1. #1
    MembersZone Subscriber
    MalahatTwo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Loco madidus effercio in rutilus effercio.
    Posts
    12,837

    Red face Stven Hawking SAYS SO!

    Just don't shoot the Messenger, OK!


    God did not create Universe: Hawking

    AFP September 2, 2010 8:12 AM Comments (92)

    God no longer has any place in theories on the creation of the Universe due to a series of developments in physics, British scientist Stephen Hawking, pictured, said in extracts published Thursday from a new book.

    LONDON - God no longer has any place in theories on the creation of the Universe due to a series of developments in physics, British scientist Stephen Hawking said in extracts published Thursday from a new book.

    In a hardening of the more accommodating position on religion that he took in his 1988 international best-seller "A Brief History of Time", Hawking said the Big Bang was merely the consequence of the law of gravity.

    "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," he writes in "The Grand Design", which is being serialised by The Times newspaper.

    "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going," added the wheelchair-bound expert.

    Hawking has achieved worldwide fame for his research, writing and television documentaries despite suffering since the age of 21 motor neurone disease that has left him disabled and dependent on a voice synthesiser.

    In "A Brief History of Time", Hawking had suggested that the idea of God or a divine being was not necessarily incompatible with a scientific understanding of the Universe.

    But in his latest work, Hawking cites the 1992 discovery of a planet orbiting a star outside our own Solar System as a turning point against Isaac Newton's belief that the Universe could not have arisen out of chaos.

    "That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions — the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass — far less remarkable, and far less compelling as evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings," he wrote.

    Hawking argued earlier this year that mankind's only chance of long-term survival lies in colonizing space, as humans drain Earth of resources and face a terrifying array of new threats.

    He also warned in a recent television series that mankind should avoid contact with aliens at all costs, as the consequences could be devastating.

    © Copyright (c) AFP

    E-mail this ArticlePrint this ArticleShare this Article More on This Story

    Hawking warns of extinction

    Hawking moves to Waterloo, Ont.

    Canadian wins Nobel Prize in physics

    Related Stories from Around the Web
    Stephen Hawking Ottawa Citizen, Canada Thursday, September 02, 2010
    Is There Intelligent Life in the Universe? Big Think Wednesday, July 21, 2010
    Home computers aid in discovery of neutron star Inform Science Thursday, August 12, 2010


    God no longer has any place in theories on the creation of the Universe due to a series of developments in physics, British scientist Stephen Hawking, pictured, said in extracts published Thursday from a new book.
    Photograph by: Handout, via Postmedia News

    anonymous
    9:31 AM on September 2, 2010

    wow, it frightens me to think that smart & intellectual people will burn in Hell because they drove themselves out of belief of God.

    Free_man
    9:24 AM on September 2, 2010

    Although I am sure it will make no difference but one further point, science can say nothing meaningful about what cannot be falsified, ie if there is not an acceptable test (experiment) that could potentially disprove a hypothesis then it cannot be included in a scientific explanation. In fact without such a test the existence of god is an axiom that one either accepts or denies and then you world view goes from there. The flip side of this is that using god as a force or energy to explain physical/biological phenomena is not science, it may well be an explanation that works for you but they are two separate logical paradigms and efforts to mix them create unsolvable logical muddles like we see in this thread

    anonymous
    9:22 AM on September 2, 2010

    i agree. i don't think god created the universe....with all the religions out there and all the books about god, you would think that most religions would have more in common...think about it!!!!

    Free_man
    9:14 AM on September 2, 2010

    Truth/Justice
    Thanks for the input, whackjob

    anonymous
    9:11 AM on September 2, 2010

    He has all this tme to think and do not much else and this is the best he can come up with? He needs to get away from it all. Recharge his batteries (figuratively). Oh I guess he can't do that. So much for a balanced perspective.

    survayman12
    9:06 AM on September 2, 2010

    Read the article. He did not say that "God does not exist".

    Truth/Justice
    9:05 AM on September 2, 2010

    11:54am-And David Suzuki needs to stop apologizing to the environment for being born and leaving footprints.

    Truth/Justice
    9:02 AM on September 2, 2010

    11:46am-I'll be waiting with bated breath until someone answers those questions!! Ahh...the foolishness of God SO confounds the wisdom of Man.
    Am curious how Hawking would explain the fact the earth is tilted on its' axis at just the right angle to prevent us from burning up...good planning by someone; and if that someone cares that we don't burn up, that someone just might care about lots of other things.

    anonymous
    9:00 AM on September 2, 2010

    Medical science would have people with his ailment not living nearly as long as he has. Sometimes experts and scientists are wrong. If I was in his condition I would question the fairness, get embittered and doubt God too. I guess I shouldn't judge him 'til I 've walked a mile in his shoes. Or rolled a mile in his little wagon. Or until the battery runs down. Why hasn't he spent more of his genious(?) developing longer lasting rehchargeable batteries instead of theoretical flim flam? I bet the thought has never crossed his mind. Duhhhhhh.

    boys
    8:58 AM on September 2, 2010

    Mr. Hawking, who do you think invented gravity, and physics, and chemistry, and biology, and so on...
    Are you really so all-knowing...?

    Free_man
    8:57 AM on September 2, 2010

    Do you people really think what you post is going to change someone on the other sides view point?

    I know, lets ask what Hawkings thinks about abortion and then have a discussion that will settle that issue once and for all

    anonymous
    8:57 AM on September 2, 2010

    this is a load of $#*^^*$#&^ lol

    A LOT OF PEOPLE under estimate God = Jesus Christ.

    A LOT OF PEOPLE wants to HAVE PROOF that JC exist, well they won't get any proof because JC is a mystery GOD. If JC is not mysterious, then He wouldn't be call God.

    Amen ??

    Amen folks lol


    have a niiceeeeeee dayyyyyyyyyyy

    and especially to Stephen Hawkin lol

    anonymous
    8:55 AM on September 2, 2010

    Ironic that the greatest threat to life on earth is the human predilection for adherence to primitive superstitions. Sad that at this point in our history we're still debating the existence of a "God", let alone the relevance of the concept. I sincerely hope that we, as a species, are able to survive the violence inherent in these delusions long enough to collectively evolve to a more rational state.

    Verta
    8:55 AM on September 2, 2010

    @1140....it comes with a manual? The way i see it there are plenty of "manuals" written by many different people. Each one writing to suit their needs of control over the weak and desperate....and soon to be broke. Each one still fighting to prove his manual is right. The word "manual" includes the word "man", not God. If it were a "Godual"....maybe. So, just shut up and kneel and put your check in the basket.

    Free_man
    8:54 AM on September 2, 2010

    11:41
    I don't disagree with what you say about people straying out of their area of expertise usually not being worth listening to but be careful of who you choose as examples, David Suzuki was a biology professor with a special focus on genetics long before he was a broadcaster, his environmental advocacy partly arose from his research and became famous only after the fact, he is one of the few celebrity commentators who is worth listening to at least in regard to biology, ecology etc. His political analyses are not his strongest points however.

    anonymous
    8:50 AM on September 2, 2010

    People who have the direct experience of God - not such an uncommon experience -- may agree that God is the universe experiencing itself. This means that the Big Bang and gravity and so on can be seen as the objective side of the universe which also has the subjective side which is God.

    8:50 AM on September 2, 2010

    knowsit
    8:49 AM on September 2, 2010

    RedBeardthePirate, maybe his life's work is about proving there IS a God so that he might be comforted by the notion that his situation will improve in the after-life. You don't know his motivation. Regardless, he is just stating logical deductions based on observations obtained through the scientific method.

    "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going,"

    Notice he states 'not necessary'. He doesn't say can't be...as in his observations etc. point to one conclusion but others are possible. Blame the media for misrepresenting his statements to get attention and sell copies, not S.H.

    ohh, and 11:37am, I would rather live my life to the fullest, with the mindset that everyday is important rather than waste my life expecting that everything will get better once I'm dead.

    PrimeNumbers
    8:47 AM on September 2, 2010

    People who use "Pascal's Wager" should be careful and remember the other name for it is "avoiding the wrong hell problem." It has also been said that any rational creator God would prefer an honest atheist to a religious gambler who chose his belief to try to win a bet out of sheer self-interest.

    Criança Gorda
    8:46 AM on September 2, 2010

    Funny, Hawking has taken 15 years to answer the creationist question, "If something has a beginning, it has to have a cause. So what caused the Big Bang." So his answer, although 15 years late is interesting.

    As to what created gravity, Hawking would probably answer, that gravity had no beginning and therefore always was.

    In either case, he has not disproven the existence of God. The fact of the existence of the law of gravity does not in anyway disprove the existence of God.

    If there is nothing and if the nothing has no mass, then does the law of gravity apply to nothing that has no mass, or does gravity require something to have mass.

    Isn't Newton's Law of Gravity stated as "Every OBJECT"? An object is something, so how is "nothing" affected by the law of gravity such that "nothing" now becomes "something"?

    Kilroy was here
    8:46 AM on September 2, 2010

    This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Kilroy was here. Show DetailsHide Details

    Hawkings' life as pathetic as it is may have been a gift from God. What if God created the entire universe and all of the possibilities, and made it possible for this man to live out a shell of a life in a wheelchair ... just to give him time to think about stuff?

    This is a possibility as well. now the rub would be ... What if on some other planet ... across the universe ... in a wheelchair ... is some other "tread" who is thinking .... "there must be a God, who created the universe, because there are other planetary masses orbiting other stars out there ... " Now that would be ironic., insightful & newsworthy

    anonymous
    8:44 AM on September 2, 2010

    I'll chime in with 11:24 a.m., and I'm an atheist. I see all religion as an attempt to explain what could not be known until humans developed enough to see the truth, and it's mostly beautifully poetic, but positing DNA for the building blocks of life isn't much different than saying all living things were created of the dust of the earth. DNA is literally the dust of the earth. Maybe there is an intelligent being of some kind, but if it's true it's completely unknowable to such as we puny humans. So, unknowable god or eternally existing gravity. Different ways to say the same thing.

    anonymous
    8:41 AM on September 2, 2010

    People that excel in one field are frequently dysfunctional in others. Part of the price of concentrating on one aspect of their lives. I would no more take advice on religion from Hawking than I would take marriage counseling from Tiger Woods. Or environmental advice from celebrities like David Suzuki or other tv stars.

    anonymous
    8:40 AM on September 2, 2010

    How many times do you have to shake in a box thousands of broken radio pieces before it becomes a working radio again? Only a fool would think that it would be a workable radio again. So, like Mr. Hawking who has all these degrees showing that he is very intelligent, does not make a person wise!Majority of mankind does not like being told what he has to do, so , that is why mankind is failing miserably on all fronts!The Creator has laid out all the things we have to do to live and be happy on this earth he created. But , soon the ones refusing to accept that God is our divine leader who has a purpose for this earth and soon will be done the ones ruining the earth will be brought to ruin!And no, the earth will stand, along with the the ones that practice and do Jehovah's will by the bible instructions will inherit the earth. What a shame that so many cannot accept divine rulership and even with a manual to show how to do it!

    Score: -1 Name withheld
    Kilroy was here
    8:40 AM on September 2, 2010

    @ anonymous - 11:20 AM on September 2, 2010:

    When you say,
    even if there where a god there idea that we would have the brain power to contemplate it, led alone be in a position to dictate its wishes is just ludicris...

    "god" is a scam aimed at the weak, lonely, desperate or just plain ignorant.
    did you actually mean "if there were a God" ..., and possibly "ludicrous"?

    Spelling, grammer, education may be a scam too; you'd better be careful.

    Read more: http://www.timescolonist.com/enterta...#ixzz0yOKH4g9W

  2. #2
    MembersZone Subscriber
    voyager9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Southern NJ
    Posts
    2,007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MalahatTwo7 View Post
    Just don't shoot the Messenger, OK!


    "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," he writes in "The Grand Design", which is being serialised by The Times newspaper.
    Who wrote the law of gravity then? Science can never disprove the existence of a higher power/god. No matter how deep Science digs, there's always a deeper layer whose relationships could have been established/engineered/designed by said power.

    Quote Originally Posted by MalahatTwo7 View Post

    "That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions — the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass — far less remarkable, and far less compelling as evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings," he wrote.
    Ahh, but that's a different axiom. He isn't saying Science disproves god, but rather science disproves RELIGION. Which is human's attempt to describe/interpret/predict/control god. In that context this is similar to the position that Copernicus/Kepler/Galileo took with heliocentrism
    So you call this your free country
    Tell me why it costs so much to live
    -3dd

  3. #3
    MembersZone Subscriber
    MalahatTwo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Loco madidus effercio in rutilus effercio.
    Posts
    12,837

    Default

    I want to be completely clear: I did not write any of the commentary you read above, except for the "dont shoot the messenger" statement.

    M27

  4. #4
    Forum Member
    DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by voyager9 View Post
    Science can never disprove the existence of a higher power/god. No matter how deep Science digs, there's always a deeper layer whose relationships could have been established/engineered/designed by said power.
    All scientists know this; it's essentially impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. As you said, there's no evidence that proves that a higher power doesn't exist nor is there any objective indication whatsoever that one does.

    He isn't saying Science disproves god, but rather science disproves RELIGION.
    It certainly disproves a literal interpretation of most of them.
    Last edited by DeputyMarshal; 09-02-2010 at 03:58 PM.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  5. #5
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    All scientists know this; it's essentially impossible to prove that something doesn't exist.
    How does that old quote go:

    Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence...
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

  6. #6
    Forum Member
    ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by voyager9 View Post
    Science can never disprove the existence of a higher power/god. No matter how deep Science digs, there's always a deeper layer whose relationships could have been established/engineered/designed by said power.
    Science can never disprove the existence of a leprechaun. No matter how deep science digs, there's always a deeper layer whose relationships could have been established/engineered/designed by leprechauns.

  7. #7
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    123

    Default


  8. #8
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Catlettsburg, KY
    Posts
    378

    Default

    Can't you believe in science and God? I do.

  9. #9
    Forum Member
    DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BSFD9302 View Post
    Can't you believe in science and God? I do.
    "Believing" in science and g_d(s) isn't a conflict. The conflicts tend to arise with believing in dogmatic religions that contradict science.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  10. #10
    Back In Black
    ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    I think the older and smarter I get the more open I am to the idea of some supreme being. Odd as you might think the opposite were true based on a "belief" in science.

    It just makes my head stop hurting when I watch these shows and read about the size and creation of the universe. When you boil all the science down, things are just a tad to orderly to be random.

    Now my head hurts again....
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

  11. #11
    MembersZone Subscriber
    voyager9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Southern NJ
    Posts
    2,007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    I think the older and smarter I get the more open I am to the idea of some supreme being. Odd as you might think the opposite were true based on a "belief" in science.
    Or: The closer you are to the finish line, the more you hope there's a judge at the end and not just a brick wall.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    It just makes my head stop hurting when I watch these shows and read about the size and creation of the universe. When you boil all the science down, things are just a tad to orderly to be random.
    I'm expecting my first child. Learning/reading/watching about the development process makes me think you're right.

    Specifically: If the mutations that underlie evolution are random then for every "good" mutation (that work out) there must be XXX-"bad" mutations (that don't). Given the complexity of life the sheer number of mutations required, even spread across the millions of years, would be visible within a few generations.
    So you call this your free country
    Tell me why it costs so much to live
    -3dd

  12. #12
    MembersZone Subscriber
    voyager9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Southern NJ
    Posts
    2,007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    All scientists know this; it's essentially impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. As you said, there's no evidence that proves that a higher power doesn't exist nor is there any objective indication whatsoever that one does.
    This was a good quote from the comments in the article:
    Although I am sure it will make no difference but one further point, science can say nothing meaningful about what cannot be falsified, ie if there is not an acceptable test (experiment) that could potentially disprove a hypothesis then it cannot be included in a scientific explanation. In fact without such a test the existence of god is an axiom that one either accepts or denies and then you world view goes from there. The flip side of this is that using god as a force or energy to explain physical/biological phenomena is not science, it may well be an explanation that works for you but they are two separate logical paradigms and efforts to mix them create unsolvable logical muddles like we see in this thread
    So you call this your free country
    Tell me why it costs so much to live
    -3dd

  13. #13
    MembersZone Subscriber
    voyager9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Southern NJ
    Posts
    2,007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThNozzleman View Post
    Science can never disprove the existence of a leprechaun. No matter how deep science digs, there's always a deeper layer whose relationships could have been established/engineered/designed by leprechauns.
    Of course it can't.. it can, however, prove who stole my Lucky Charms.
    So you call this your free country
    Tell me why it costs so much to live
    -3dd

  14. #14
    Forum Member
    DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    When you boil all the science down, things are just a tad to orderly to be random.
    Right up until you realize that the Universe has been becoming more and more disorderly ever since the Big Bang. Don't let the little local eddies of random order fool you.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  15. #15
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    123

    Default

    Entropy and thermodynamics, ChiefKN. They move things from orderly to disorderly.

    It's the same reason your desk gets cluttered after a while.

    Of course, the doesn't explain something from nothing. Doesn't gravity require the existence of something?

  16. #16
    Forum Member
    DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by abeth86 View Post
    Of course, the doesn't explain something from nothing. Doesn't gravity require the existence of something?
    The problem is that "g_d(s)" don't explain "something from nothing" either.

    Gravity requires mass which is just a special form of energy. If CERN/LHC ever does observe evidence of a Higgs Boson (aka "The God Particle"), we'll be closer to understanding how mass came into the picture.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  17. #17
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    123

    Default

    I read somewhere in the science-o-sphere that the big bang itself could have been a result of gravity tugging across a universal membrane. Of course, I've also read that the universe itself is a holographic projection from a flat, 2d surface without space.

    There's a lot of variance in what could be true, and with all the fancy new tools we have coming online to solve some of the bigger questions we just find ourselves with thrashed theories and bigger questions. From a purely logical standpoint, it's just as likely that there's a creator as that there is not. What role said creator has in your own personal life equates to religion, not the presence or absence of one.

    Just saying.

  18. #18
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,251

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    It just makes my head stop hurting when I watch these shows and read about the size and creation of the universe. When you boil all the science down, things are just a tad to orderly to be random.

    Now my head hurts again....
    Not really. You're making the assumption the current outcome was the only available option.

    It's akin to shooting an arrow into a wall and drawing a target around it.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  19. #19
    Back In Black
    ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Not really. You're making the assumption the current outcome was the only available option.

    It's akin to shooting an arrow into a wall and drawing a target around it.
    I guess I look at biology and the many functions of the body and how intricately it all works together... the complexity of it.

    Look, i'm not thumping a bible here. However, working in the medical profession has exposed me to some amazing knowledge and experiences.
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

  20. #20
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,251

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    I guess I look at biology and the many functions of the body and how intricately it all works together... the complexity of it.
    Never said any of the above wasn't the case.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    Look, i'm not thumping a bible here. However, working in the medical profession has exposed me to some amazing knowledge and experiences.
    Same here. Doesn't mean to me that a superior being is responsible.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  21. #21
    Back In Black
    ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Same here. Doesn't mean to me that a superior being is responsible.
    I agree. You won't find me praying in a church.

    Considering how complex our natural world is, its no wonder more people don't just put their faith in a supreme being as its just plain easier to believe that somebody waved their magic wand and things just happened.
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

  22. #22
    Forum Member
    DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    as its just plain easier to believe that somebody waved their magic wand and things just happened.
    Not if you take any time to think about it. Where did the "supreme being" come from? Positing the existence of a supreme being doesn't simplify the question of "Creation;" it just adds another hypothetical layer of complexity to the issue.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  23. #23
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    123

    Default

    No more complex than matter spewing forth from nothing. Where did that matter come from? Moreover, how did the spark come to be in a void of nothingness?

    Can you even call nothingness a void? It simply doesn't exist.

    I think the most rational answer to the entire question is that there's just as much chance of there being a God, as there is that the universe created itself.

  24. #24
    Forum Member
    DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by abeth86 View Post
    No more complex than matter spewing forth from nothing.
    That's less complex than an invisible sky daddy spewing forth from nothing who then "creates" the Universe from more nothing.

    I think the most rational answer to the entire question is that there's just as much chance of there being a God, as there is that the universe created itself.
    I'll go you one better: The most rational answer is that we don't know and probably never will. We can speculate about "just as much chance" of one thing or another but the truth of the matter is that we can't even reasonably make odds one way or another.
    Last edited by DeputyMarshal; 09-03-2010 at 09:30 PM.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  25. #25
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    123

    Default

    I'll go you one better: The most rational answer is that we don't know and probably never will. We can speculate about "just as much chance" of one thing or another but the truth of the matter is that we can't even reasonably make odds one way or another.
    More eloquently my point exactly.

    Although I wouldn't go so far as to say we'll *never* know, we do tend to be pretty curious types. We also tend to figure out what we're questioning.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register