth didn't exist at the dawn of creation. The universe is about 15 billion years old and the Earth about 5 billion. 6,000 years ago when God created the Earth one rotation was less than 24 hours.

 

[hortysir]

But one evening and one morning is still 1 day, and a thousand years is 365,000 evenings and 365,000 mornings.

At the very dawn of creation how much time did it take for the earth to make a full rotation or a full revolution of the sun?

The Earth didn't exist at the dawn of creation. The universe is about 15 billion years old and the Earth about 5 billion. 6,000 years ago when God created the Earth one rotation was less than 24 hours.

See?
Now you're just being silly and argumentative.
Not all Christians are young-earthers.

My question was concerning the time that I bolded, above, not the red-highlighted area.

How long was a day or a year 5 billion years ago?
And can it be proven?

 

[edthecynic]

At the very dawn of creation how much time did it take for the earth to make a full rotation or a full revolution of the sun?

The Earth didn't exist at the dawn of creation. The universe is about 15 billion years old and the Earth about 5 billion. 6,000 years ago when God created the Earth one rotation was less than 24 hours.

See?
Now you're just being silly and argumentative.
Not all Christians are young-earthers.

My question was concerning the time that I bolded, above, not the red-highlighted area.

How long was a day or a year 5 billion years ago?
And can it be proven?

The rotation of the Earth has never been constant. It is presently slowing down by 1 thousandth of a second per day.

 

[hortysir]

The Earth didn't exist at the dawn of creation. The universe is about 15 billion years old and the Earth about 5 billion. 6,000 years ago when God created the Earth one rotation was less than 24 hours.

See?
Now you're just being silly and argumentative.
Not all Christians are young-earthers.

My question was concerning the time that I bolded, above, not the red-highlighted area.

How long was a day or a year 5 billion years ago?
And can it be proven?

The rotation of the Earth has never been constant. It is presently slowing down by 1 thousandth of a second per day.

You don't know.

Thank you.

No one can comment on how long a day was 5 billion years ago.
Therefore they cannot comment on how long it took God to create *anything*.

 

[Ariux]

See?
Now you're just being silly and argumentative.
Not all Christians are young-earthers.

My question was concerning the time that I bolded, above, not the red-highlighted area.

How long was a day or a year 5 billion years ago?
And can it be proven?

The rotation of the Earth has never been constant. It is presently slowing down by 1 thousandth of a second per day.

You don't know.

Thank you.

No one can comment on how long a day was 5 billion years ago.
Therefore they cannot comment on how long it took God to create *anything*.

1/1000 second per day shorter for 5 billion years? That means 5 billion years ago, a day was nearly 2 billions seconds shorter than it is today (how many seconds in a day, now?). Actually, it would be a lot more than 2 billion seconds shorter because the mechanism that slows the earth would have slowed the earth exponentially more going into the past. So, about a million years ago, to launch a rocket into space wouldn't take any fuel at all.

To an Athiest who believes that there was nothing and then nothing happened to nothing, resulting in the universe, the above math shouldn't be a problem. Stupid Atheists.