Hawking Disses Creationism

[Procrustes Stretched]

And Hawkings and Leonard Mlodinow have the right to confront their accuser(s).

God will have to make an appearance and swear an oath or lose the case as usual.

IF there is a God, then Hawking and Mlodinow will get their chance. If there is no God, they will both die regardless, and none of it really matters. If God truly is God, he can do whatever he damn well pleases, and if God truly is God, he may be laughing that Hawking and Mlodinow want so badly to be Him.

and being a nonbeliever we get to laugh at people while we are alive.

 

[lizzie]

And Hawkings and Leonard Mlodinow have the right to confront their accuser(s).

God will have to make an appearance and swear an oath or lose the case as usual.

IF there is a God, then Hawking and Mlodinow will get their chance. If there is no God, they will both die regardless, and none of it really matters. If God truly is God, he can do whatever he damn well pleases, and if God truly is God, he may be laughing that Hawking and Mlodinow want so badly to be Him.

and being a nonbeliever we get to laugh at people while we are alive.

And that accomplishes soooo much.

 

[Liability]

S.H. said something akin to: once you have matter, it puts the laws of gravity into effect and everything follows from that with no "need" for a divine creator.

So, my question to that would be: where did that matter come from?

I cannot imagine a Creator of that magnitude would give much thought to our insignificant little uninformed speculations.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

the creator thing does still not validate anyone's religious beliefs. if anything it makes religious people look like fools.

 

[THE LIGHT]

S.H. said something akin to: once you have matter, it puts the laws of gravity into effect and everything follows from that with no "need" for a divine creator.

So, my question to that would be: where did that matter come from?

I cannot imagine a Creator of that magnitude would give much thought to our insignificant little uninformed speculations.

Well, he said that "nothing" exploded so I guess "it" just created itself. But if "it" didn't exist then how could "it" create "it"?

 

[asterism]

read the thread. it's only a few posts long

I have. Nothing in this thread proves your assertion. Looks like you can't explain yourself.

If God created the universe then Hawkings and science are wrong.

jesus, what an error in the other post unnoticed

Except Hawking never stated that.

 

[asterism]

S.H. said something akin to: once you have matter, it puts the laws of gravity into effect and everything follows from that with no "need" for a divine creator.

So, my question to that would be: where did that matter come from?

I cannot imagine a Creator of that magnitude would give much thought to our insignificant little uninformed speculations.

Beyond that, saying that there is no need for a creator is not saying that there is not a creator.

 

[konradv]

God allowed the Universe to create itself. "Let there be light." Everything after that is evolution, i.e. God's plan.

 

[Liability]

S.H. said something akin to: once you have matter, it puts the laws of gravity into effect and everything follows from that with no "need" for a divine creator.

So, my question to that would be: where did that matter come from?

I cannot imagine a Creator of that magnitude would give much thought to our insignificant little uninformed speculations.

Beyond that, saying that there is no need for a creator is not saying that there is not a creator.

Also true.

And saying that once you have matter then the law of gravity obviates the "need" for a Creator is itself just a dodge on the question of where that matter came from.

 

[Liability]

S.H. said something akin to: once you have matter, it puts the laws of gravity into effect and everything follows from that with no "need" for a divine creator.

So, my question to that would be: where did that matter come from?

I cannot imagine a Creator of that magnitude would give much thought to our insignificant little uninformed speculations.

Well, he said that "nothing" exploded so I guess "it" just created itself. But if "it" didn't exist then how could "it" create "it"?

Nothing exists prior to itself. Or nothing exists that was not created.

But it seems like something has to have existed to create matter/energy/time/space. Either matter/energy/time/space created itself out of nothing or it was created by a supernatural Creator. This of course begs the question: then what "created" the Creator?

It follows that we are obliged to postulate that "one thing appears to have come into existence without the need for a Creator." But is that "one thing" the supernatural CREATOR or is that "one thing" matter/energy/time/space?

Damned if I know. But the good news is, nobody else knows either.

 

[asterism]

S.H. said something akin to: once you have matter, it puts the laws of gravity into effect and everything follows from that with no "need" for a divine creator.

So, my question to that would be: where did that matter come from?

I cannot imagine a Creator of that magnitude would give much thought to our insignificant little uninformed speculations.

Beyond that, saying that there is no need for a creator is not saying that there is not a creator.

Also true.

And saying that once you have matter then the law of gravity obviates the "need" for a Creator is itself just a dodge on the question of where that matter came from.

One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.

The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost."

God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this, let's say we have a man making contest." To which the scientist replied, "OK, great!"

But God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam."

The scientist said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.

God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!"

 

[THE LIGHT]

S.H. said something akin to: once you have matter, it puts the laws of gravity into effect and everything follows from that with no "need" for a divine creator.

So, my question to that would be: where did that matter come from?

I cannot imagine a Creator of that magnitude would give much thought to our insignificant little uninformed speculations.

Well, he said that "nothing" exploded so I guess "it" just created itself. But if "it" didn't exist then how could "it" create "it"?

Nothing exists prior to itself. Or nothing exists that was not created.

But it seems like something has to have existed to create matter/energy/time/space. Either matter/energy/time/space created itself out of nothing or it was created by a supernatural Creator. This of course begs the question: then what "created" the Creator?

It follows that we are obliged to postulate that "one thing appears to have come into existence without the need for a Creator." But is that "one thing" the supernatural CREATOR or is that "one thing" matter/energy/time/space?

Damned if I know. But the good news is, nobody else knows either.

The difference is, we know that the universe had a beginning. It took a while to get evolutionists on board with that one, but we are finally on the same page. So, now that we have a universe with a beginning, we are faced with two conjectures:

1. It created it (nothing created something)
2. God created it (God created something)

The answer to did God create God is, NO because he is eternal. However, looking at option number one, we are faced with a bit of a problem if not multiple problems since (a) nothing creating something violates the first law of thermodynamics (b) what caused nothing to decide to create something?

Once you chose number one, you basically open a can of worms that hits you smack in the face.

 

[rdean]

He obviously doesn't have "mystical" nor "occult" beliefs.

 

[THE LIGHT]

God allowed the Universe to create itself. "Let there be light." Everything after that is evolution, i.e. God's plan.

Classic! An evolutionist using "god did it" to solve his problem of how the universe and life began.

 

[Hister]

God allowed the Universe to create itself. "Let there be light." Everything after that is evolution, i.e. God's plan.

Classic! An evolutionist using "god did it" to solve his problem of how the universe and life began.

The catholic church thought the world was flat until someone discovered that it was roundish. So why can't the church get on board evolution? If a god could be proven to exist, why couldn't evolution be part of its "plan"?

 

[Newby]

Hawking book explains creation of universe minus God - USATODAY.com

By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY
Why stop with just arguing about God?

Describing the creator as "not necessary" in his latest book is just another day at the office for that whimsical scamp Stephen Hawking, better known as "one of the foremost theoretical physicists of this century" in the words of the Oxford Dictionary of Scientists.

In his latest book, The Grand Design, out Sept. 7, Hawking and his co-author, Caltech physicist Leonard Mlodinow, also lay down their views on intelligent design (bad), string theory (good) and philosophy ("dead").



I saw Hawkings' coauthor on television and he said they take no position on what or whether people ought to believe in religion or a god.

So why are religious people so often hostile to facts and theories that do not challenge their rights to view things, but do challenge the myths and ignorance of believers?

i'm sure some religious people find being called ignorant somewhat offputting.

I just look at the source, and it doesn't bother me at all. As a matter of fact, I might even get a chuckle out of it.