Creation was godless says Hawking (Revelation, demon, morals, about)

[Asheville Native]

You all are going to wear yourself out trying to penetrate the fortress of delusion that Tom's mind has been imprisoned in for many many decades now.

[AREQUIPA]

The video says it all and it is bang in line with what we have been saying on the forum.

The gaps for god are closing. The only one remaining was how it all got started. Could something come from nothing?

Hawking says yes. The theists say no. It's a small gap for god when you think of it. A god wouldn't need to produce a universe from next to nothing. It was a very small gap for god in any case. It is a very weak logical reason to suggest any kind of god let alone claim it as a fact in which utter Faith was invested.

God was not logically likely but First cause was the best of a lot of bad arguments. Hawking says that is now no argument. I can't say yet whether Hawking has it right or not and I await the result of some searching peer evaluation. I am not going to take any theist's denigration as anything but the expected kneejerk reaction to unwelcome (possible) truth.

Think on this: I don't mind if Hawking's wrong, but some theists are going to be seriously discomfited if he's shown to be right.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Mercury Cougar

Aaaaannnd there you go again, trying to put YOUR specific labels and definitions on things that other people think. You pass yourself off as so intelligent and educated, I'm amazed that you keep doing such an ignorant thing.

Or wait, maybe I'm not amazed. Your track record speaks for itself. You have a long and tedious history of trying to tell people that nature is a 'Creator' and a god. I'd think by now you'd realize by now how silly it is to try to tell someone else what they believe.

Run along now, and go talk to your (imaginary) god.

You keep attacking me instead of answering my sincere questions. What DO you accept then . . . since life and intelligence exist? Did they come from life and intelligence or non-life and unintelligence? Your tedious assertions that you don't know . . . (yet you call it "Nature" and "natural") . . . are childish and amateurish evasion. It is no longer acceptable to pretend that "it just is" as if that were a neutral position. That has been adequately exposed as an evasion and cognitive self-deception.

[nimchimpsky]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

The theory of the big bang requires substance and heat. To suggest there was nothing before requires you to believe something not found in the theory itself. So are you baseing your belief on your personal opinion, or the actual theory? And since the theory states that the universe was both hot and dense, it is a fair question to ask where this heat and dense material came from? It appears Mr. Hawking did not adress that. And it appears you have made a wrong assumption about the theory.

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the whole point is that something can come of nothing. hard to fathom but according to m-theory, it is possible. so heat and density and matter and everything can arise from nothingness. he did address that.

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by nimchimpsky

the whole point is that something can come of nothing. hard to fathom but according to m-theory, it is possible. so heat and density and matter and everything can arise from nothingness. he did address that.

Believeing that everything came from nothing has little to do with science, and much more to do with science fiction. There is simply no evidence to support such a belief, where as there is a great deal of evidence to support the Biblical account. However, it appears there is a great desire by some to dismiss that evidence, and to embrace the unscientific theory that suggest that all creation came from nothing. For some, any unsupportable belief will do as long as it dismisses God.

[tigetmax24]

Originally Posted by nimchimpsky

tiget, i gave it my best shot because it looks like i will be on this stuff for awhile and i didn't want to make you wait forever. let me know if there's anything i missed.

Again, there's nothing earth shattering here. Basically, you've demonstrated a dogmatic predisposition to reject the Bible. There's obviously no limit to the number of so called "contradictions" to be dredged up for the purpose of creating excessively lengthy filibuster responses.

However, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. For the purpose of clarification, let's discuss these one by one. Which specific "contradiction" do you find to be most glaring?

[firstborn888]

"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly
what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and
be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

There is another theory which states that this has already happened".

-- Douglas Adams

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

Believeing that everything came from nothing has little to do with science, and much more to do with science fiction. There is simply no evidence to support such a belief, where as there is a great deal of evidence to support the Biblical account. However, it appears there is a great desire by some to dismiss that evidence, and to embrace the unscientific theory that suggest that all creation came from nothing. For some, any unsupportable belief will do as long as it dismisses God.

The amusing thing is that you are absolutely right - if you apply this to yourself (1).

Your refusal to even consider that Hawking - who has an impressive track record in cutting - edge cosmic physics - might know what he's talking about smacks of a desire to dismiss any evidence that does not support your unscientific Bible - based beliefs in Young - Earth creationism.

"There is simply no evidence to support such a belief" is astounding from someone who has shown little understanding of science and an impressive track record in talking arrant nonscience.

And "there is a great deal of evidence to support the Biblical account" is laughable from someone whose claims have turned out to be based on some very doubtful research and some palapable hoaxes. Much of your 'evidence' has been soundly trashed.

Yet you keep posting the same claims again and again and you have the monumental sauce to claim that your science is more credible than Hawking's

However, I say again, The claim needs to be substantiated and so we await the substantiation. If not, it makes little difference to us but if it is, it closes one more Gap for God. It would be a great blow for Theist apologetics to see argument from First cause end up in the same bin as 'historical evidence for Jesus' and 'Bible is the word of God'.

(1) Yeah...let's do it. "Believing that there is a great deal of evidence to support the Biblical account has little to do with science, and much more to do with science fiction. There is simply no evidence to support such a belief, whereas recent discoveries have made it ever more probable that everything came from nothing (Hawking's previous acheivements should have earned his some credit). However, it appears there is a great desire by some to dismiss that evidence, and to embrace the unscientific theory that suggests that all creation came from nothing so long as Goddunnit. For some, any unsupportable belief will do as long as it supports God - belief."

[nimchimpsky]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

Believeing that everything came from nothing has little to do with science, and much more to do with science fiction. There is simply no evidence to support such a belief, where as there is a great deal of evidence to support the Biblical account. However, it appears there is a great desire by some to dismiss that evidence, and to embrace the unscientific theory that suggest that all creation came from nothing. For some, any unsupportable belief will do as long as it dismisses God.

have you read m-theory? have you read up on string theory? how about quantum mechanics? if you've read up on any of those theories, then you would know that science is very much talking about the possibility that something can come of nothing, and numerous experiments have already been done that supported quantum theory.

science doesn't work in the same way as faith. scientists don't believe in theories. they test hypotheses. but you will hear both hawking and the other co-author of his book, mlodinow, say time and time again that their personal beliefs about god's existence have nothing to do with science. they are simply stating that m-theory does not require a creator. nowhere did they affirm that there actually isn't a creator, nor did they even say they personally don't believe in a creator. all they said was that, according to science, it is indeed possible that the universe may have been created from nothing.

[nimchimpsky]

Originally Posted by Walter Greenspan

No, it's not a win-win either way.

The Bible, or, if you prefer, the Jewish Bible, is one thing; and, the Christian Bible is another, quite different, thing.

The Bible has prohibitions against idolatry for Jews (the Second Commandment), as well as for Gentiles (the Third Noahide Commandment).

In both cases, the worship of Jesus of Nazareth is idolatry.

i was under the impression that christians believed jesus to be the son of god, and worship god, and therefore worship jesus.

christians, am i mistaken?