Hawking Says Universe Created Itself

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I cannot assert with certainty that a magical sky wizard does not exist...

You don't believe that a higher intelligence could exist somewhere that could have created us? You seem to be of the belief that mankind can or will one day be able to create life, so, why couldn't a higher intellect?

I just said I can't rule it out.

Yea, and did so mockingly. Guys like you are constantly mocking the possibility that a higher intelligence created us. It's narrow-minded, arrogant and, frankly, ignorant.

"Mockingly"

Yeah, so? I mocked the magical sky wizard, just as you mock scientists and science. You don't see me whining like a little bitch about it. Wait, I mean k*nt.

 

[K9Buck]

I cannot assert with certainty that a magical sky wizard does not exist...

You don't believe that a higher intelligence could exist somewhere that could have created us? You seem to be of the belief that mankind can or will one day be able to create life, so, why couldn't a higher intellect?

I just said I can't rule it out.

Yea, and did so mockingly. Guys like you are constantly mocking the possibility that a higher intelligence created us. It's narrow-minded, arrogant and, frankly, ignorant.

"Mockingly"

Yeah, so? I mocked the magical sky wizard, just as you mock scientists and science. You don't see me whining like a little bitch about it. Wait, I mean k*nt.

Ha ha! Touche!

 

[The Irish Ram]

Very likely..Based on the laws of chemistry and physics it most certainly did.

If you don't believe this then i ask who or what created god? It is so much more simple to explain things with laws of science compared to figuring out how a super being developed out of nothing.

Laws of science = billions or even tens of billions of years for such processes to slowly come together.

God popped out of nothing! =

For God to be the cause of creation doesn't mean that God has to be defined as being created by anyone. To use the old story, you find a watch, you know a man made it, who created the man isn't relative.

The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which has the attributes of being eternal and unchanging. A characteristic which is wholly outside the laws of nature.

Using that logic, the whole universe is out of the laws of nature, in regards to the beginning.

Wrong.

Something had to give the initial push. The belief that the universe gave itself the initial push couldn't be more illogical.

"Something had to give the initial push"

Says you. Unfortunately, you have not a shred of evidence that this is true, or that all of reality even had a beginning.

Oh, but we do. His name is Albert Einstein. The beginning was discovered when he was introduced to space time by Mr. Hubble and his telescope. Before that, Einstein didn't realize the universe was expanding. Once he saw it was, he realized you could trace the expansion right back to a beginning point. Or do you doubt E=MC2?

 

[K9Buck]

The only logical conclusion is that there IS a creator who created our universe and who created life.

Three cheers for the god of gaps.

You're a broken record. That's all you got. Nobody has ever claimed to have irrefutable proof of a creator, just that it makes the most sense.

 

[K9Buck]

For God to be the cause of creation doesn't mean that God has to be defined as being created by anyone. To use the old story, you find a watch, you know a man made it, who created the man isn't relative.

The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which has the attributes of being eternal and unchanging. A characteristic which is wholly outside the laws of nature.

Using that logic, the whole universe is out of the laws of nature, in regards to the beginning.

Wrong.

Something had to give the initial push. The belief that the universe gave itself the initial push couldn't be more illogical.

"Something had to give the initial push"

Says you. Unfortunately, you have not a shred of evidence that this is true, or that all of reality even had a beginning.

Oh, but we do. His name is Albert Einstein. It was when he was introduced to space time by Mr. Hubble and his telescope. Before that, Einstein didn't realize the universe was expanding. Once he saw it was, he realized you could trace the expansion right back to a beginning point.

The funny thing, the bible said the universe was expanding many hundreds of years ago. LOL!

 

[Borillar]

I don't know why everyone fawns all over this guy.

Do you have a better theory? It is like the chicken or the egg. God has to come from something too.

God created man, then man created god in his own image.

 

[K9Buck]

I don't know why everyone fawns all over this guy.

Do you have a better theory? It is like the chicken or the egg. God has to come from something too.

God created man, then man created god in his own image.

There is certainly some truth to that.

 

[Peach]

For God to be the cause of creation doesn't mean that God has to be defined as being created by anyone. To use the old story, you find a watch, you know a man made it, who created the man isn't relative.

The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which has the attributes of being eternal and unchanging. A characteristic which is wholly outside the laws of nature.

Using that logic, the whole universe is out of the laws of nature, in regards to the beginning.

Wrong.

Something had to give the initial push. The belief that the universe gave itself the initial push couldn't be more illogical.

"Something had to give the initial push"

Says you. Unfortunately, you have not a shred of evidence that this is true, or that all of reality even had a beginning.

Oh, but we do. His name is Albert Einstein. The beginning was discovered when he was introduced to space time by Mr. Hubble and his telescope. Before that, Einstein didn't realize the universe was expanding. Once he saw it was, he realized you could trace the expansion right back to a beginning point. Or do you doubt E=MC2?

Einstein was a believer.

 

[K9Buck]

The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which has the attributes of being eternal and unchanging. A characteristic which is wholly outside the laws of nature.

Using that logic, the whole universe is out of the laws of nature, in regards to the beginning.

Wrong.

Something had to give the initial push. The belief that the universe gave itself the initial push couldn't be more illogical.

"Something had to give the initial push"

Says you. Unfortunately, you have not a shred of evidence that this is true, or that all of reality even had a beginning.

Oh, but we do. His name is Albert Einstein. The beginning was discovered when he was introduced to space time by Mr. Hubble and his telescope. Before that, Einstein didn't realize the universe was expanding. Once he saw it was, he realized you could trace the expansion right back to a beginning point. Or do you doubt E=MC2?

Einstein was a believer.

Educated believers easily defeat the mantra from atheists that the science is "on their side". It's not. The science and the logic point to a creator. It's not proof, but it seems the only logical possibility.

 

[cnm]

While using matter obviously CREATED; Hawking always is confounded by his strict atheism, its a tough religion y'all have

Ffs.

 

[cnm]

Nobody has ever claimed to have irrefutable proof of a creator, just that it makes the most sense.

You've invented an explanation, for which there is no evidence, to fill a hole in your knowledge. No need to get butt hurt when this is pointed out.

 

[cnm]

The funny thing, the bible said the universe was expanding many hundreds of years ago. LOL!

Did it? The bible says a lot of things. How do you decide what to discard and what to retain?

 

[K9Buck]

Nobody has ever claimed to have irrefutable proof of a creator, just that it makes the most sense.

You've invented an explanation, for which there is no evidence, to fill a hole in your knowledge. No need to get butt hurt when this is pointed out.

Oh, am I "butthurt"?

 

[K9Buck]

The funny thing, the bible said the universe was expanding many hundreds of years ago. LOL!

Did it? The bible says a lot of things. How do you decide what to discard and what to retain?

Let's get past that for a moment.

Would you like for there to be a creator and an afterlife in a really cool place surrounded by all the people you ever loved in your life? When you die, if you found yourself in such a place, would you be happy?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

For God to be the cause of creation doesn't mean that God has to be defined as being created by anyone. To use the old story, you find a watch, you know a man made it, who created the man isn't relative.

The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which has the attributes of being eternal and unchanging. A characteristic which is wholly outside the laws of nature.

Using that logic, the whole universe is out of the laws of nature, in regards to the beginning.

Wrong.

Something had to give the initial push. The belief that the universe gave itself the initial push couldn't be more illogical.

"Something had to give the initial push"

Says you. Unfortunately, you have not a shred of evidence that this is true, or that all of reality even had a beginning.

Oh, but we do. His name is Albert Einstein. The beginning was discovered when he was introduced to space time by Mr. Hubble and his telescope. Before that, Einstein didn't realize the universe was expanding. Once he saw it was, he realized you could trace the expansion right back to a beginning point. Or do you doubt E=MC2?

He did not "realize" that, he postulated it. You cannot assume as true that which you are trying to argue as true.

Also, you are off base. If the observable universe did, indeed, begin as a singularity, then to all of us it would appear to be infinite and have no beginning. So you kind of tripped over your own argument, there.

 

[K9Buck]

The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which has the attributes of being eternal and unchanging. A characteristic which is wholly outside the laws of nature.

Using that logic, the whole universe is out of the laws of nature, in regards to the beginning.

Wrong.

Something had to give the initial push. The belief that the universe gave itself the initial push couldn't be more illogical.

"Something had to give the initial push"

Says you. Unfortunately, you have not a shred of evidence that this is true, or that all of reality even had a beginning.

Oh, but we do. His name is Albert Einstein. The beginning was discovered when he was introduced to space time by Mr. Hubble and his telescope. Before that, Einstein didn't realize the universe was expanding. Once he saw it was, he realized you could trace the expansion right back to a beginning point. Or do you doubt E=MC2?

He did not "realize" that, he postulated it. You cannot assume as true that which you are trying to argue as true.

Also, you are off base. If the observable universe did, indeed, begin as a singularity, then to all of us it would appear to be infinite and have no beginning. So you kind of tripped over your own argument, there.

 

[ding]

Very likely..Based on the laws of chemistry and physics it most certainly did.

If you don't believe this then i ask who or what created god? It is so much more simple to explain things with laws of science compared to figuring out how a super being developed out of nothing.

Laws of science = billions or even tens of billions of years for such processes to slowly come together.

God popped out of nothing! =

For God to be the cause of creation doesn't mean that God has to be defined as being created by anyone. To use the old story, you find a watch, you know a man made it, who created the man isn't relative.

The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which has the attributes of being eternal and unchanging. A characteristic which is wholly outside the laws of nature.

Using that logic, the whole universe is out of the laws of nature, in regards to the beginning.

How so?

In a closed universe the sum of the positive energy/mass of the universe is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of the universe so that the sum is always equal to zero.

 

[K9Buck]

Very likely..Based on the laws of chemistry and physics it most certainly did.

If you don't believe this then i ask who or what created god? It is so much more simple to explain things with laws of science compared to figuring out how a super being developed out of nothing.

Laws of science = billions or even tens of billions of years for such processes to slowly come together.

God popped out of nothing! =

For God to be the cause of creation doesn't mean that God has to be defined as being created by anyone. To use the old story, you find a watch, you know a man made it, who created the man isn't relative.

The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which has the attributes of being eternal and unchanging. A characteristic which is wholly outside the laws of nature.

Using that logic, the whole universe is out of the laws of nature, in regards to the beginning.

How so?

In a closed universe the sum of the positive energy/mass of the universe is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of the universe so that the sum is always equal to zero.

What did you just call my momma?!

 

[ding]

or that all of reality even had a beginning

The science is definitive. Space and time as we know it had a beginning.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Using that logic, the whole universe is out of the laws of nature, in regards to the beginning.

Wrong.

Something had to give the initial push. The belief that the universe gave itself the initial push couldn't be more illogical.

"Something had to give the initial push"

Says you. Unfortunately, you have not a shred of evidence that this is true, or that all of reality even had a beginning.

Oh, but we do. His name is Albert Einstein. The beginning was discovered when he was introduced to space time by Mr. Hubble and his telescope. Before that, Einstein didn't realize the universe was expanding. Once he saw it was, he realized you could trace the expansion right back to a beginning point. Or do you doubt E=MC2?

He did not "realize" that, he postulated it. You cannot assume as true that which you are trying to argue as true.

Also, you are off base. If the observable universe did, indeed, begin as a singularity, then to all of us it would appear to be infinite and have no beginning. So you kind of tripped over your own argument, there.

Do you not understand the implications of the universe beginnings a singularity? He undermined his own argument.