Hawking

[Ignatiuslives]

Stephen Hawking

I've been seeing a lot of backlash against Stephen Hawking about his upcoming book. What do you guys have to say about it? Link below.

Stephen Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe - Telegraph

 

[VoteJP]

Mr Short-Bus.

I've been seeing a lot of backlash against Stephen Hawking about his upcoming book. What do you guys have to say about it? Link below.

Stephen Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe - Telegraph

Well I see several significant points as like the thing said in the second paragraph which says: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.”, and then later in the 7th paragraph he says "If you like, you can call the laws of science 'God', but it wouldn't be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions."

I agree with Hawkins and I do see the laws of science as both the life of God and the proof of God from science.

A huge example is that the entire solar system is floating around in space in perfect order with invisible forces (gravity so called) holding it all together and keeping everything running smoothly - so that is a far grander and more elaborate of a magical miracle than anything told in the Bible.

It is extraordinary to me that people can accept gravity and the earth hanging out on nothing and an infinite universe and claim that is evidence that there is no God or "intelligent design" when the exact opposite is far more accurate.

The "big-bang" is scientific proof of a "creation day" and that is a serious proof of the God thing.

But I am very unorthodox with my own beliefs and I totally reject most of Christianity's dire doctrines like a 6,000 year old humanity and earth which is so proven as wrong, and no place of "hell" and "Heaven" means the heavens as in outer space, and so I claim the thing called as "God" is real as in realistic and not some magical creature doing mystical acts.

In fact I say that God created the universe and mankind as a type of experiment, and it appears that humanity was the greatest and most complex experiment that God could create. So that mankind is a super intelligent invention at the utmost hight of God's ability, and we are a super big deal and a huge amount of work to God.

It is like human beings making the "Space Shuttle" as it was made as smart and complex as we knew how, so a couple of them blew up and it was an accident so we try harder each time, and the Space Shuttle flies alone as that is its point and purpose.

So God made mankind to fly alone in the most simple yet complex of ways.

Einstein said it best = "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

 

[Ignatiuslives]

You said, "It is extraordinary to me that people can accept gravity and the earth hanging out on nothing and an infinite universe and claim that is evidence that there is no God or "intelligent design" when the exact opposite is far more accurate."


And I agree with Conrad when he wrote, "....No, I am too firm in my consciousness of the marvelous to be ever fascinated by the mere supernatural..."

It sounds like your God is nature. Why do you bother calling it such?

 

[PsyOps]

How does God not being needed = God doesn’t exist?

 

[hvp05]

I agree with Hawkins and I do see the laws of science as both the life of God and the proof of God from science.

I don't know who Hawkins is, but if you are attempting to agree with Hawking you need to reread his statements, because that's not what he was saying at all.

Of course, you are the man who likes to redefine peoples' beliefs, regardless what the people themselves say they believe. So I know you will persist in adjusting Hawking's statements to meet your weird reality instead of accepting what he literally said.

It is extraordinary to me that people can accept gravity and the earth hanging out on nothing and an infinite universe and claim that is evidence that there is no God or "intelligent design" when the exact opposite is far more accurate.

The "big-bang" is scientific proof of a "creation day" and that is a serious proof of the God thing.

I saw you say those EXACT same things yesterday - somewhere. Are you sure you don't copy and paste a lot of this gibberish?

 

[thunderclapp]

I've been seeing a lot of backlash against Stephen Hawking about his upcoming book. What do you guys have to say about it? Link below.

Stephen Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe - Telegraph

I don't care what Hawking thinks and I don't know why he is so angry about people believing in a god or why he feels a need to convince people that there is no god. I think he gets too much attention. He's just another person with an opinion and his opinion has no more weight than yours or mine. He has no more influence on me than Oprah Winfrey does. He's just a celebrity "new athiest" and an angry one at that. I've watched his interviews and speeches and I have no desire to read his books. He doesn't deserve my money. I may be a skeptic but I am not an angry skeptic. Let atheists be atheists and let believers be believers.

Just my 2 cents which is worth about 2 cents.

 

[VoteJP]

Mr Short-Bus.

And I agree with Conrad when he wrote, "....No, I am too firm in my consciousness of the marvelous to be ever fascinated by the mere supernatural..."

It sounds like your God is nature. Why do you bother calling it such?

I agree that I do not accept the supernatural, and the real God thing is not magical or mystical but extremely realistic.

And I am happy that you can see nature as God (even though you do not call nature as God) because many times I have had to try to explain that "nature" is just another name for a God and many people can not deal with it.

When I say nature as a God then I do not mean that a hurricane is God or tornado or gravity but rather that these are seen as "natural" events which thereby gives the powers to the thing "nature" as a noun and not a verb.

The real God thing is about power in an extreme sense as being the cause and that is where it gets fun, IMO.

I bother to call it as both God or nature and other names because I do not quite know exactly what it really is.



P.S. The short-bus is just my way at picking at certain other persons.

 

[Starman3000m]

I've been seeing a lot of backlash against Stephen Hawking about his upcoming book. What do you guys have to say about it? Link below.

Stephen Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe - Telegraph

Well, it is your free will to decide whether to believe what Stephen Hawking writes or what God has written to this world through the words of Isaiah:

Isaiah Ch. 45

18: For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

19: I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.

20: Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save.

21: Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

22: Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

 

[Nucklesack]

Well, it is your free will to decide whether to believe what Stephen Hawking writes or what God has written to this world through the words of Isaiah:

Isaiah Ch. 45

18: For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

19: I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.

20: Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save.

21: Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

22: Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

There is a big difference.

Stephen Hawkings wrote his book

Even you will admit that God did not write his.

 

[Starman3000m]

There is a big difference.

Stephen Hawkings wrote his book

Even you will admit that God did not write his.

God works in mysterious ways!

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
(2 Peter 1:20-21)

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
(2 Timothy 3:16)

 

[Nucklesack]

God works in mysterious ways!

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
(2 Peter 1:20-21)

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
(2 Timothy 3:16)

Yep exactly what i stated

Stephen Hawkings wrote his book

God did not

 

[Starman3000m]

Yep exactly what i stated

Stephen Hawkings wrote his book

God did not

Yep - and exactly what I stated with this note:

God works in mysterious ways; Stephen Hawking does not.

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
(Psalm 14:1) (Psalm 53:1)

 

[Lugnut]

Oh ####, now he's done it. All those crazy christians are gonna go saw his head off and post the video on the web as a warning to other heretics.

 

[VoteJP]

Mr Short-Bus.

I've been seeing a lot of backlash against Stephen Hawking about his upcoming book. What do you guys have to say about it? Link below.

Stephen Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe - Telegraph

I say Hawkins used the trick word of "need" purposely because not needing God has no real meaning to it.

As in the entire universe is not needed either, and humanity is not needed, even the gravity is only needed if some thing needs a solar system or a universe. Animals are not needed, super novas and black holes are not needed either.

The point missing is that the universe is here for some unknown reason, and humanity is here for some unknown reason, and the thing we call as "God" is here whether anyone likes it or not.

 

[Ignatiuslives]

I'm fairly certain that Hawking is not using "need" as a "trick word". He's using it in the same manner as Pierre-Simon Laplace when he answered Napoleon about the lack of God in his hypothesis, "Je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothese-la,” meaning "I had no need of that hypothesis."

People like to think you "need" a God for this or that. He is pretty simply stating the opposite. The word carries a lot of weight.

 

[VoteJP]

Mr Short-Bus.

I'm fairly certain that Hawking is not using "need" as a "trick word". He's using it in the same manner as Pierre-Simon Laplace when he answered Napoleon about the lack of God in his hypothesis, "Je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothese-la,” meaning "I had no need of that hypothesis."

People like to think you "need" a God for this or that. He is pretty simply stating the opposite. The word carries a lot of weight.

I see no reason to nit-pick on my calling it as a "trick word" as I was not saying Hawkins was trying to trick anyone, and my message was about the meaninglessness of the word "need" which is the point.

Instead of a "trick word" call it a word with no scientific application since needing God or not needing God is outside of the equation.

As like Hawkins is saying that gravity is needed and only gravity is needed for the universe to create itself, but then that means in this case "the universe" is the name given as the creator.

It is the same as calling God as "nature" or here as the "universe" or call the God thing as the-one-that-fulfills-needs.

 

[retiredweaxman]

P.S. The short-bus is just my way at picking at certain other persons.

Once again, I catch you in a bold faced lie!!! Here is what you said in a previous post from 09-28-09 in the "election" forum:

"And I love short buses."
__________________

Which is it JPC??? Are you trying to belittle people with your warped sense of humor? Or are you just trying to blow smoke up people's rear ends and tell them what you think they want to hear?

I have noted that you have stopped replying to any and all of my posts so I expect nothing less from you this time. That is fine with me as you will be crawling back under the rock you call home in just a few short days!!!!

 

[VoteJP]

Mr Short-Bus.

Once again, I catch you in a bold faced lie!!! Here is what you said in a previous post from 09-28-09 in the "election" forum:

"And I love short buses."
__________________

Which is it JPC??? Are you trying to belittle people with your warped sense of humor? Or are you just trying to blow smoke up people's rear ends and tell them what you think they want to hear?

I have noted that you have stopped replying to any and all of my posts so I expect nothing less from you this time. That is fine with me as you will be crawling back under the rock you call home in just a few short days!!!!

I really am happy to reply to anyone or everyone but you post silly and childish things which makes it more respectful of me just to not reply.

You are not even talking about the thread subject and you are disrespecting the forum and you are obsessing over me.

So in reply = I did not give any lie, and I do firmly believe in being extremely truthful.

And again in reply = I do indeed love the short-bus, and I do indeed love that the short-bus is a way to pick at certain other persons.

 

[Silver301]

I'm fairly certain that Hawking is not using "need" as a "trick word". He's using it in the same manner as Pierre-Simon Laplace when he answered Napoleon about the lack of God in his hypothesis, "Je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothese-la,” meaning "I had no need of that hypothesis."

People like to think you "need" a God for this or that. He is pretty simply stating the opposite. The word carries a lot of weight.

I agree....It wasn't a "trick word" or anything like it. All Hawking is stating is that we are capable of understanding our universe without invoking the name of God. He isn't saying that there is no God...simply that if there is, we don't need to pretend that the furthest reaches of knowledge are only knowable to God alone. We can answer these questions without invoking the thought terminating cliché "God only knows."

At some point, our species may reach the end of knowledge. There may be an infinite number of things that we are simply incapable of knowing. We should never stop trying though...to me, that would be the greatest blasphemy imaginable!

 

[Toxick]

And again in reply = I do indeed love the short-bus, and I do indeed love that the short-bus is a way to pick at certain other persons.

Genius at work:
Keep stamping your ravings with the universal symbol of the developmentally disabled.

That'll sure show them.