Hawking Says Universe Created Itself

[ding]

Inflation theory is the leading cosmological model which explains how space and time were created through a quantum tunneling event. An event which occurred per the laws of quantum mechanics and conservation of energy. Which means those laws were in place before space and time which means those laws were the first cause but still doesn't address the source or first cause of those laws. The only solution to that dilemma is something which is eternal and unchanging.

Or that we lack knowledge.

I think you mean to say that YOU lack the knowledge to name anything else.

My position is that the only solution which exists for the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.

Not if you follow the ABG theory.

How so?

 

[K9Buck]

I understand the implications of being a delusional atheist that adheres to the "Anything but God" theory.

That's nice. But do you understand the implications of our universe beginning as a singularity?

Maybe, maybe not. What ya got?

For one, what I already said: it would appear to us that time has no beginning.

Well, if we could travel back, wouldn't we see all of matter condensing into one point and, with it, the collapsing of space itself? Upon reaching the final point, I believe we would actually see that there was nothing at all. No matter, no space, nothing. Then if we could fast-forward, the matter would appear, literally out of nowhere followed up instantly by the biggest explosion our universe has ever had. And then we would see the first seconds of the universe.

Where have I got it wrong?

No, we would never reach that point, even without a singularity.we could never observe the beginning of the universe directly, as we are a part of it.

On a side note, new ideas about what "time" is are emerging And that's an appropriate word, as they describe time as an emergent property of quantum entanglement. An observer outside our universe would not perceive any passing of time at all, when observing our universe. It would not even appear to exist at all!

If we were with the creator, we could see all of the matter retract and consolidate into nothing.

Your point about an observer not perceiving the passing of time might be true for us, but the creator would certainly know what is happening.

On another note, we can create programs to simulate the big bang and to even create worlds and to fill it with life. What we CAN'T do is give the creatures in our world sentience. But our creator can. The whole concept of a creator creating the universe and life seems fantastic but, when you look at it using the computer programming analogy, it's not that difficult to imagine at all.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

Of course you don't.

 

[ding]

or that all of reality even had a beginning

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

The science is definitive that, if the universe began as singularity, one could travel backward in time literally forever and would never reach "a beginning".

And that means absolutely nothing. None of that has anything to do with the fact that about 14 billion years ago all matter and energy in the universe occupied the space the size of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single atom. Then... it expanded and cooled. That is all you need to know that the universe had a beginning.

"That is all you need to know that the universe had a beginning."

You mean, the universe we can observe. I would say that's rather important concept to keep in mind. So would scientists.

Not really. That is the domain of philosophy. Science can only study what it can examine.

 

[K9Buck]

Inflation theory is the leading cosmological model which explains how space and time were created through a quantum tunneling event. An event which occurred per the laws of quantum mechanics and conservation of energy. Which means those laws were in place before space and time which means those laws were the first cause but still doesn't address the source or first cause of those laws. The only solution to that dilemma is something which is eternal and unchanging.

Or that we lack knowledge.

I think you mean to say that YOU lack the knowledge to name anything else.

My position is that the only solution which exists for the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.

Not if you follow the ABG theory.

How so?

Are you familiar with ABG theory?

 

[ding]

Inflation theory is the leading cosmological model which explains how space and time were created through a quantum tunneling event. An event which occurred per the laws of quantum mechanics and conservation of energy. Which means those laws were in place before space and time which means those laws were the first cause but still doesn't address the source or first cause of those laws. The only solution to that dilemma is something which is eternal and unchanging.

Or that we lack knowledge.

I think you mean to say that YOU lack the knowledge to name anything else.

My position is that the only solution which exists for the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.

Not if you follow the ABG theory.

How so?

Are you familiar with ABG theory?

Not at all which I why I asked how so.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's nice. But do you understand the implications of our universe beginning as a singularity?

Maybe, maybe not. What ya got?

For one, what I already said: it would appear to us that time has no beginning.

Well, if we could travel back, wouldn't we see all of matter condensing into one point and, with it, the collapsing of space itself? Upon reaching the final point, I believe we would actually see that there was nothing at all. No matter, no space, nothing. Then if we could fast-forward, the matter would appear, literally out of nowhere followed up instantly by the biggest explosion our universe has ever had. And then we would see the first seconds of the universe.

Where have I got it wrong?

No, we would never reach that point, even without a singularity.we could never observe the beginning of the universe directly, as we are a part of it.

On a side note, new ideas about what "time" is are emerging And that's an appropriate word, as they describe time as an emergent property of quantum entanglement. An observer outside our universe would not perceive any passing of time at all, when observing our universe. It would not even appear to exist at all!

If we were with the creator, we could see all of the matter retract and consolidate into nothing.

Your point about an observer not perceiving the passing of time might be true for us, but the creator would certainly know what is happening.

On another note, we can create programs to simulate the big bang and to even create worlds and to fill it with life. What we CAN'T do is give the creatures in our world sentience. But our creator can. The whole concept of a creator creating the universe and life seems fantastic but, when you look at it using the computer programming analogy, it's not that difficult to imagine at all.

<<If we were with the creator, we could see all of the matter retract and consolidate into nothing. >>


No. If we were the creator, we would be riding a pink unicorn and making it poop dragons, all the while making love to our gay god-lover. Dang, i guess there is no way to tell who is right, huh? You REALLY need to recognize the difference between evidence-based thought and magical thought.

 

[ding]

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

Of course you don't.

I enjoyed A Brief History of Time. His last book was pretty ironic given his life's story though.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Inflation theory is the leading cosmological model which explains how space and time were created through a quantum tunneling event. An event which occurred per the laws of quantum mechanics and conservation of energy. Which means those laws were in place before space and time which means those laws were the first cause but still doesn't address the source or first cause of those laws. The only solution to that dilemma is something which is eternal and unchanging.

Or that we lack knowledge.

I think you mean to say that YOU lack the knowledge to name anything else.

My position is that the only solution which exists for the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.

Not if you follow the ABG theory.

How so?

Are you familiar with ABG theory?

"ABG Theory"

"abiogenesis" is one word. And someone who had strong faith could just accept any scientific explanation and say, "that's how god did it!". So, your problem with abiogenesis goes beyond merely "believing in a creator". You need to be honest with yourself and everyone else about this simple fact.

 

[ding]

Maybe, maybe not. What ya got?

For one, what I already said: it would appear to us that time has no beginning.

Well, if we could travel back, wouldn't we see all of matter condensing into one point and, with it, the collapsing of space itself? Upon reaching the final point, I believe we would actually see that there was nothing at all. No matter, no space, nothing. Then if we could fast-forward, the matter would appear, literally out of nowhere followed up instantly by the biggest explosion our universe has ever had. And then we would see the first seconds of the universe.

Where have I got it wrong?

No, we would never reach that point, even without a singularity.we could never observe the beginning of the universe directly, as we are a part of it.

On a side note, new ideas about what "time" is are emerging And that's an appropriate word, as they describe time as an emergent property of quantum entanglement. An observer outside our universe would not perceive any passing of time at all, when observing our universe. It would not even appear to exist at all!

If we were with the creator, we could see all of the matter retract and consolidate into nothing.

Your point about an observer not perceiving the passing of time might be true for us, but the creator would certainly know what is happening.

On another note, we can create programs to simulate the big bang and to even create worlds and to fill it with life. What we CAN'T do is give the creatures in our world sentience. But our creator can. The whole concept of a creator creating the universe and life seems fantastic but, when you look at it using the computer programming analogy, it's not that difficult to imagine at all.

<<If we were with the creator, we could see all of the matter retract and consolidate into nothing. >>


No. If we were the creator, we would be riding a pink unicorn and making it poop dragons, all the while making love to our gay god-lover. Dang, i guess there is no way to tell who is right, huh? You REALLY need to recognize the difference between evidence-based thought and magical thought.

Actually we were all present when space and time were created. Since that time matter/energy has just changed form. Until it evolved to the point it became self aware and could know itself.

 

[Dr Grump]

Which is what I said. Theory. No proof. Just his opinion.

I'll list all the scientific theories that have become fact (you ever heard of gravity?).

Meanwhile you can list all the irrefutable, provable evidence that a god exists. Any god will do.

 

[ding]

Or that we lack knowledge.

I think you mean to say that YOU lack the knowledge to name anything else.

My position is that the only solution which exists for the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.

Not if you follow the ABG theory.

How so?

Are you familiar with ABG theory?

"ABG Theory"

"abiogenesis" is one word. And someone who had strong faith could just accept any scientific explanation and say, "that's how god did it!". So, your problem with abiogenesis goes beyond merely "believing in a creator". You need to be honest with yourself and everyone else about this simple fact.

Sure, that's where studying how matter evolved from sub atomic particles to beings that know and create comes into play.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

For one, what I already said: it would appear to us that time has no beginning.

Well, if we could travel back, wouldn't we see all of matter condensing into one point and, with it, the collapsing of space itself? Upon reaching the final point, I believe we would actually see that there was nothing at all. No matter, no space, nothing. Then if we could fast-forward, the matter would appear, literally out of nowhere followed up instantly by the biggest explosion our universe has ever had. And then we would see the first seconds of the universe.

Where have I got it wrong?

No, we would never reach that point, even without a singularity.we could never observe the beginning of the universe directly, as we are a part of it.

On a side note, new ideas about what "time" is are emerging And that's an appropriate word, as they describe time as an emergent property of quantum entanglement. An observer outside our universe would not perceive any passing of time at all, when observing our universe. It would not even appear to exist at all!

If we were with the creator, we could see all of the matter retract and consolidate into nothing.

Your point about an observer not perceiving the passing of time might be true for us, but the creator would certainly know what is happening.

On another note, we can create programs to simulate the big bang and to even create worlds and to fill it with life. What we CAN'T do is give the creatures in our world sentience. But our creator can. The whole concept of a creator creating the universe and life seems fantastic but, when you look at it using the computer programming analogy, it's not that difficult to imagine at all.

<<If we were with the creator, we could see all of the matter retract and consolidate into nothing. >>


No. If we were the creator, we would be riding a pink unicorn and making it poop dragons, all the while making love to our gay god-lover. Dang, i guess there is no way to tell who is right, huh? You REALLY need to recognize the difference between evidence-based thought and magical thought.

Actually we were all present when space and time were created. Since that time matter/energy has just changed form. Until it evolved to the point it became self aware and could know itself.

"Actually we were all present when space and time were created."

EDIT: well, that's interesting, but matter has been created and annihilated since then, so not sure about that

 

[ding]

Which is what I said. Theory. No proof. Just his opinion.

I'll list all the scientific theories that have become fact (you ever heard of gravity?).

Meanwhile you can list all the irrefutable, provable evidence that a god exists. Any god will do.

So what evidence will you accept?

 

[ding]

Well, if we could travel back, wouldn't we see all of matter condensing into one point and, with it, the collapsing of space itself? Upon reaching the final point, I believe we would actually see that there was nothing at all. No matter, no space, nothing. Then if we could fast-forward, the matter would appear, literally out of nowhere followed up instantly by the biggest explosion our universe has ever had. And then we would see the first seconds of the universe.

Where have I got it wrong?

No, we would never reach that point, even without a singularity.we could never observe the beginning of the universe directly, as we are a part of it.

On a side note, new ideas about what "time" is are emerging And that's an appropriate word, as they describe time as an emergent property of quantum entanglement. An observer outside our universe would not perceive any passing of time at all, when observing our universe. It would not even appear to exist at all!

If we were with the creator, we could see all of the matter retract and consolidate into nothing.

Your point about an observer not perceiving the passing of time might be true for us, but the creator would certainly know what is happening.

On another note, we can create programs to simulate the big bang and to even create worlds and to fill it with life. What we CAN'T do is give the creatures in our world sentience. But our creator can. The whole concept of a creator creating the universe and life seems fantastic but, when you look at it using the computer programming analogy, it's not that difficult to imagine at all.

<<If we were with the creator, we could see all of the matter retract and consolidate into nothing. >>


No. If we were the creator, we would be riding a pink unicorn and making it poop dragons, all the while making love to our gay god-lover. Dang, i guess there is no way to tell who is right, huh? You REALLY need to recognize the difference between evidence-based thought and magical thought.

Actually we were all present when space and time were created. Since that time matter/energy has just changed form. Until it evolved to the point it became self aware and could know itself.

"Actually we were all present when space and time were created."

Says you. You'll have to excuse me if I don't just lap up any authoritative declaration that any religious goofball utters. In fact, I'm sure you understand, as you reject all the religious nuttery you disagree with, too.

No. Says the conservation of energy. You know... the First Law of Thermodynamics.

 

[RWNJ]

`
The article, from a "creationist" web site, is commenting on Hawking's book, The Grand Design, in which Hawking postulates; "that invoking God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe, and that the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone. In response to criticism, Hawking has said; "One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary."

Those who take the bible literally, will object to that of course. They have no use for such things as science anyways. As creationists are all "faith based", argumentation in regards to science is totally lost on them. Hawking does not state an absolute in his book but offers instead, a mathematical and scientifically sound explanation of a "possible" alternative to the creationist concept.

"The Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone."
Where did the laws of physics come from?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I think you mean to say that YOU lack the knowledge to name anything else.

My position is that the only solution which exists for the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.

Not if you follow the ABG theory.

How so?

Are you familiar with ABG theory?

"ABG Theory"

"abiogenesis" is one word. And someone who had strong faith could just accept any scientific explanation and say, "that's how god did it!". So, your problem with abiogenesis goes beyond merely "believing in a creator". You need to be honest with yourself and everyone else about this simple fact.

Sure, that's where studying how matter evolved from sub atomic particles to beings that know and create comes into play.

"Sure, that's where studying how matter evolved from sub atomic particles to beings that know and create comes into play."

huh? how would that confirm or deny the existence of a creator? It wouldn't. We could never do this via science.

 

[ding]

Well, if we could travel back, wouldn't we see all of matter condensing into one point and, with it, the collapsing of space itself? Upon reaching the final point, I believe we would actually see that there was nothing at all. No matter, no space, nothing. Then if we could fast-forward, the matter would appear, literally out of nowhere followed up instantly by the biggest explosion our universe has ever had. And then we would see the first seconds of the universe.

Where have I got it wrong?

No, we would never reach that point, even without a singularity.we could never observe the beginning of the universe directly, as we are a part of it.

On a side note, new ideas about what "time" is are emerging And that's an appropriate word, as they describe time as an emergent property of quantum entanglement. An observer outside our universe would not perceive any passing of time at all, when observing our universe. It would not even appear to exist at all!

If we were with the creator, we could see all of the matter retract and consolidate into nothing.

Your point about an observer not perceiving the passing of time might be true for us, but the creator would certainly know what is happening.

On another note, we can create programs to simulate the big bang and to even create worlds and to fill it with life. What we CAN'T do is give the creatures in our world sentience. But our creator can. The whole concept of a creator creating the universe and life seems fantastic but, when you look at it using the computer programming analogy, it's not that difficult to imagine at all.

<<If we were with the creator, we could see all of the matter retract and consolidate into nothing. >>


No. If we were the creator, we would be riding a pink unicorn and making it poop dragons, all the while making love to our gay god-lover. Dang, i guess there is no way to tell who is right, huh? You REALLY need to recognize the difference between evidence-based thought and magical thought.

Actually we were all present when space and time were created. Since that time matter/energy has just changed form. Until it evolved to the point it became self aware and could know itself.

"Actually we were all present when space and time were created."

EDIT: well, that's interesting, but matter has been created and annihilated since then, so not sure about that

"Did you know that the matter in your body is billions of years old?

According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago..."

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

 

[ding]

Not if you follow the ABG theory.

How so?

Are you familiar with ABG theory?

"ABG Theory"

"abiogenesis" is one word. And someone who had strong faith could just accept any scientific explanation and say, "that's how god did it!". So, your problem with abiogenesis goes beyond merely "believing in a creator". You need to be honest with yourself and everyone else about this simple fact.

Sure, that's where studying how matter evolved from sub atomic particles to beings that know and create comes into play.

"Sure, that's where studying how matter evolved from sub atomic particles to beings that know and create comes into play."

huh? how would that confirm or deny the existence of a creator? It wouldn't. We could never do this via science.

Because you can't tell what something is by how it starts. You can only tell what it is when it is finished.

 

[RWNJ]

The universe was never created.

`
That may be true in a "closed universe" where the expansion driven by the Big Bang stops and causes its own eventual contraction, only to reform and expand again in another Big Bang. Hawking's theory is based on that. The existence of a god has no effect on that.

SO, why was there a big bang? What caused it? Someone had to cause it to happen, otherwise it violates the LAW of cause and effect.