…use common sense: if a comet, that’s so big to contain enough water to cover the earths surface upto 29.000 feet [Mt. Everest], breaks up outside the earth’s atmosphere due to an explosion or a pass-by of the sun, the temperature in outer space would immediately freeze the water turning it in ice again…
…if the comet does not break-up into pieces but enters the earth’s atmosphere in one piece, much of it’s contents will vaporize upon entry. If the comet is still big enough to contain enough water to cover the earth’s surface after entering the atmosphere, that comet should have obliterated the earth…
…if the comet breaks-up in pieces and those pieces combined have enough water to cover the earth’s surface, the entry into the earth’s atmosphere would vaporize the ice, just as it does countless of times with meteors. Any debris that makes it to the surface will not contain enough water…
…altough what religious belief is concerned: anything is possible no matter how improbable…[/quote]
thank you for taking the time to deconstruct that.
JayPierce, I am somewhat doing what you claim because your suggestion is beyond fantastic. And seriously, I’m just not that interested - no offense to you, but the idea of debating whether your theory could “hold water” just doesn’t light any intellectual fire in my mind, or spark any curiosity whatsoever. Yes, I’ve dismissed it. If I’ve done so in error, my loss
…use common sense: if a comet, that’s so big to contain enough water to cover the earths surface upto 29.000 feet [Mt. Everest], breaks up outside the earth’s atmosphere due to an explosion or a pass-by of the sun, the temperature in outer space would immediately freeze the water turning it in ice again…
…if the comet does not break-up into pieces but enters the earth’s atmosphere in one piece, much of it’s contents will vaporize upon entry. If the comet is still big enough to contain enough water to cover the earth’s surface after entering the atmosphere, that comet should have obliterated the earth…
…if the comet breaks-up in pieces and those pieces combined have enough water to cover the earth’s surface, the entry into the earth’s atmosphere would vaporize the ice, just as it does countless of times with meteors. Any debris that makes it to the surface will not contain enough water…
…altough what religious belief is concerned: anything is possible no matter how improbable…[/quote]
Sounds like this comet would need to be the size of the moon at least! If both polar caps melted completely, don’t we only get like 200 foot higher sees? Now that is significant of course… Florida would be underwater… etc. That would need to be one BIG mother fucking comet that just blew up and deposited all that water.
I will agree though that like 90% of our water on earth came from commets. But we are talking millions of comets over billions of years.
Of course the ice gets vaporized when it enters our atmosphere. It’s called Rain guys. Bodyguard is being dificult there I think. He must know that. But the comet the size of mars theory is rediculous. Where did all the water go after that? Another comet came by and beamed it up?[/quote]
let me get this on track. please provide the links/references to the TPs that you conclude are athiests. And by athiests, do you mean a rejection of organized religion (then I too am most certainly an athiest) or, do you mean an outright denial of a Supreme/Divine source? I’ve read works by both Hawking and Susskind and I didn’t perceive any agenda to disprove God. I think you refer more to the athiest using TP and such in their attempt to disprove God.
[/quote]
No the people listed and many more absolutely deny the existence of God. Here is a quote by Hawking himself:
“All that my work has shown is that you don’t have to say that the way the universe began was the personal whim of God.”
Here is a bunch of quotes along the same line…
Here is some more:
Now interestingly, as he bring his speech to crescendo with his something from nothing thoery, he says that there is energy there. And energy is a something. That’s why I emailed him directly and asked him that very question, to which he responded “No, there is always something there.”
[/quote]
You have a weird agenda, and quite possibly one of the most biased reading comprehensions I’ve come across lately. I read every quote in your link and I cannot appreciate where Hawkings has an agenda or belief against “God”. I don’t have time for an hour video so I did not view your second link.
Again, I challenge you to provide reference/source for your apparent contention that the TP community has an agenda to disprove “God”.
[/quote]
Man, it doesn’t get much more plain than that.
I don’t have any sort of weird agenda and I never said, at all, the TP community at large has an agenda to disprove the existence of God, I never even intimated that. I said that some physicists do, do just that and I just provided two examples. I watched a show where Hawking in his robot voice said, he wants to put forth “a view of the universe that doesn’t need God.” These were his words. Did I misinterpret that? How much more clear do you want it? But I never ever, ever, ever said that the goal of theoretical physics is to disprove the existence of God.
Second, I rendered an opinion, which is all it was, that sometimes TP’s may deliberately avoid a theory or conclusion, that may actually prove the existence of something like a “God”. I have no proof what so ever, of that. It’s just a hunch…I used the example of null theory, where they make a claim of something from nothing, but they themselves admit there is still something there. Last time I looked the definition of nothing, did not include something. Am I wrong?
I am not sure what your agenda is. You want me to say I am not a smart as a hawking or some other theoretical physicist? I 'll grant that happily. I deeply enjoy science and I am fascinated by the work they do. I never made such a claim, at all. Hell I need those folks to be right so I can make my points based on their theories and conclusions. I really don’t know what you are on about.[/quote]
Doesn’t get much more plain than that? lol At least one other person here thought exactly as I and stated as much. I don’t think it’s plain at all. Hawking is attempting to discover what makes the volcanoes of old happen - seeking and discovering cause does not obviate God. Wanting to explain the physical does not deny He who set it in motion. We can discover the exact mechanism of the big bang and still will never explain what occurred or existed just before…ever. There is no end and there is no denying God by that journey. One only needs to apply your logic to the volcanoes of old to expose the weakness in your perception. The earliest vulcanist was no more an atheist than Hawking et al. If you’re going to attribute atheism to someone, at least reference a source where the person proclaims it. You’re insinuating it, with poor reading comprehension. [/quote]
Is this satisfactory for you:
“there would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time . . . The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE . . . What place, then, for a creator? ([9], pp. 136, 141)”
And what is my logic and is weakness in perception?
[/quote]
You fancy yourself intelligent that’s why I’m absolutely mystified by your apparent inability to grasp this. Let me help you and show you the flaw in your perception:
"“there would be no eruptions from the mountain at which the laws of science broke down and one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the conditions for a volcano. . . The volcano would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside the earth. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE . . . What place, then, for a creator? ([9], pp. 136, 141)”
He’s asking a question. He’s exploring the boundries of space and time and wondering why a creator is necessary to explain the properties of the observable universe. He’s not denying God. He’s suggesting that science can possibly explain all there is to know about the observable universe and its origins. He is quite literally standing on the same ground as the man that first openly wondered whether science could explain the lightning and thunder, as opposed to God’s wrath. Or why a volcano exploded and didn’t require a sacrafice to a “God”. Once again, how much clearer can I make the following request: Please send me a credible reference where Hawkings proclaims himself an atheist. I’m not stating you’re incorrect - I am stating that the “references” you have provided thus far are specious at best. A t-shirt? Really?
[/quote]
Uh, that question is rhetorical.
I know what he is saying. A self contained universe that can be neither created nor destroyed is an atheistic proposition. One who believes this, must necessarily believe there is no God. Creating a view of a creation with out a creator is an atheistic core belief. It’s more than an academic exercise. These are the ultimate questions as to why we’re here and how we got here. If the universe, or all creation, in fact has no creator there is no God. It’s more than science, it’s everything.
Based on the things Hawking says about his research he is at worst an agnostic hoping to find and atheist answer to the existence of the universe. We’ll never really know what he actually believes personally because to my knowledge he doesn’t care to share his personal beliefs. So has he declared that he is an atheist, no. As far as I know he claims agnosticism and denies full blown atheism. Yet, he seeks to present a view of the universe that does not require the need for a creator. That is something a theist would begrudgingly be forced to admit, not seek.
As for what he personally believes, what his favorite color is, or what not, I don’t know. I am not a follower of his so I don’t know every thing about him, but what he expresses are atheistic tenets. What his stated goal is an atheist’s dream. He has all the markings of atheist, but just does not want to be called one, I suppose.
What exactely is your goal here? I suspect all you want to do is take me down a notch. You’ve latched on to something I said as a sheer matter of opinion and stated it as such.
Now you’ve stated that there are plenty of theoretical physicists who are theists. Can you point me in the direction of a reputable one? I’d like to hear his or her theories.
[/quote]
I did not even read past your second sentence. You sir, are beyond hope. You know that which is in a stranger’s heart, even past his sharp denials of the very label you place upon him. There can be no intelligent discourse with someone such as yourself who believes he can know a strangers heart. You have a narrower view than he of what God could be…yours being limited to an anthromorphic God as described in your bible. That is your right.[/quote]
I did not say that…You clearly don’t know what the fuck you are talking about. I agree this is a useless discourse. Stalin may have claim to be a humanist, does not make him so.
Hawking’s personally stated goal is to provide a view of the universe that does not require God. ← THAT is a basic core value to athiests, only atheists believe such a thing. Everything he says on the record about the universe is one with out a creator. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it’s probably a fucking duck.
You’re trying to tell me he and other have no bias. Really? When your stated GOAL is to put forth a view of thew universe that does not require God, how is that not bias? He did not say his goal was allow science to take him where ever the results take him come what may. He said he wants to prove the universe requires no God. THAT is known in english as bias.
…use common sense: if a comet, that’s so big to contain enough water to cover the earths surface upto 29.000 feet [Mt. Everest], breaks up outside the earth’s atmosphere due to an explosion or a pass-by of the sun, the temperature in outer space would immediately freeze the water turning it in ice again…
…if the comet does not break-up into pieces but enters the earth’s atmosphere in one piece, much of it’s contents will vaporize upon entry. If the comet is still big enough to contain enough water to cover the earth’s surface after entering the atmosphere, that comet should have obliterated the earth…
…if the comet breaks-up in pieces and those pieces combined have enough water to cover the earth’s surface, the entry into the earth’s atmosphere would vaporize the ice, just as it does countless of times with meteors. Any debris that makes it to the surface will not contain enough water…
…altough what religious belief is concerned: anything is possible no matter how improbable…[/quote]
thank you for taking the time to deconstruct that.
JayPierce, I am somewhat doing what you claim because your suggestion is beyond fantastic. And seriously, I’m just not that interested - no offense to you, but the idea of debating whether your theory could “hold water” just doesn’t light any intellectual fire in my mind, or spark any curiosity whatsoever. Yes, I’ve dismissed it. If I’ve done so in error, my loss
[/quote]
…use common sense: if a comet, that’s so big to contain enough water to cover the earths surface upto 29.000 feet [Mt. Everest], breaks up outside the earth’s atmosphere due to an explosion or a pass-by of the sun, the temperature in outer space would immediately freeze the water turning it in ice again…
…if the comet does not break-up into pieces but enters the earth’s atmosphere in one piece, much of it’s contents will vaporize upon entry. If the comet is still big enough to contain enough water to cover the earth’s surface after entering the atmosphere, that comet should have obliterated the earth…
…if the comet breaks-up in pieces and those pieces combined have enough water to cover the earth’s surface, the entry into the earth’s atmosphere would vaporize the ice, just as it does countless of times with meteors. Any debris that makes it to the surface will not contain enough water…
…altough what religious belief is concerned: anything is possible no matter how improbable…[/quote]
Sounds like this comet would need to be the size of the moon at least! If both polar caps melted completely, don’t we only get like 200 foot higher sees? Now that is significant of course… Florida would be underwater… etc. That would need to be one BIG mother fucking comet that just blew up and deposited all that water.
I will agree though that like 90% of our water on earth came from commets. But we are talking millions of comets over billions of years.
Of course the ice gets vaporized when it enters our atmosphere. It’s called Rain guys. Bodyguard is being dificult there I think. He must know that. But the comet the size of mars theory is rediculous. Where did all the water go after that? Another comet came by and beamed it up?[/quote]
Comet rain? Okay, yeah, I’m being “difficult”.
[/quote]
Ok… so when Ice is vaporized in our atmosphere… are you sugesting that it is somehow destroyed? Or reduced to water vapor that will eventually rain down to earth? You are being “difficult”. Knowing that almost all the water on earth came from comets I have no idea where you are getting your position from.
The guy is wrong about a super comet causing a flood. There are many ways you could of pointed that out. But you’ve been talking down to him while you are wrong. That doesn’t make you look so good. A gas can penetrade our atmosphere. Ice can penetrade our atmosphere and will likely burn up. It’s water vapor becoming part of our atmosphere. It is not a force field from the starship Enterprise.
let me get this on track. please provide the links/references to the TPs that you conclude are athiests. And by athiests, do you mean a rejection of organized religion (then I too am most certainly an athiest) or, do you mean an outright denial of a Supreme/Divine source? I’ve read works by both Hawking and Susskind and I didn’t perceive any agenda to disprove God. I think you refer more to the athiest using TP and such in their attempt to disprove God.
[/quote]
No the people listed and many more absolutely deny the existence of God. Here is a quote by Hawking himself:
“All that my work has shown is that you don’t have to say that the way the universe began was the personal whim of God.”
Here is a bunch of quotes along the same line…
Here is some more:
Now interestingly, as he bring his speech to crescendo with his something from nothing thoery, he says that there is energy there. And energy is a something. That’s why I emailed him directly and asked him that very question, to which he responded “No, there is always something there.”
[/quote]
You have a weird agenda, and quite possibly one of the most biased reading comprehensions I’ve come across lately. I read every quote in your link and I cannot appreciate where Hawkings has an agenda or belief against “God”. I don’t have time for an hour video so I did not view your second link.
Again, I challenge you to provide reference/source for your apparent contention that the TP community has an agenda to disprove “God”.
[/quote]
Man, it doesn’t get much more plain than that.
I don’t have any sort of weird agenda and I never said, at all, the TP community at large has an agenda to disprove the existence of God, I never even intimated that. I said that some physicists do, do just that and I just provided two examples. I watched a show where Hawking in his robot voice said, he wants to put forth “a view of the universe that doesn’t need God.” These were his words. Did I misinterpret that? How much more clear do you want it? But I never ever, ever, ever said that the goal of theoretical physics is to disprove the existence of God.
Second, I rendered an opinion, which is all it was, that sometimes TP’s may deliberately avoid a theory or conclusion, that may actually prove the existence of something like a “God”. I have no proof what so ever, of that. It’s just a hunch…I used the example of null theory, where they make a claim of something from nothing, but they themselves admit there is still something there. Last time I looked the definition of nothing, did not include something. Am I wrong?
I am not sure what your agenda is. You want me to say I am not a smart as a hawking or some other theoretical physicist? I 'll grant that happily. I deeply enjoy science and I am fascinated by the work they do. I never made such a claim, at all. Hell I need those folks to be right so I can make my points based on their theories and conclusions. I really don’t know what you are on about.[/quote]
Doesn’t get much more plain than that? lol At least one other person here thought exactly as I and stated as much. I don’t think it’s plain at all. Hawking is attempting to discover what makes the volcanoes of old happen - seeking and discovering cause does not obviate God. Wanting to explain the physical does not deny He who set it in motion. We can discover the exact mechanism of the big bang and still will never explain what occurred or existed just before…ever. There is no end and there is no denying God by that journey. One only needs to apply your logic to the volcanoes of old to expose the weakness in your perception. The earliest vulcanist was no more an atheist than Hawking et al. If you’re going to attribute atheism to someone, at least reference a source where the person proclaims it. You’re insinuating it, with poor reading comprehension. [/quote]
Is this satisfactory for you:
“there would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time . . . The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE . . . What place, then, for a creator? ([9], pp. 136, 141)”
And what is my logic and is weakness in perception?
[/quote]
You fancy yourself intelligent that’s why I’m absolutely mystified by your apparent inability to grasp this. Let me help you and show you the flaw in your perception:
"“there would be no eruptions from the mountain at which the laws of science broke down and one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the conditions for a volcano. . . The volcano would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside the earth. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE . . . What place, then, for a creator? ([9], pp. 136, 141)”
He’s asking a question. He’s exploring the boundries of space and time and wondering why a creator is necessary to explain the properties of the observable universe. He’s not denying God. He’s suggesting that science can possibly explain all there is to know about the observable universe and its origins. He is quite literally standing on the same ground as the man that first openly wondered whether science could explain the lightning and thunder, as opposed to God’s wrath. Or why a volcano exploded and didn’t require a sacrafice to a “God”. Once again, how much clearer can I make the following request: Please send me a credible reference where Hawkings proclaims himself an atheist. I’m not stating you’re incorrect - I am stating that the “references” you have provided thus far are specious at best. A t-shirt? Really?
[/quote]
Uh, that question is rhetorical.
I know what he is saying. A self contained universe that can be neither created nor destroyed is an atheistic proposition. One who believes this, must necessarily believe there is no God. Creating a view of a creation with out a creator is an atheistic core belief. It’s more than an academic exercise. These are the ultimate questions as to why we’re here and how we got here. If the universe, or all creation, in fact has no creator there is no God. It’s more than science, it’s everything.
Based on the things Hawking says about his research he is at worst an agnostic hoping to find and atheist answer to the existence of the universe. We’ll never really know what he actually believes personally because to my knowledge he doesn’t care to share his personal beliefs. So has he declared that he is an atheist, no. As far as I know he claims agnosticism and denies full blown atheism. Yet, he seeks to present a view of the universe that does not require the need for a creator. That is something a theist would begrudgingly be forced to admit, not seek.
As for what he personally believes, what his favorite color is, or what not, I don’t know. I am not a follower of his so I don’t know every thing about him, but what he expresses are atheistic tenets. What his stated goal is an atheist’s dream. He has all the markings of atheist, but just does not want to be called one, I suppose.
What exactely is your goal here? I suspect all you want to do is take me down a notch. You’ve latched on to something I said as a sheer matter of opinion and stated it as such.
Now you’ve stated that there are plenty of theoretical physicists who are theists. Can you point me in the direction of a reputable one? I’d like to hear his or her theories.
[/quote]
I did not even read past your second sentence. You sir, are beyond hope. You know that which is in a stranger’s heart, even past his sharp denials of the very label you place upon him. There can be no intelligent discourse with someone such as yourself who believes he can know a strangers heart. You have a narrower view than he of what God could be…yours being limited to an anthromorphic God as described in your bible. That is your right.[/quote]
I did not say that…You clearly don’t know what the fuck you are talking about. I agree this is a useless discourse. Stalin may have claim to be a humanist, does not make him so.
Hawking’s personally stated goal is to provide a view of the universe that does not require God. ← THAT is a basic core value to athiests, only atheists believe such a thing. Everything he says on the record about the universe is one with out a creator. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it’s probably a fucking duck.
You’re trying to tell me he and other have no bias. Really? When your stated GOAL is to put forth a view of thew universe that does not require God, how is that not bias? He did not say his goal was allow science to take him where ever the results take him come what may. He said he wants to prove the universe requires no God. THAT is known in english as bias.
[/quote]
I tried to get out, and you pulled me back in. You sir, are a narrow minded intellectually limited idiot. The physical universe no more requires a creator or God than the volcano. By not “requiring God”, he is speaking of unlocking all that is presently unknown by scientific discovery - to explain all physical phenomena presently known and unknown. To do so sir, if it were possible, would still not disprove “God”. Obviously, the lightning and volcano analogies are lost upon you - but to be clear, at one time, man believed them too to be caused by the whims of a God. At present, we cannot explain all the properties of the universe and thus, some, like you, think they are subject to the whims of a God. Hawkings himself has clearly admitted that God may have created the physical laws that the universe follows. And I too say it is perfectly reasonable that “God” sits right outside the physical universe, beyond matter, beyond time, not subject to any physical laws. Am I too an atheist? Because you know, I need YOU to tell me what I believe. And I think one of the most brilliant men on the planet (Hawkings) could use your help too figuring out HIS feelings. Is there a T-shirt somewhere with my name printed on it, proving I too am an atheist?
…use common sense: if a comet, that’s so big to contain enough water to cover the earths surface upto 29.000 feet [Mt. Everest], breaks up outside the earth’s atmosphere due to an explosion or a pass-by of the sun, the temperature in outer space would immediately freeze the water turning it in ice again…
…if the comet does not break-up into pieces but enters the earth’s atmosphere in one piece, much of it’s contents will vaporize upon entry. If the comet is still big enough to contain enough water to cover the earth’s surface after entering the atmosphere, that comet should have obliterated the earth…
…if the comet breaks-up in pieces and those pieces combined have enough water to cover the earth’s surface, the entry into the earth’s atmosphere would vaporize the ice, just as it does countless of times with meteors. Any debris that makes it to the surface will not contain enough water…
…altough what religious belief is concerned: anything is possible no matter how improbable…[/quote]
Sounds like this comet would need to be the size of the moon at least! If both polar caps melted completely, don’t we only get like 200 foot higher sees? Now that is significant of course… Florida would be underwater… etc. That would need to be one BIG mother fucking comet that just blew up and deposited all that water.
I will agree though that like 90% of our water on earth came from commets. But we are talking millions of comets over billions of years.
Of course the ice gets vaporized when it enters our atmosphere. It’s called Rain guys. Bodyguard is being dificult there I think. He must know that. But the comet the size of mars theory is rediculous. Where did all the water go after that? Another comet came by and beamed it up?[/quote]
Comet rain? Okay, yeah, I’m being “difficult”.
[/quote]
Ok… so when Ice is vaporized in our atmosphere… are you sugesting that it is somehow destroyed? Or reduced to water vapor that will eventually rain down to earth? You are being “difficult”. Knowing that almost all the water on earth came from comets I have no idea where you are getting your position from.
The guy is wrong about a super comet causing a flood. There are many ways you could of pointed that out. But you’ve been talking down to him while you are wrong. That doesn’t make you look so good. A gas can penetrade our atmosphere. Ice can penetrade our atmosphere and will likely burn up. It’s water vapor becoming part of our atmosphere. It is not a force field from the starship Enterprise.
I tried to get out, and you pulled me back in. You sir, are a narrow minded intellectually limited idiot. The physical universe no more requires a creator or God than the volcano. By not “requiring God”, he is speaking of unlocking all that is presently unknown by scientific discovery - to explain all physical phenomena presently known and unknown. To do so sir, if it were possible, would still not disprove “God”. Obviously, the lightning and volcano analogies are lost upon you - but to be clear, at one time, man believed them too to be caused by the whims of a God. At present, we cannot explain all the properties of the universe and thus, some, like you, think they are subject to the whims of a God. Hawkings himself has clearly admitted that God may have created the physical laws that the universe follows. And I too say it is perfectly reasonable that “God” sits right outside the physical universe, beyond matter, beyond time, not subject to any physical laws. Am I too an atheist? Because you know, I need YOU to tell me what I believe. And I think one of the most brilliant men on the planet (Hawkings) could use your help too figuring out HIS feelings. Is there a T-shirt somewhere with my name printed on it, proving I too am an atheist?
[/quote]
Now we’re getting somewhere! First, the volcano analogies or what ever you choose to call them were so bad they weren’t worth addressing.
Now, where did the universe come from?..The laws that guide “it” where did they come from? We’ll see if you can prove a self contained uncreated universe.
I tried to get out, and you pulled me back in. You sir, are a narrow minded intellectually limited idiot. The physical universe no more requires a creator or God than the volcano. By not “requiring God”, he is speaking of unlocking all that is presently unknown by scientific discovery - to explain all physical phenomena presently known and unknown. To do so sir, if it were possible, would still not disprove “God”. Obviously, the lightning and volcano analogies are lost upon you - but to be clear, at one time, man believed them too to be caused by the whims of a God. At present, we cannot explain all the properties of the universe and thus, some, like you, think they are subject to the whims of a God. Hawkings himself has clearly admitted that God may have created the physical laws that the universe follows. And I too say it is perfectly reasonable that “God” sits right outside the physical universe, beyond matter, beyond time, not subject to any physical laws. Am I too an atheist? Because you know, I need YOU to tell me what I believe. And I think one of the most brilliant men on the planet (Hawkings) could use your help too figuring out HIS feelings. Is there a T-shirt somewhere with my name printed on it, proving I too am an atheist?
[/quote]
Now we’re getting somewhere! First, the volcano analogies or what ever you choose to call them were so bad they weren’t worth addressing.
Now, where did the universe come from?..The laws that guide “it” where did they come from? We’ll see if you can prove a self contained uncreated universe.[/quote]
Hawkings clearly acknowledges the possibility of a “god” making the laws of the universe. Or did you miss that in your references? I read his book. Did you? So, given that Hawkings, and myself for that matter, acknowledge a “God” having created the laws, what exactly is your point? If God sits outside space and time (immortality, eternity, etc.), why is this so hard for you to wrap your mind around and why do you automatically equate it with atheism?
I tried to get out, and you pulled me back in. You sir, are a narrow minded intellectually limited idiot. The physical universe no more requires a creator or God than the volcano. By not “requiring God”, he is speaking of unlocking all that is presently unknown by scientific discovery - to explain all physical phenomena presently known and unknown. To do so sir, if it were possible, would still not disprove “God”. Obviously, the lightning and volcano analogies are lost upon you - but to be clear, at one time, man believed them too to be caused by the whims of a God. At present, we cannot explain all the properties of the universe and thus, some, like you, think they are subject to the whims of a God. Hawkings himself has clearly admitted that God may have created the physical laws that the universe follows. And I too say it is perfectly reasonable that “God” sits right outside the physical universe, beyond matter, beyond time, not subject to any physical laws. Am I too an atheist? Because you know, I need YOU to tell me what I believe. And I think one of the most brilliant men on the planet (Hawkings) could use your help too figuring out HIS feelings. Is there a T-shirt somewhere with my name printed on it, proving I too am an atheist?
[/quote]
Now we’re getting somewhere! First, the volcano analogies or what ever you choose to call them were so bad they weren’t worth addressing.
Now, where did the universe come from?..The laws that guide “it” where did they come from? We’ll see if you can prove a self contained uncreated universe.[/quote]
Hawkings clearly acknowledges the possibility of a “god” making the laws of the universe. Or did you miss that in your references? I read his book. Did you? So, given that Hawkings, and myself for that matter, acknowledge a “God” having created the laws, what exactly is your point? If God sits outside space and time (immortality, eternity, etc.), why is this so hard for you to wrap your mind around and why do you automatically equate it with atheism?
[/quote]
The point is, that if that’s true, then something from nothing is bunk. That is the point.
I tried to get out, and you pulled me back in. You sir, are a narrow minded intellectually limited idiot. The physical universe no more requires a creator or God than the volcano. By not “requiring God”, he is speaking of unlocking all that is presently unknown by scientific discovery - to explain all physical phenomena presently known and unknown. To do so sir, if it were possible, would still not disprove “God”. Obviously, the lightning and volcano analogies are lost upon you - but to be clear, at one time, man believed them too to be caused by the whims of a God. At present, we cannot explain all the properties of the universe and thus, some, like you, think they are subject to the whims of a God. Hawkings himself has clearly admitted that God may have created the physical laws that the universe follows. And I too say it is perfectly reasonable that “God” sits right outside the physical universe, beyond matter, beyond time, not subject to any physical laws. Am I too an atheist? Because you know, I need YOU to tell me what I believe. And I think one of the most brilliant men on the planet (Hawkings) could use your help too figuring out HIS feelings. Is there a T-shirt somewhere with my name printed on it, proving I too am an atheist?
[/quote]
Now we’re getting somewhere! First, the volcano analogies or what ever you choose to call them were so bad they weren’t worth addressing.
Now, where did the universe come from?..The laws that guide “it” where did they come from? We’ll see if you can prove a self contained uncreated universe.[/quote]
Hawkings clearly acknowledges the possibility of a “god” making the laws of the universe. Or did you miss that in your references? I read his book. Did you? So, given that Hawkings, and myself for that matter, acknowledge a “God” having created the laws, what exactly is your point? If God sits outside space and time (immortality, eternity, etc.), why is this so hard for you to wrap your mind around and why do you automatically equate it with atheism?
[/quote]
The point is, that if that’s true, then something from nothing is bunk. That is the point.
[/quote]
You’re changing the point as you go. Is that now your point?
Do you truly understand what Hawking is musing about? Really? Because I’m not so sure I do but I know he’s not arguing against the existence of God - only that God is not necessary to explain the physical universe. Do you understand that our brightest minds do not really understand the concept of “time” - that is it largely a man made construct and it may be a limiting construct in our quest to understand the universe?
Explain to me what you mean by “something from nothing” and how that is attributable to Hawking…because you seem to be harping on those two things. I’m not sure I’m understanding why you are harping on that subject - so take a moment, breathe and explain it to me.
I tried to get out, and you pulled me back in. You sir, are a narrow minded intellectually limited idiot. The physical universe no more requires a creator or God than the volcano. By not “requiring God”, he is speaking of unlocking all that is presently unknown by scientific discovery - to explain all physical phenomena presently known and unknown. To do so sir, if it were possible, would still not disprove “God”. Obviously, the lightning and volcano analogies are lost upon you - but to be clear, at one time, man believed them too to be caused by the whims of a God. At present, we cannot explain all the properties of the universe and thus, some, like you, think they are subject to the whims of a God. Hawkings himself has clearly admitted that God may have created the physical laws that the universe follows. And I too say it is perfectly reasonable that “God” sits right outside the physical universe, beyond matter, beyond time, not subject to any physical laws. Am I too an atheist? Because you know, I need YOU to tell me what I believe. And I think one of the most brilliant men on the planet (Hawkings) could use your help too figuring out HIS feelings. Is there a T-shirt somewhere with my name printed on it, proving I too am an atheist?
[/quote]
Now we’re getting somewhere! First, the volcano analogies or what ever you choose to call them were so bad they weren’t worth addressing.
Now, where did the universe come from?..The laws that guide “it” where did they come from? We’ll see if you can prove a self contained uncreated universe.[/quote]
Hawkings clearly acknowledges the possibility of a “god” making the laws of the universe. Or did you miss that in your references? I read his book. Did you? So, given that Hawkings, and myself for that matter, acknowledge a “God” having created the laws, what exactly is your point? If God sits outside space and time (immortality, eternity, etc.), why is this so hard for you to wrap your mind around and why do you automatically equate it with atheism?
[/quote]
The point is, that if that’s true, then something from nothing is bunk. That is the point.
[/quote]
You’re changing the point as you go. Is that now your point?
Do you truly understand what Hawking is musing about? Really? Because I’m not so sure I do but I know he’s not arguing against the existence of God - only that God is not necessary to explain the physical universe. Do you understand that our brightest minds do not really understand the concept of “time” - that is it largely a man made construct and it may be a limiting construct in our quest to understand the universe?
Explain to me what you mean by “something from nothing” and how that is attributable to Hawking…because you seem to be harping on those two things. I’m not sure I’m understanding why you are harping on that subject - so take a moment, breathe and explain it to me.[/quote]
That was the original point before you start berating me. Breathing.
First, what is your “definition” of God. Who or what do you think he is? This is important because we can then derive who or what, you and Hawking are talking about.
Second, something from nothing is integral to his “Theory of Everything” which is his holy grail. If you can prove that ‘something’ can come from nothing, then you can prove there is no creator, or at least one isn’t necessary. Which was his stated goal as it pertains to the “Theory of Everything”.
The problem is that the science at it’s extremes, the lines between the physical and the metaphysical are blurred. So to say that God is only the God of laws, of the metaphysical only is not God. If he is not the creator, he isn’t God. You also take causality as a law and purely physical construct, which it isn’t it applies the to the metaphysical world as well. All metaphysical things are begotten by something else ,just like the physical world. So I disagree with the notion that God sits outside the physical world and has nothing to do with it. He loses God like properties and hence really would not be God.
What I am saying is that the history of creation demands a creator. Whether he created this universe or a trillion that preceded it, it was brought about by something that can bring it about and not be subject to it.
Fortunately, something from nothing has proven elusive to everybody…
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I reckon I don’t foller you 'round like a bloodhound, that’s why.
Glad to see you joined some kind of a cult though. A man’s gotta believe in sumthin.[/quote]
“My cult’s better than your cult!”[/quote]
In my cult, our high-priests use their magic us their magic to turn beer and sausage into the flesh and essential fluids of Morgoth, so that we may consume him, and so consume his power. It gives us near immortality, and assures us a place at his side when he returns from Lithrasrada for the final judgment, and punishment of man.
Unforgettably, it’s a nightly ritual, and it’s really wreaking havoc on my body composition.
…use common sense: if a comet, that’s so big to contain enough water to cover the earths surface upto 29.000 feet [Mt. Everest], breaks up outside the earth’s atmosphere due to an explosion or a pass-by of the sun, the temperature in outer space would immediately freeze the water turning it in ice again…
…if the comet does not break-up into pieces but enters the earth’s atmosphere in one piece, much of it’s contents will vaporize upon entry. If the comet is still big enough to contain enough water to cover the earth’s surface after entering the atmosphere, that comet should have obliterated the earth…
…if the comet breaks-up in pieces and those pieces combined have enough water to cover the earth’s surface, the entry into the earth’s atmosphere would vaporize the ice, just as it does countless of times with meteors. Any debris that makes it to the surface will not contain enough water…
…altough what religious belief is concerned: anything is possible no matter how improbable…[/quote]
thank you for taking the time to deconstruct that.
JayPierce, I am somewhat doing what you claim because your suggestion is beyond fantastic. And seriously, I’m just not that interested - no offense to you, but the idea of debating whether your theory could “hold water” just doesn’t light any intellectual fire in my mind, or spark any curiosity whatsoever. Yes, I’ve dismissed it. If I’ve done so in error, my loss
[/quote]
…in fact pat, meteorites are believed to have carried amino acids to earth, supplying our young earth with the necessary means to start life. There’s not just ice out there you know…
The guy is wrong about a super comet causing a flood. There are many ways you could of pointed that out. But you’ve been talking down to him while you are wrong. That doesn’t make you look so good. A gas can penetrade our atmosphere. Ice can penetrade our atmosphere and will likely burn up. It’s water vapor becoming part of our atmosphere. It is not a force field from the starship Enterprise.
[/quote]
…you’re right ofcourse; in the event that an enormous amount [millions] of ice comets enter the earth’s atmosphere and vaporize at the same time, they could theoretically cause a world wide flood like depicted in the bible. The real world evidence that supports such a flood however is non-existent, and makes this scenario not only unlikely… but also complete hogwash…
Has this thread moved to the point where no one is arguing on the side of a literal reading of the Noah and his boat story?
Just from the position of being a critical reader of anything (literature, history), one you reject the basic premises that this guy built a boat, put two of each kind of animal on it, and he and his wife, totally repopulated the world, and the two of every animal alive today, totally repopulated the world with their own species… …what are you left with?
You’re going to argue that there actually was at one point a flood, and someone maned Noah built a boat, and put a couple animals on it? Okay… Someone at some point probably got flooded out, and put their animals in a boat… what does that tell us about the world? Or God? Or anything?
Once you loose “every living animal and person on earth is a decedent of Noah’s boat crew because God killed everything else”, you sort of loose the oomph of the story… and then we get there was a guy with a boat who put some animals on it to escape a flood. Not an uncommon occurrence.
Some study on your part is in order. You really don’t have a grasp on what you’re trying to argue against. I’m serious. You look foolish ranting against something you don’t understand nor want to understand.[/quote]
And I’m really worried about looking foolish here.
This thread has gone all over the place, when it started with a very simple, straightforward question. Instead of taking the simplest route to the answer, the apologists have taken us all over the universe, through an entomology debate, a talk about quantum mechanics, and general relativity, now we’re doing more astronomy. All in an attempt to make a very simple question/answer seem complex and nuanced.
Who here thinks Noah loaded up two of every animal in existence onto his boat, and that all terrestrial animal life on earth and now descended from them?
