PDA

View Full Version : Overthinking God and universe?


Frankie
08-10-2011, 01:53 PM
The other night, I was watching the first episode of a new documentary series called "Curiosity." The subject was whether God exists. The program extensively featured Stephen Hawking and his argument on the subject. Here's a cliff note of his argument:

1- The universe is made of 3 things: Energy, Matter, and Space

2- E=mc shows that Energy and Matter can be thought of in the same way, making them basically the same. So now we can say that the universe is made of two things, Space and Energy.

3- Everything in existence has to balance out to zero. Therefore for all that mass/energy we have lots of "negative energy" in the universe.

4- We can prove that even time gets trapped and stopped in powerful Black Holes. Therefore Time can be zero (= non existant).

5- Since everything (including time) was created via the Big Bang from a balance of the original zero, therefore Time did not exist before Big Bang.

6- If God is to be thought of as the creator of all things he can't be, because time did not exist before the Big Bang and basically he did not have 'time' to do creation.

7- Therefore the concept of God (a part of that original zero) is hooey and God does not exist.

WHA??!!!.... :eek:

Does this strike anyone else as a bunch of pseudo-science mumbo jumbo? I have always stated that while I do believe in God, I do not give any validity to "religion." But here, I'm afraid I have to side with the religious people calling this kind of reasoning total B/S, Hawking or not.

What do y'all think?

seclark
08-10-2011, 01:54 PM
i think you posted this in the wrong forum.
sec

Donger
08-10-2011, 01:54 PM
Since you are smarter than Hawking, this should be a piece of pie.

loochy
08-10-2011, 01:55 PM
I watched that too.

Hawking's jump from step 5 to 6 didn't make a lot of sense.

We can still ask "What made the black holes?" What made the laws of the universe? What made matter?

There is still no logical way to describe the concept of creation.

Frankie
08-10-2011, 01:55 PM
Since you are smarter than Hawking, this should be a piece of pie.

I'm not smarter or nearly as smart. But unlike you I do question things.

Frankie
08-10-2011, 01:57 PM
I watched that too.

Hawking's jump from step 5 to 6 didn't make a lot of sense.

We can still ask "What made the black holes?" What made the laws of the universe? What made matter?

There is still no logical way to describe the concept of creation.

I think even Hawking has to admit that there are things WAY beyond our understanding. And if so, therefore why not the validity of the concept of God?

Donger
08-10-2011, 01:58 PM
I'm not smarter or nearly as smart. But unlike you I do question things.

Yes, I rarely ever ask questions.

That was also meant a light-hearted joke, Frankie.

Detoxing
08-10-2011, 01:58 PM
Who is he trying to convince? In order for his theory to be true you'd have to believe in the Big Bang Theory, which means you probably dont believe in God. And if you Believe in God, you most likely don't believe in the Big Bang Theory.

So once again, who is he talking to here?

Either you are writing it wrong or Stephen just spent a whole lot of time on a ridiculous argument that proves nothing to anyone.

Molitoth
08-10-2011, 01:59 PM
What made the black holes?" What made the laws of the universe? What made matter?

All ideas that we should be working together as a race to get off this planet and find out. Yet instead we; humanity, decide to kill each other off over paper currency, political power, and whatever religion we have been raised/forced to believe in. Do I know what god is? no, but I know what he isn't.

loochy
08-10-2011, 01:59 PM
Who is he trying to convince? In order for his theory to be true you'd have to believe in the Big Bang Theory, which means you probably dont believe in God. And if you Believe in God, you most likely don't believe in the Big Bang Theory.

So once again, who is he talking to here?

Either you are writing it wrong or Stephen just spent a whole lot of time on a ridiculous argument that proves nothing to anyone.

There are a lot of people that believe in "A" god.

Detoxing
08-10-2011, 02:01 PM
There are a lot of people that believe in "A" god.

So these people believe in A God that came after the Big Bang?

Can't say I've ever met one of those....

Frankie
08-10-2011, 02:01 PM
Yes, I rarely ever ask questions.

That was also meant a light-hearted joke, Frankie.

You do realize after recent 'events' here, there's no such thing as a "light-hearted" joke, don't you? Not for a while at least.

So if you want to discuss this topic seriously you are welcome to participate.

SuperChief
08-10-2011, 02:01 PM
There will always be a plethora of unanswered questions. Why is sunset good? Why is boobs good?

No one will ever know.

Detoxing
08-10-2011, 02:02 PM
There will always be a plethora of unanswered questions. Why is sunset good? Why is boobs good?

No one will ever know.

I know why boobs are good.

Frankie
08-10-2011, 02:02 PM
Who is he trying to convince? In order for his theory to be true you'd have to believe in the Big Bang Theory, which means you probably dont believe in God. And if you Believe in God, you most likely don't believe in the Big Bang Theory.

So once again, who is he talking to here?

Either you are writing it wrong or Stephen just spent a whole lot of time on a ridiculous argument that proves nothing to anyone.

Can God have created the Big Bang? Why is that so hard to accept?

loochy
08-10-2011, 02:03 PM
So these people believe in A God that came after the Big Bang?

Can't say I've ever met one of those....

No i mean that a god could have big banged it

Detoxing
08-10-2011, 02:04 PM
No i mean that a god could have big banged it

O I C...so this was directed at a small % of people that want to believe that God created the Big Bang?

That makes sense....I guess....

Earthling
08-10-2011, 02:06 PM
....And if you Believe in God, you most likely don't believe in the Big Bang Theory.

I'm not sure about the validity of this statement. Is this an assumption or have you seen any figures to indicate this?

DMAC
08-10-2011, 02:07 PM
Hawking's argument is based on God being governed by the laws of the Universe. I would think the creator of the Universe (if there is one) would be above such laws.

stevieray
08-10-2011, 02:08 PM
"first there was nothing, and then it blew up"

....what holds the atom together?

DMAC
08-10-2011, 02:09 PM
The Multiverse theory makes a lot of sense to explain the creation of the Universe. Ours anyway...

Detoxing
08-10-2011, 02:14 PM
I'm not sure about the validity of this statement. Is this an assumption or have you seen any figures to indicate this?

Just basing my statement off of experience. God vs the Big Bang has always been a constant topic of debate.

Maybe that's changed now and the religious have changed their stance and integrated more science into their beliefs, I have No idea. I haven't met anyone IIRC that believes in both.

"The Good Book" doesn't reference a Big Bang.

Detoxing
08-10-2011, 02:15 PM
Hawking's argument is based on God being governed by the laws of the Universe. I would think the creator of the Universe (if there is one) would be above such laws.

That's true.

FishingRod
08-10-2011, 02:18 PM
Where did matter and energy come from how did it come from nothing, who made God? What does God need with a Starship? So many questions.

loochy
08-10-2011, 02:23 PM
Where did matter and energy come from
Yeah!

how did it come from nothing,
Yeah!

who made God?
Yeah!

What does God need with a Starship?

Wait...what? :doh!:

Detoxing
08-10-2011, 02:25 PM
Where did matter and energy come from how did it come from nothing, who made God? What does God need with a Starship? So many questions.

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/1478/1295931306922593450x268.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/96/1295931306922593450x268.jpg/)

Donger
08-10-2011, 02:26 PM
You do realize after recent 'events' here, there's no such thing as a "light-hearted" joke, don't you? Not for a while at least.

So if you want to discuss this topic seriously you are welcome to participate.

No, I have absolutely no desire to engage in a discussion such as this.

Dayze
08-10-2011, 02:26 PM
Hawking's argument is based on God being governed by the laws of the Universe. I would think the creator of the Universe (if there is one) would be above such laws.

Steven Segal is an awesome God.

http://static.thehollywoodgossip.com/images/gallery/above-the-law-poster.jpg

Earthling
08-10-2011, 02:29 PM
Just basing my statement off of experience. God vs the Big Bang has always been a constant topic of debate.

Maybe that's changed now and the religious have changed their stance and integrated more science into their beliefs, I have No idea. I haven't met anyone IIRC that believes in both.

"The Good Book" doesn't reference a Big Bang.

Yeah I know what you mean, but I just don't see them as being mutually exclusive. :thumb:

loochy
08-10-2011, 02:30 PM
Steven Segal Chuck Norris is an awesome God.

FYP

Molitoth
08-10-2011, 02:33 PM
Wait a sec.....

do you mean that all this time I thought a Grey Bearded cloud sitter with lightning rod arms was watching over Tim Tebow and helping him win championships may not actually exist? =(

4th and Long
08-10-2011, 02:37 PM
Since you are smarter than Hawking, this should be a piece of pie.
Easy as cake.

Jaric
08-10-2011, 02:39 PM
Who is he trying to convince? In order for his theory to be true you'd have to believe in the Big Bang Theory, which means you probably dont believe in God. And if you Believe in God, you most likely don't believe in the Big Bang Theory. I wouldn't agree with that.

First off, the Big Bang is somewhat observable. All the matter in the world is expanding. And if you rewind the way it's currently moving, it all ends up in the same spot about 13 billion years ago.

That all said, I don't see how the big bang theory is in any way incompatible with believing in a God, even the Christian/Hebrew/Islamic one.

Even if one accepts that the big bang is 100% accurate and factual, it still leaves many questions unanswered. Like how did all this matter get here in the first place? And at what point does our concept of creation break down and become irrelevent (because it has to at some point, see the chicken/egg arguement or ask youself who created God)

The bottom line though, is that the existance of God can neither be proven, nor disproven.

orange
08-10-2011, 02:42 PM
Just basing my statement off of experience. God vs the Big Bang has always been a constant topic of debate.

Maybe that's changed now and the religious have changed their stance and integrated more science into their beliefs, I have No idea. I haven't met anyone IIRC that believes in both.

"The Good Book" doesn't reference a Big Bang.

People who believe in the Big Bang and God: the Catholic Church and pretty much every mainstream Protestant denomination, for starters.

In fact, when the Big Bang was first postulated, atheists went to enormous efforts to deny it because it posited a moment of creation (much like religions).

[edit] Here's a bit by a Nobel-winning scientist who was also a Christian writer (ironically enough, about Stephen Hawking):

We shall begin with the philosophical aspects of A Brief History of Time, which really explains why it has sold so many copies. Stephen Hawking has stated, "It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of God. My work on the origin of the universe is on the borderline between science and religion, but I try to stay on the scientific side of the border. It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws, but in that case, one would just have to go by personal belief."

When asked whether he believed that science and Christianity were competing world views, Hawking replied, "...then Newton would not have discovered the law of gravity." He knew that Newton had strong religious convictions.

A Brief History of Time makes wonderfully ambiguous statements such as, "Even if there is only one possible unified theory [here he's talking about the unification of quantum mechanics with an understanding of gravity], it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?"(p. 174). I love that statement.

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9501/bigbang2.html

Detoxing
08-10-2011, 02:46 PM
I wouldn't agree with that.

First off, the Big Bang is somewhat observable. All the matter in the world is expanding. And if you rewind the way it's currently moving, it all ends up in the same spot about 13 billion years ago.

That all said, I don't see how the big bang theory is in any way incompatible with believing in a God, even the Christian/Hebrew/Islamic one.

Even if one accepts that the big bang is 100% accurate and factual, it still leaves many questions unanswered. Like how did all this matter get here in the first place? And at what point does our concept of creation break down and become irrelevent (because it has to at some point, see the chicken/egg arguement or ask youself who created God)

The bottom line though, is that the existance of God can neither be proven, nor disproven.

People who believe in the Big Bang and God: the Catholic Church and pretty much every mainstream Protestant denomination, for starters.

In fact, when the Big Bang was first postulated, atheists went to enormous efforts to deny it because it posited a moment of creation (much like religions).

Yes, yes people. I am wrong. This has been rehashed several times now, lol.

loochy
08-10-2011, 02:47 PM
Yes, yes people. I am wrong. This has been rehashed several times now, lol.

Congrats on NOT pulling a Frankie Airliner.

Frankie
08-10-2011, 02:53 PM
Hawking's argument is based on God being governed by the laws of the Universe. I would think the creator of the Universe (if there is one) would be above such laws.

But those are the laws of the universe as we can comprehend. Is our comprehension limitless.

Frankie
08-10-2011, 02:55 PM
Just basing my statement off of experience. God vs the Big Bang has always been a constant topic of debate.

Why should the topic have 'vs' in it? Why can't there be a being waaay beyond our understanding that caused the big bang in his lab?

Jaric
08-10-2011, 02:56 PM
Yes, yes people. I am wrong. This has been rehashed several times now, lol.

Yes, but it must be rehashed several more times for us to complete the pile on

Frankie
08-10-2011, 02:57 PM
Where did matter and energy come from how did it come from nothing, who made God? What does God need with a Starship? So many questions.

That we will perhaps never answer. Which IMO gives the concept of God just as much validity as the other way around, if not more. We simply have the mental capacity to understand infinity, and that's OK.

Frankie
08-10-2011, 02:58 PM
No, I have absolutely no desire to engage in a discussion such as this.

Thank you. Good bye.

Detoxing
08-10-2011, 02:59 PM
Why should the topic have 'vs' in it? Why can't there be a being waaay beyond our understanding that caused the big bang in his lab?

lol

Frankie
08-10-2011, 02:59 PM
Wait a sec.....

do you mean that all this time I thought a Grey Bearded cloud sitter with lightning rod arms was watching over Tim Tebow and helping him win championships may not actually exist? =(

ROFL

I sincerely hope I'm not to openning a can of worms here and do not want to. But that is the reason that the Muslim religion considers God shapeless and rejects the idea of us being made in his image.

Frankie
08-10-2011, 03:33 PM
lol

Why?

Ebolapox
08-10-2011, 03:40 PM
"first there was nothing, and then it blew up"

....what holds the atom together?

the weak nuclear force, fwiw.

Detoxing
08-10-2011, 03:47 PM
Why?

You're late to the pile on.

FishingRod
08-10-2011, 03:50 PM
I have never received an answer to this question. E=mc2. As something with mass approaches the speed of light the mass of that object increases to near infinite. Light is affected by gravity which shows light has mass. So when you flip on your flashlight why does it not suck up the universe?

stevieray
08-10-2011, 03:50 PM
force,

might, power, influence.

loochy
08-10-2011, 03:58 PM
I have never received an answer to this question. E=mc2. As something with mass approaches the speed of light the mass of that object increases to near infinite. Light is affected by gravity which shows light has mass. So when you flip on your flashlight why does it not suck up the universe?

Because photons follow a different set of rules and actually photons are considered massless

Experimental checks on photon mass

The photon is currently understood to be strictly massless, but this is an experimental question. If the photon is not a strictly massless particle, it would not move at the exact speed of light in vacuum, c. Its speed would be lower and depend on its frequency. Relativity would be unaffected by this; the so-called speed of light, c, would then not be the actual speed at which light moves, but a constant of nature which is the maximum speed that any object could theoretically attain in space-time.[19] Thus, it would still be the speed of space-time ripples (gravitational waves and gravitons), but it would not be the speed of photons.

A massive photon would have other effects as well. Coulomb's law would be modified and the electromagnetic field would have an extra physical degree of freedom. These effects yield more sensitive experimental probes of the photon mass than the frequency dependence of the speed of light. If Coulomb's law is not exactly valid, then that would cause the presence of an electric field inside a hollow conductor when it is subjected to an external electric field. This thus allows one to test Coulomb's law to very high precision.[20] A null result of such an experiment has set a limit of m ≲ 10−14 eV/c2.[21]

Sharper upper limits have been obtained in experiments designed to detect effects caused by the Galactic vector potential. Although the galactic vector potential is very large because the galactic magnetic field exists on very long length scales, only the magnetic field is observable if the photon is massless. In case of a massive photon, the mass term \scriptstyle\frac{1}{2} m^2 A_{\mu}A^{\mu} would affect the galactic plasma. The fact that no such effects are seen implies an upper bound on the photon mass of m < 310−27 eV/c2.[22] The galactic vector potential can also be probed directly by measuring the torque exerted on a magnetized ring.[23] Such methods were used to obtain the sharper upper limit of 10−18eV/c2 given by the Particle Data Group.[24]

These sharp limits from the non-observation of the effects caused by the galactic vector potential have been shown to be model dependent.[25] If the photon mass is generated via the Higgs mechanism then the upper limit of m≲10−14 eV/c2 from the test of Coulomb's law is valid.

Photons inside superconductors do develop a nonzero effective rest mass; as a result, electromagnetic forces become short-range inside superconductors.

orange
08-10-2011, 04:14 PM
might, power, influence.

... and there we have the Semantic proof of a transcendent God.

Saul Good
08-10-2011, 04:27 PM
I'm not smarter or nearly as smart. But unlike you I do question things.

This may be the first time anyone has ever accused Donger of not questioning things.

go bowe
08-10-2011, 04:29 PM
This may be the first time anyone has ever accused Donger of not questioning things.

LMAO LMAO LMAO

Frankie
08-10-2011, 11:15 PM
This may be the first time anyone has ever accused Donger of not questioning things.

Important serious questioning is what I meant, not the petty questions he posts to frustrate you and deflect. He does a lot of that kind of questioning. It makes him get that legend-in-his-own-mind feeling he always craves for.

Dave Lane
08-10-2011, 11:30 PM
The other night, I was watching the first episode of a new documentary series called "Curiosity." The subject was whether God exists. The program extensively featured Stephen Hawking and his argument on the subject. Here's a cliff note of his argument:

1- The universe is made of 3 things: Energy, Matter, and Space

2- E=mc shows that Energy and Matter can be thought of in the same way, making them basically the same. So now we can say that the universe is made of two things, Space and Energy.

3- Everything in existence has to balance out to zero. Therefore for all that mass/energy we have lots of "negative energy" in the universe.

4- We can prove that even time gets trapped and stopped in powerful Black Holes. Therefore Time can be zero (= non existant).

5- Since everything (including time) was created via the Big Bang from a balance of the original zero, therefore Time did not exist before Big Bang.

6- If God is to be thought of as the creator of all things he can't be, because time did not exist before the Big Bang and basically he did not have 'time' to do creation.

7- Therefore the concept of God (a part of that original zero) is hooey and God does not exist.

WHA??!!!.... :eek:

Does this strike anyone else as a bunch of pseudo-science mumbo jumbo? I have always stated that while I do believe in God, I do not give any validity to "religion." But here, I'm afraid I have to side with the religious people calling this kind of reasoning total B/S, Hawking or not.

What do y'all think?

Quick version, why would you believe in god? Seriously. And especially if you don't believe in religion. A god that has been around for ever makes no sense anyway. What was he doing for the 100 trillion billion years before the big bang? Sitting in the dark?

There is no chance a god of the "bible or koran" exist. Its silly beyond belief. We will probably never know why or how this all started maybe there are hundreds of big bangs so far away we cant even see them. Maybe they are totally common, maybe our bubble universe is one of billions.

The interesting thing about our knowledge is where ever we thought the world, and our knowledge, ended (and assumed god began) there has always been another horizon beyond it. When the world was thought to be flat there turned out to be other lands. When we assumed earth was all there was we found other planets. When we thought the solar system was the only one we found others, when we discovered our galaxy and thought it was an island galaxy we found others, it goes on and on. There's no reason to believe this is the only universe because there is always another horizon.

Theres a reason 94% of scientists don't believe in a god.

listopencil
08-10-2011, 11:41 PM
<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/3_t2HDFM4nQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

sd4chiefs
08-10-2011, 11:50 PM
Quick version, why would you believe in god? Seriously. And especially if you don't believe in religion. A god that has been around for ever makes no sense anyway. What was he doing for the 100 trillion billion years before the big bang? Sitting in the dark?

There is no chance a god of the "bible or koran" exist. Its silly beyond belief. We will probably never know why or how this all started maybe there are hundreds of big bangs so far away we cant even see them. Maybe they are totally common, maybe our bubble universe is one of billions.

The interesting thing about our knowledge is where ever we thought the world, and our knowledge, ended (and assumed god began) there has always been another horizon beyond it. When the world was thought to be flat there turned out to be other lands. When we assumed earth was all there was we found other planets. When we thought the solar system was the only one we found others, when we discovered our galaxy and thought it was an island galaxy we found others, it goes on and on. There's no reason to believe this is the only universe because there is always another horizon.

Theres a reason 94% of scientists don't believe in a god.

Have you been watching this show. It blows my mind.

http://science.discovery.com/tv/through-the-wormhole/episodes/

ClevelandBronco
08-11-2011, 12:01 AM
Quick version, why would you believe in god? Seriously. And especially if you don't believe in religion. A god that has been around for ever makes no sense anyway. What was he doing for the 100 trillion billion years before the big bang? Sitting in the dark?

There were no years. I Am That I Am does not exist in time.

There is no chance a god of the "bible or koran" exist. Its silly beyond belief. We will probably never know why or how this all started maybe there are hundreds of big bangs so far away we cant even see them. Maybe they are totally common, maybe our bubble universe is one of billions.

The interesting thing about our knowledge is where ever we thought the world ended (and assumed god began) there has always been another horizon beyond it. When the world was thought to be flat there turned out to be other lands. When we assumed earth was all there was we found other planets. When we thought the solar system was the only one we found others, when we discovered our galaxy and thought it was an island galaxy we found others, it goes on and on. There's no reason to believe this is the only universe because there is always another horizon.

That would be neat. My God could do that. I wonder if he did.

Theres a reason 94% of scientists don't believe in a god.

I can see how their professional training would tend to cause some aspects of reality to be inaccessible to them.

Dave Lane
08-11-2011, 12:07 AM
Have you been watching this show. It blows my mind.

http://science.discovery.com/tv/through-the-wormhole/episodes/

No but it looks pretty awesome. May have to give it a try. Its shows like this that are absolutely killing religion. There's no need for a creator the universe is so odd and interesting its crazy whenyou know whats out there.

CrazyPhuD
08-11-2011, 12:08 AM
Ultimately I think the math of this depends upon if the Big Bang happened in mid air or not.

ClevelandBronco
08-11-2011, 12:34 AM
No but it looks pretty awesome. May have to give it a try. Its shows like this that are absolutely killing religion.

Faith will thrive where religion withers.

Hog Farmer
08-11-2011, 06:32 AM
The serious question that should be asked is why muslims won't eat pigs but they'll damn sure fuck a goat.

Dave Lane
08-11-2011, 07:29 AM
Faith will thrive where religion withers.

That my friend is entirely possible.

A lot of people have faith because they have nothing else. I totally understand that. The thought that you and your loved ones will never die and be happy forever has to be comforting to believe, I wish it was true instead of a story.

FishingRod
08-11-2011, 07:40 AM
Because photons follow a different set of rules and actually photons are considered massless

Experimental checks on photon mass

The photon is currently understood to be strictly massless, but this is an experimental question. If the photon is not a strictly massless particle, it would not move at the exact speed of light in vacuum, c. Its speed would be lower and depend on its frequency. Relativity would be unaffected by this; the so-called speed of light, c, would then not be the actual speed at which light moves, but a constant of nature which is the maximum speed that any object could theoretically attain in space-time.[19] Thus, it would still be the speed of space-time ripples (gravitational waves and gravitons), but it would not be the speed of photons.

A massive photon would have other effects as well. Coulomb's law would be modified and the electromagnetic field would have an extra physical degree of freedom. These effects yield more sensitive experimental probes of the photon mass than the frequency dependence of the speed of light. If Coulomb's law is not exactly valid, then that would cause the presence of an electric field inside a hollow conductor when it is subjected to an external electric field. This thus allows one to test Coulomb's law to very high precision.[20] A null result of such an experiment has set a limit of m ≲ 10−14 eV/c2.[21]

Sharper upper limits have been obtained in experiments designed to detect effects caused by the Galactic vector potential. Although the galactic vector potential is very large because the galactic magnetic field exists on very long length scales, only the magnetic field is observable if the photon is massless. In case of a massive photon, the mass term \scriptstyle\frac{1}{2} m^2 A_{\mu}A^{\mu} would affect the galactic plasma. The fact that no such effects are seen implies an upper bound on the photon mass of m < 310−27 eV/c2.[22] The galactic vector potential can also be probed directly by measuring the torque exerted on a magnetized ring.[23] Such methods were used to obtain the sharper upper limit of 10−18eV/c2 given by the Particle Data Group.[24]

These sharp limits from the non-observation of the effects caused by the galactic vector potential have been shown to be model dependent.[25] If the photon mass is generated via the Higgs mechanism then the upper limit of m≲10−14 eV/c2 from the test of Coulomb's law is valid.

Photons inside superconductors do develop a nonzero effective rest mass; as a result, electromagnetic forces become short-range inside superconductors.

I thought the answer was 42

patteeu
08-11-2011, 07:54 AM
Who is he trying to convince? In order for his theory to be true you'd have to believe in the Big Bang Theory, which means you probably dont believe in God. And if you Believe in God, you most likely don't believe in the Big Bang Theory.

So once again, who is he talking to here?

Either you are writing it wrong or Stephen just spent a whole lot of time on a ridiculous argument that proves nothing to anyone.

Huh? No.

Edit: I see that you've acknowledged your error. Good for you.

patteeu
08-11-2011, 08:04 AM
What do y'all think?

I don't think Allah exists.

Warrior5
08-11-2011, 08:43 AM
I didn't see the program; did Hawkings address the origins of information?

Frankie
08-11-2011, 11:52 AM
Quick version, why would you believe in god? Seriously. And especially if you don't believe in religion. A god that has been around for ever makes no sense anyway. What was he doing for the 100 trillion billion years before the big bang? Sitting in the dark?

I believe in God because I strive to be a freethinker. Just like you are. If I'm a rationalist then I have to believe that things are not just in black or white. In that spirit I believe that God and science can coexist and in fact the two beliefs can complement each other. Belief in one cannot, IMO, demand rejection of the other.

Add to that the fact that I have accepted that there are things way beyond our understanding now or ever. What is infinity anyway? What is nothingness? Was there really nothingness before the Big Bang? How did that work? Where did nothingness exist? If it existed why are we calling it nothingness? We will never know the answers to these, IMO. At least not in this existence. I frankly have seen no valid argument disproving God. That includes yours, IMO, and Hawking's. I think there IS something beyond our understanding that regulates, and might have created, everything (whatever 'everything' means). A law beyond all laws of physics. That to me is God.

On the subject of religion, I reject the concept because it's obviously man-made. It's also vague enough to be manipulated by every close-minded a-hole with a chip on his shoulder or a political or financial agenda. How I believe in God is between my heart and God. Not how some low-IQ, close-minded priest, or cleric tells me to.

Frankie
08-11-2011, 11:53 AM
Have you been watching this show. It blows my mind.

http://science.discovery.com/tv/through-the-wormhole/episodes/

It's a pretty good show. And, Morgan Freeman's narration makes it more special.

Frankie
08-11-2011, 11:55 AM
The serious question that should be asked is why muslims won't eat pigs but they'll damn sure **** a goat.

Is that why you always dress as a goat and go to Muslim neighborhoods on Halloween? ;) :evil:

Frankie
08-11-2011, 11:57 AM
I thought the answer was 42

No,... Monday.

;)

FishingRod
08-11-2011, 12:06 PM
For those who truly have faith, I apologize in advance for the following.

Why does God help Tim Tebow win football games but let innocent children die? Seems like kind of a prick to me.

Jaric
08-11-2011, 12:06 PM
It's a pretty good show. And, Morgan Freeman's narration makes it more special.

It is actually. The episode on time blew my mind.

Jaric
08-11-2011, 12:08 PM
For those who truly have faith, I apologize in advance for the following.

Why does God help Tim Tebow win football games but let innocent children die? Seems like kind of a prick to me.

I don't think that was God who helped Tebow win games...

Frankie
08-11-2011, 12:12 PM
It is actually. The episode on time blew my mind.

I can never wrap my mind around the concept of time and time travel. That's why movies dealing with time travel frustrate me and I avoid them most of the time.

FishingRod
08-11-2011, 12:15 PM
I don't think that was God who helped Tebow win games...

Leucifer?

Jaric
08-11-2011, 12:28 PM
Leucifer?

Well, the History channel just had a special on the biblical armeggeden story, and I have to say, Tebow fits the definition of The Beast.

Frankie
08-11-2011, 12:33 PM
I don't think that was God who helped Tebow win games...

That's because Tebow IS God. Just ask knowmo.

FishingRod
08-11-2011, 12:43 PM
Well, the History channel just had a special on the biblical armeggeden story, and I have to say, Tebow fits the definition of The Beast.

ok that is funny

Jaric
08-11-2011, 12:57 PM
Speaking of revolations, I'm not sure how many of you know this, but apparently when Armeggedon comes, Jesus is going to come back and lead the armies of Good against the forces of Darkness. He'll be mounted on horseback carrying a flaming sword.

Now, aside from that sounding eeriely similar to Return of the King (HAH! Even the name is appropriate) Why does he even need a sword? Or why even need to battle? He's God. All powerful. If he really wants to fight the armies of Darkness, why not just smite them with his all powerful wrath? No fuss, no mess, problem solved.

Riding into battle with a flaming sword just sounds like theatrics to me.

patteeu
08-11-2011, 01:05 PM
Speaking of revolations, I'm not sure how many of you know this, but apparently when Armeggedon comes, Jesus is going to come back and lead the armies of Good against the forces of Darkness. He'll be mounted on horseback carrying a flaming sword.

Now, aside from that sounding eeriely similar to Return of the King (HAH! Even the name is appropriate) Why does he even need a sword? Or why even need to battle? He's God. All powerful. If he really wants to fight the armies of Darkness, why not just smite them with his all powerful wrath? No fuss, no mess, problem solved.

Riding into battle with a flaming sword just sounds like theatrics to me.

He's a showman. He only collected disciples because he likes to perform miracles for a crowd instead of in solitude.

stevieray
08-11-2011, 01:38 PM
... carrying a flaming sword.



Incorrect.

tiptap
08-11-2011, 02:24 PM
My two bits, in SW Missouri the Assemblies of God had a bill board theme: "Nothing is Impossible for God." While the typical meaning is there this statement is literally true. The "I am that I am" reference earlier means God can't do nothing; He cannot not exist. So there are limits to having just a god. And so nothing can just as easily be considered to encompass god not so easily in reverse. Any logical system has initial conditions that cannot be analyzed. In nothing the initial conditions are not set, only the different systems, with different "starting points" are all equally possible. That is the zeroing notion offered by Hawkings. The Balance is that Nothing has happened.

Detoxing
08-11-2011, 02:33 PM
Speaking of revolations, I'm not sure how many of you know this, but apparently when Armeggedon comes, Jesus is going to come back and lead the armies of Good against the forces of Darkness. He'll be mounted on horseback carrying a flaming sword.

Now, aside from that sounding eeriely similar to Return of the King (HAH! Even the name is appropriate) Why does he even need a sword? Or why even need to battle? He's God. All powerful. If he really wants to fight the armies of Darkness, why not just smite them with his all powerful wrath? No fuss, no mess, problem solved.

Riding into battle with a flaming sword just sounds like theatrics to me.

I thought the sword was figurative for the Word of God.

I'm pretty sure he defeats the Evil Armies by speaking a few words.

Jaric
08-11-2011, 02:56 PM
Incorrect.

The Rider on the White Horse
11 And I saw heaven opened, Ezek. 1.1 and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, Dan. 10.6 and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations; and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: Ps. 2.9 and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. Is. 63.3 Joel 3.13 Rev. 14.20

Jaric
08-11-2011, 03:00 PM
A Vision of the Son of Man
9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

11 saying, I am Alpha and Ome'ga, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Per'gamos, and unto Thy-ati'ra, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto La-odice'a.

12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;

13 and in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, Dan. 7.13 clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. Dan. 10.5

14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, Dan. 7.9 as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;

15 and his feet like unto fine brass, Dan. 10.6 as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. Ezek. 1.24

16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.

Jaric
08-11-2011, 03:07 PM
I thought the sword was figurative for the Word of God.

I'm pretty sure he defeats the Evil Armies by speaking a few words.

Could be. That would make slightly more sense.

However, If God is going to stop him (satan) I don't understand why he would let him fuck things up before hand? That really doesn't make sense. You'd think if God's intention was to save us then he could easily do so before the need even arises.

Of course, if I've read this right, most of the mayhem that gets unleashed is done so by God (or at least by his angels presumably on his behalf)

stevieray
08-11-2011, 03:21 PM
out of his mouth

....is correct.

Jaric
08-11-2011, 03:23 PM
....is correct.

So are you planning on adding to the discussion?

Frankie
08-11-2011, 03:26 PM
I thought the sword was figurative for the Word of God.

I'm pretty sure he defeats the Evil Armies by speaking a few words.

Then why shouldn't Bible say it that way, instead of all this "figurative" B/S?

stevieray
08-11-2011, 03:27 PM
You'd think if God's intention was to save us then he could easily do so before the need even arises.



James 4:8 "draw nigh unto God, and he will draw nigh unto you."

..you have to do, God doesn't and won't do it for you.

Jaric
08-11-2011, 03:28 PM
Then why shouldn't Bible say it that way, instead of all this "figurative" B/S?

Well, speaking only for myself, even though I don't think the story makes sense, it is a good read.

stevieray
08-11-2011, 03:29 PM
So are you planning on adding to the discussion?

I did...you said he was carrying a sword...I was just clarifying that he doesn't.

loochy
08-11-2011, 03:29 PM
I did...you said he was carrying a sword...I was just clarifying that he doesn't.

He COULD. It would be kinda cool if he did.

Jaric
08-11-2011, 03:30 PM
James 4:8 "draw nigh unto God, and he will draw nigh unto you."

..you have to do, God doesn't and won't do it for you.

Except that he does. Unless I've misread the book.

Is that not what happens? The seven seals are broken, all hell breaks loose. The devil runs amuck. Jesus pimp slaps him into a pit for a 1000 years.

stevieray
08-11-2011, 03:32 PM
Except that he does.

...does what?

Chiefshrink
08-11-2011, 03:32 PM
The other night, I was watching the first episode of a new documentary series called "Curiosity." The subject was whether God exists. The program extensively featured Stephen Hawking and his argument on the subject. Here's a cliff note of his argument:

1- The universe is made of 3 things: Energy, Matter, and Space

2- E=mc shows that Energy and Matter can be thought of in the same way, making them basically the same. So now we can say that the universe is made of two things, Space and Energy.

3- Everything in existence has to balance out to zero. Therefore for all that mass/energy we have lots of "negative energy" in the universe.

4- We can prove that even time gets trapped and stopped in powerful Black Holes. Therefore Time can be zero (= non existant).

5- Since everything (including time) was created via the Big Bang from a balance of the original zero, therefore Time did not exist before Big Bang.

6- If God is to be thought of as the creator of all things he can't be, because time did not exist before the Big Bang and basically he did not have 'time' to do creation.

7- Therefore the concept of God (a part of that original zero) is hooey and God does not exist.

WHA??!!!.... :eek:

Does this strike anyone else as a bunch of pseudo-science mumbo jumbo? I have always stated that while I do believe in God, I do not give any validity to "religion." But here, I'm afraid I have to side with the religious people calling this kind of reasoning total B/S, Hawking or not.

What do y'all think?

Overthinking God ?LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL:

Such an oxymoron.

A 'finite' mind (Hawking) attempting to figure out the 'infinite universe' created by an 'infinite God' with a 'finite science'. Just hilariousROFL and futile but does explain the arrogance of man apart from God that views science as 'god' replacing the real author of life:thumb:

Jaric
08-11-2011, 03:39 PM
...does what?

Kick ass on our behalf (I'm paraphrasing here obviously)

Brock
08-11-2011, 03:39 PM
Except that he does. Unless I've misread the book.

Is that not what happens? The seven seals are broken, all hell breaks loose. The devil runs amuck. Jesus pimp slaps him into a pit for a 1000 years.

A sword comes out of his mouth, whatever that's supposed to mean.

loochy
08-11-2011, 03:40 PM
Kick ass on our behalf (I'm paraphrasing here obviously)

Does he simultaneously chew bubble gum?

Jaric
08-11-2011, 03:41 PM
He COULD. It would be kinda cool if he did.

In my mind he is. And it's on fire, I don't care what Stevieray says.

:harumph:

He also looks suspiciously like Gandolf but that's neither here nor there.

mnchiefsguy
08-11-2011, 03:41 PM
Except that he does. Unless I've misread the book.

Is that not what happens? The seven seals are broken, all hell breaks loose. The devil runs amuck. Jesus pimp slaps him into a pit for a 1000 years.

This has to be one of the best interpretations of that part of Revelations that I have ever read.

Jaric
08-11-2011, 03:42 PM
Does he simultaneously chew bubble gum?

Not sure. The book doesn't say. I would assume if he wanted to, he'd be able to being all powerful and what not.

I will assume though, that if he is, when finished he would dispose of it properly since otherwise we might end up stepping on it, and you don't do that to people you love.

Jaric
08-11-2011, 03:46 PM
This has to be one of the best interpretations of that part of Revelations that I have ever read.

Thank you (I think...)

For the record, when I paraphrase like that, it's not intended to be disrespectful.

Frankie
08-11-2011, 04:02 PM
Well, speaking only for myself, even though I don't think the story makes sense, it is a good read.

So is Greek Mythology.

Jaric
08-11-2011, 04:03 PM
So is Greek Mythology.

I agree. And just like the bible there are important lessons that can be learned from it.

Frankie
08-11-2011, 04:04 PM
Except that he does. Unless I've misread the book.

Is that not what happens? The seven seals are broken, all hell breaks loose. The devil runs amuck. Jesus pimp slaps him into a pit for a 1000 years.

1000 years is all? Honestly? Then this whole religion B/S will start all over again?

Jaric
08-11-2011, 04:07 PM
1000 years is all? Honestly? Then this whole religion B/S will start all over again?

Well, from my understanding during that 1000 years Jesus reigns as king over earth and everything is awesome. Then the Devil gets out somehow and they have their final showdown.

At least, that was how the history channel presented it. It's been awhile since I've read revolation.

I will say though, of all the books of the bible, I think it's the best suited for a film intrepretation. (of course, the one in my mind would very likely be considered blasphemy, but as a film it would be awesome)

RedNeckRaider
08-11-2011, 05:46 PM
Well, from my understanding during that 1000 years Jesus reigns as king over earth and everything is awesome. Then the Devil gets out somehow and they have their final showdown.

At least, that was how the history channel presented it. It's been awhile since I've read revolation.

I will say though, of all the books of the bible, I think it's the best suited for a film intrepretation. (of course, the one in my mind would very likely be considered blasphemy, but as a film it would be awesome)

Omitting the books written that did not fit the agenda. The all knowing and all seeing needed a "new" testament that was more user friendly to the gentiles I guess. Being the all seeing and all knowing I would think it would have been covered in the "old" testament. I cannot for the life of me understand how people take some books written by men long after the fact, and ignored other books written long after the fact (during the same time period) as the hand of god~

Jaric
08-11-2011, 05:53 PM
Omitting the books written that did not fit the agenda. The all knowing and all seeing needed a "new" testament that was more user friendly to the gentiles I guess. Being the all seeing and all knowing I would think it would have been covered in the "old" testament. I cannot for the life of me understand how people take some books written by men long after the fact, and ignored other books written long after the fact (during the same time period) as the hand of god~

I just became aware of it recently, but I find the premise of the Gospel of Judas fascinating.

RedNeckRaider
08-11-2011, 06:18 PM
I just became aware of it recently, but I find the premise of the Gospel of Judas fascinating.

If a person is willing to research with an open mind and as a truth seeker they will find many unpublished or unrecognized writings. The brain washed conviction of so many is mind boggling and outright scary to me. I understand when tribal knowledge was the only source of information people had blind faith. I would hope most would at least take the time to look into the subject, especially those who steadfast defend these beliefs. I have found with most I have encountered in my life "tribal knowledge" is alive and well to this day~

patteeu
08-11-2011, 06:20 PM
Omitting the books written that did not fit the agenda. The all knowing and all seeing needed a "new" testament that was more user friendly to the gentiles I guess. Being the all seeing and all knowing I would think it would have been covered in the "old" testament. I cannot for the life of me understand how people take some books written by men long after the fact, and ignored other books written long after the fact (during the same time period) as the hand of god~

If God is inspiring the authors of the bible, why can't He inspire it's editors to omit the books written by uninspired frauds? I don't believe any of it, but I don't see why it can't be adequately explained by a believer.

RedNeckRaider
08-11-2011, 06:33 PM
If God is inspiring the authors of the bible, why can't He inspire it's editors to omit the books written by uninspired frauds? I don't believe any of it, but I don't see why it can't be adequately explained by a believer.

The smallest miracle is praised and the largest tragedy is dismissed as not knowing gods plan. Trust me I have learned blind faith will defend anything. My main point was curiosity why so many will not take the time to even read the books they defend or even look into the subject. I have said enough on the subject~

stevieray
08-12-2011, 11:14 AM
Kick ass on our behalf (I'm paraphrasing here obviously)
that's not what you said..

you said....paraphrasing... 'you'd think he'd save before the need even arises'.


...and kick ass on whose behalf? those who have denied and mocked? I wouldn't hold your breath.

Brock
08-12-2011, 11:16 AM
that's not what you said..

you said....paraphrasing... 'you'd think he'd save before the need even arises'.


...and kick ass on whose behalf? those who have denied and mocked? I wouldn't hold your breath.

:facepalm:

stevieray
08-12-2011, 11:18 AM
Omitting the books written that did not fit the agenda. The all knowing and all seeing needed a "new" testament that was more user friendly to the gentiles I guess. Being the all seeing and all knowing I would think it would have been covered in the "old" testament. I cannot for the life of me understand how people take some books written by men long after the fact, and ignored other books written long after the fact (during the same time period) as the hand of god~

....you are all over the place in this post.

Jesus is mentioned in every book of the Bible.

stevieray
08-12-2011, 11:19 AM
:facepalm:

:rolleyes:

Brock
08-12-2011, 11:34 AM
:rolleyes:

Yeah. It's always funny to see you acting like an authority on theology. You're ridiculous.

Jaric
08-12-2011, 11:39 AM
that's not what you said..

you said....paraphrasing... 'you'd think he'd save before the need even arises'.Yes. And he will save us from the devil by kicking some satanic ass. My question which you seem determined to respond to but never address is why need to even let the situation deteriorate that far? If the plan is to throw Satan into the pit for the benefit of Mankind, why wait until Satan fucks a bunch of things up first? Why not just get right to the ass kicking stage and prevent a lot of human misery and suffering?

Or are we getting back to the Old Testement God who seemed to get off on that sort of thing?

...and kick ass on whose behalf? those who have denied and mocked? I wouldn't hold your breath.Those of us not alligned with Satan? That seemed pretty clear.

Fish
08-12-2011, 12:55 PM
Yes. And he will save us from the devil by kicking some satanic ass. My question which you seem determined to respond to but never address is why need to even let the situation deteriorate that far? If the plan is to throw Satan into the pit for the benefit of Mankind, why wait until Satan fucks a bunch of things up first? Why not just get right to the ass kicking stage and prevent a lot of human misery and suffering?

Or are we getting back to the Old Testement God who seemed to get off on that sort of thing?

Those of us not alligned with Satan? That seemed pretty clear.

But then who/what would Christians blame for all the shitty aspects of everyday life? Religion doesn't work very well if you remove the everlasting battle of good vs. evil. Even though an omnipotent creator would have the ability to remove all evil from existence.

Constant misery and suffering is a necessity for religion... that way they will always need to be "saved" from something...

patteeu
08-12-2011, 01:18 PM
I think this thread would be more fun if there was more focus on Frankie and less on God. Sorry God.

Jaric
08-12-2011, 01:56 PM
I think this thread would be more fun if there was more focus on Frankie and less on God. Sorry God.

Are you suggesting that we're overthinking Frankie?

mnchiefsguy
08-12-2011, 03:02 PM
Are you suggesting that we're overthinking Frankie?

Now Jaric, you know it only takes a single celled organism to out-think Frankie.

The real question is...can Jesus chew gum and pull a fiery sword out of his mouth at the same time? Wouldn't the sword stick on the gum? These are important questions that need answers! :thumb:

Jaric
08-12-2011, 03:09 PM
The real question is...can Jesus chew gum and pull a fiery sword out of his mouth at the same time? Wouldn't the sword stick on the gum? These are important questions that need answers! :thumb:

Well I think the obvious answer is yes. If he is in fact all powerful, I think that would be something he could pull off.

Now, the real question, is if he is all powerful, could he create an object so large/heavy that even he could not lift it?

/brainmelt

patteeu
08-12-2011, 03:09 PM
Are you suggesting that we're overthinking Frankie?

We aren't capable of overthinking Frankie. Frankie is beyond our comprehension.

mnchiefsguy
08-12-2011, 03:10 PM
Well I think the obvious answer is yes. If he is in fact all powerful, I think that would be something he could pull off.

Now, the real question, is if he is all powerful, could he create an object so large/heavy that even he could not lift it?

/brainmelt

Or create something capable of destroying himself....

RedNeckRaider
08-13-2011, 01:45 PM
....you are all over the place in this post.

Jesus is mentioned in every book of the Bible.

So is the Bible my friend. Constantine has more to do with what you read and follow than Jesus does.

stevieray
08-13-2011, 01:52 PM
Constantine has more to do with what you read and follow than Jesus does.

I follow my heart. Pretty sure Constatine isn't battling with Jesus for space.

RedNeckRaider
08-13-2011, 01:59 PM
I follow my heart. Pretty sure Constatine isn't battling with Jesus for space.

I did not imply Constantine was God or Jesus. I will say his influence dictates the KJV many read to this day~

RedThat
08-13-2011, 02:17 PM
The other night, I was watching the first episode of a new documentary series called "Curiosity." The subject was whether God exists. The program extensively featured Stephen Hawking and his argument on the subject. Here's a cliff note of his argument:

1- The universe is made of 3 things: Energy, Matter, and Space

2- E=mc shows that Energy and Matter can be thought of in the same way, making them basically the same. So now we can say that the universe is made of two things, Space and Energy.

3- Everything in existence has to balance out to zero. Therefore for all that mass/energy we have lots of "negative energy" in the universe.

4- We can prove that even time gets trapped and stopped in powerful Black Holes. Therefore Time can be zero (= non existant).

5- Since everything (including time) was created via the Big Bang from a balance of the original zero, therefore Time did not exist before Big Bang.

6- If God is to be thought of as the creator of all things he can't be, because time did not exist before the Big Bang and basically he did not have 'time' to do creation.

7- Therefore the concept of God (a part of that original zero) is hooey and God does not exist.

WHA??!!!.... :eek:

Does this strike anyone else as a bunch of pseudo-science mumbo jumbo? I have always stated that while I do believe in God, I do not give any validity to "religion." But here, I'm afraid I have to side with the religious people calling this kind of reasoning total B/S, Hawking or not.

What do y'all think?

How can time not exist? That is soooo hard to grasp or comprehend.

Frankie
08-13-2011, 05:44 PM
How can time not exist? That is soooo hard to grasp or comprehend.

that's the biggest problem I have with this.