Stephen Hawking got it wrong.

[TNHarley]

I believe in fact. All we have are theories.
I know many sane people that don't fear God. Kind of an ignorant thing to say..
He didn't sacrifice anything for me. At least at this point that's how I look at it.

So, you don't consider the Creator of the universe dying for you a sacrifice? What would YOU consider a sacrifice? Please enlighten us?

I don't believe it. So why would I?

Let me guess. You believe that everything came from nothing, and we aren't going anywhere? Did I get it right? That's what some scientists preach. Other scientists know better. Quite a few of them, in fact. And don't even try to bring up that 97 percent of scientists believe in evolution BS. That has been completely debunked.

No.
Idk where we came from.

At least you're honest. Do you believe that a Creator is a possibility, or are you ruling it out?

I don't doubt a supreme being at all. I

 

[RWNJ]

completely copied and unsourced.

I gave a source. Look again. It's Richard Deem.

 

[aris2chat]

Introduction
The Grand Design?
Stephen Hawking's latest book is entitled The Grand Design. However, the book's conclusion is exactly the opposite—that the universe is not designed at all, but just popped into existence because of some fortuitous physical laws that just happen to produce universes at will.

Rich Deem
Stephen Hawking has garnered a lot of admiration and respect as a brilliant physicist and cosmologist. His book, A Brief History of Time, is a bestseller for its ability to translate physics and cosmology into terms that a layman can understand. So, when he came out recently promoting his new book claiming, "There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our world—no Gods required" a lot of people took notice. Is our understanding of physics really sufficient to conclude that we know everything necessary to explain the existence of everything?

What new theory?
In his new book, Hawking claims that the reason the universe needs no creator is due to a "new theory" called M-theory (where "M" stands for "membrane," or just "m," or "murky" or "missing"1 depending upon one's particular version of the theory). Originally promoted as "superstring" theory 20 years ago, it has evolved from "strings" to "membranes," although all forms of the theory propose extra dimensions (11, in fact). However, M-theory is no single theory, but, rather, a number of theories through which one may obtain just about anything one wants. How one can test such a nebulous set of theories, which "predict" just about anything and everything, seems to be a problem.

M-theory: science or faith?
Stephen HawkingStephen Hawking
The nature of the universe requires that membranes from M-theory, if they exist at all, must be on the order of Planck length (10-35 m). Such a size is way less than microscopic or even well below subatomic particle sizes. In order to confirm such objects, one would need an accelerator on the order of 6,000,000,000,000,000 miles in circumference.2 It would seem likely, therefore, that confirmation of M-theory, based upon observable data, is impossible. Do such a set of theories that predict everything and anything and are not testable through observational data really fall within the realm of science?

Whence the laws of physics?
According to Stephen Hawking, "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." However, neither gravity nor any other law of physics provides a mechanism by which universe can be spontaneously created. The question Hawking never answered was why those laws of physics exist? Although it is possible for things such as particles to pop into existence from "nothing," it has never been shown that non-quantum-sized objects can perform such feats. Even if it were possible, why would it be expected that such laws of physics would exist that universes to be created from nothing? Why wouldn't a true nothing consist of no laws of physics and no possibility of anything popping into existence?

Conclusion Top of page
So, Stephen Hawking wants us to believe that a nebulous set of theories, which cannot be confirmed through observational data, absolutely establishes that an infinite number of diverse universes exist, having been created from laws of physics that just happen to allow this. John Horgan, a fellow atheist, says that the popularity of M-theory is the result of "stubborn refusal of enthusiasts to abandon their faith."3 Is it not more likely that a super-intelligent, powerful Being invented the laws of physics that produced the universe? Skeptics always ask, "Who created God?" Maybe they already have the answer to that question—Nothing! After all, they seem to think that nothing is a powerful force for creating things!

1) String People: Ed Witten.
2) Cosmic Clowning: Stephen Hawking's "new" theory of everything is the same old CRAP by John Horgan (Scientific American).
3) ibid. "For more than two decades string theory has been the most popular candidate for the unified theory that Hawking envisioned 30 years ago. Yet this popularity stems not from the theory's actual merits but rather from the lack of decent alternatives and the stubborn refusal of enthusiasts to abandon their faith."

You didn't write this.

Why do you RWNJ traitors always believe they can get away with stealing the words of others. One would think they would have learned from Melania getting caught but no ...

WOW! You really are clueless. Did you see the name Richard Deem near the beginning of the article? I did not steal anything, you clueless punk. Nice try to deflect the conversation. Why don't you try addressing what was said in the article? That's what intelligent people do.

try to ignore and forgive the numb skulls

they do like to pick fights

True. Correct me, if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen anyone comment on what was actually mentioned in the article. Have you? A lot of deflection going on here.

I mentioned that string theory was not new.

 

[RWNJ]

So, you don't consider the Creator of the universe dying for you a sacrifice? What would YOU consider a sacrifice? Please enlighten us?

I don't believe it. So why would I?

Let me guess. You believe that everything came from nothing, and we aren't going anywhere? Did I get it right? That's what some scientists preach. Other scientists know better. Quite a few of them, in fact. And don't even try to bring up that 97 percent of scientists believe in evolution BS. That has been completely debunked.

No.
Idk where we came from.

At least you're honest. Do you believe that a Creator is a possibility, or are you ruling it out?

I don't doubt a supreme being at all. I

Then there is hope for you yet. The Bible tells us that God will reveal Himself to those who diligently seek Him. Notice the word diligently.

adjective
1.
constant in effort to accomplish something; attentive and persistent in doing anything:
a diligent student.
2.
done or pursued with persevering attention; painstaking:
a diligent search of the files.

I wish you luck.

 

[Votto]

but just popped into existence because of some fortuitous physical laws that just happen to produce universes at will
Just as believable as a man made god that is supposedly so great and knowing that he uses fear to keep his followers in line.

You question the letter "M"?

Heretic! Burn him, burn him!!!

Personally I suspected the universe was created by the letter "K", but I reckon I ain't book smart enough to know.

This is Sesame Street material, somebody get me a phone!

 

[RWNJ]

Introduction
The Grand Design?
Stephen Hawking's latest book is entitled The Grand Design. However, the book's conclusion is exactly the opposite—that the universe is not designed at all, but just popped into existence because of some fortuitous physical laws that just happen to produce universes at will.

Rich Deem
Stephen Hawking has garnered a lot of admiration and respect as a brilliant physicist and cosmologist. His book, A Brief History of Time, is a bestseller for its ability to translate physics and cosmology into terms that a layman can understand. So, when he came out recently promoting his new book claiming, "There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our world—no Gods required" a lot of people took notice. Is our understanding of physics really sufficient to conclude that we know everything necessary to explain the existence of everything?

What new theory?
In his new book, Hawking claims that the reason the universe needs no creator is due to a "new theory" called M-theory (where "M" stands for "membrane," or just "m," or "murky" or "missing"1 depending upon one's particular version of the theory). Originally promoted as "superstring" theory 20 years ago, it has evolved from "strings" to "membranes," although all forms of the theory propose extra dimensions (11, in fact). However, M-theory is no single theory, but, rather, a number of theories through which one may obtain just about anything one wants. How one can test such a nebulous set of theories, which "predict" just about anything and everything, seems to be a problem.

M-theory: science or faith?
Stephen HawkingStephen Hawking
The nature of the universe requires that membranes from M-theory, if they exist at all, must be on the order of Planck length (10-35 m). Such a size is way less than microscopic or even well below subatomic particle sizes. In order to confirm such objects, one would need an accelerator on the order of 6,000,000,000,000,000 miles in circumference.2 It would seem likely, therefore, that confirmation of M-theory, based upon observable data, is impossible. Do such a set of theories that predict everything and anything and are not testable through observational data really fall within the realm of science?

Whence the laws of physics?
According to Stephen Hawking, "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." However, neither gravity nor any other law of physics provides a mechanism by which universe can be spontaneously created. The question Hawking never answered was why those laws of physics exist? Although it is possible for things such as particles to pop into existence from "nothing," it has never been shown that non-quantum-sized objects can perform such feats. Even if it were possible, why would it be expected that such laws of physics would exist that universes to be created from nothing? Why wouldn't a true nothing consist of no laws of physics and no possibility of anything popping into existence?

Conclusion Top of page
So, Stephen Hawking wants us to believe that a nebulous set of theories, which cannot be confirmed through observational data, absolutely establishes that an infinite number of diverse universes exist, having been created from laws of physics that just happen to allow this. John Horgan, a fellow atheist, says that the popularity of M-theory is the result of "stubborn refusal of enthusiasts to abandon their faith."3 Is it not more likely that a super-intelligent, powerful Being invented the laws of physics that produced the universe? Skeptics always ask, "Who created God?" Maybe they already have the answer to that question—Nothing! After all, they seem to think that nothing is a powerful force for creating things!

1) String People: Ed Witten.
2) Cosmic Clowning: Stephen Hawking's "new" theory of everything is the same old CRAP by John Horgan (Scientific American).
3) ibid. "For more than two decades string theory has been the most popular candidate for the unified theory that Hawking envisioned 30 years ago. Yet this popularity stems not from the theory's actual merits but rather from the lack of decent alternatives and the stubborn refusal of enthusiasts to abandon their faith."

You didn't write this.

Why do you RWNJ traitors always believe they can get away with stealing the words of others. One would think they would have learned from Melania getting caught but no ...

WOW! You really are clueless. Did you see the name Richard Deem near the beginning of the article? I did not steal anything, you clueless punk. Nice try to deflect the conversation. Why don't you try addressing what was said in the article? That's what intelligent people do.

try to ignore and forgive the numb skulls

they do like to pick fights

True. Correct me, if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen anyone comment on what was actually mentioned in the article. Have you? A lot of deflection going on here.

I mentioned that string theory was not new.

I guess I wasn't clear enough. I meant someone referring to the article and trying to refute it.

 

[L.K.Eder]

completely copied and unsourced.

I gave a source. Look again. It's Richard Deem.

You failed. that is not how you source anything. but do not worry, no one would think you tried to pretend that the op was your IP.

 

[Votto]

Steven Hawking, the man that knows everything EXCEPT on how to jump out of that wheel chair.

I reckon he studied the wrong thing.

 

[RWNJ]

completely copied and unsourced.

I gave a source. Look again. It's Richard Deem.

You failed. that is not how you source anything. but do not worry, no one would think you tried to pretend that the op was your IP.

I did nothing of the sort. There is a short introductory paragraph. The very next line has the name of the author. Richard Deem.

 

[aris2chat]

You didn't write this.

Why do you RWNJ traitors always believe they can get away with stealing the words of others. One would think they would have learned from Melania getting caught but no ...

WOW! You really are clueless. Did you see the name Richard Deem near the beginning of the article? I did not steal anything, you clueless punk. Nice try to deflect the conversation. Why don't you try addressing what was said in the article? That's what intelligent people do.

try to ignore and forgive the numb skulls

they do like to pick fights

True. Correct me, if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen anyone comment on what was actually mentioned in the article. Have you? A lot of deflection going on here.

I mentioned that string theory was not new.

I guess I wasn't clear enough. I meant someone referring to the article and trying to refute it.

I'm not nerdy enough to argue with Hawking. My knowledge of theoretical physics is rather elementary.

 

[L.K.Eder]

completely copied and unsourced.

I gave a source. Look again. It's Richard Deem.

You failed. that is not how you source anything. but do not worry, no one would think you tried to pretend that the op was your IP.

I did nothing of the sort. There is a short introductory paragraph. The very next line has the name of the author. Richard Deem.

exactly. you did no sourcing at all.

 

[RWNJ]

WOW! You really are clueless. Did you see the name Richard Deem near the beginning of the article? I did not steal anything, you clueless punk. Nice try to deflect the conversation. Why don't you try addressing what was said in the article? That's what intelligent people do.

try to ignore and forgive the numb skulls

they do like to pick fights

True. Correct me, if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen anyone comment on what was actually mentioned in the article. Have you? A lot of deflection going on here.

I mentioned that string theory was not new.

I guess I wasn't clear enough. I meant someone referring to the article and trying to refute it.

I'm not nerdy enough to argue with Hawking. My knowledge of theoretical physics is rather elementary.

Was that a pun? Elementary, as in elementary particles?

 

[RWNJ]

completely copied and unsourced.

I gave a source. Look again. It's Richard Deem.

You failed. that is not how you source anything. but do not worry, no one would think you tried to pretend that the op was your IP.

I did nothing of the sort. There is a short introductory paragraph. The very next line has the name of the author. Richard Deem.

exactly. you did no sourcing at all.

The source is in what I copied and pasted. His name is right there. Plain as day. Now STFU!

 

[L.K.Eder]

completely copied and unsourced.

I gave a source. Look again. It's Richard Deem.

holy fuck, you suck. a normal person would apologise and provide a link.

 

[L.K.Eder]

completely copied and unsourced.

I gave a source. Look again. It's Richard Deem.

You failed. that is not how you source anything. but do not worry, no one would think you tried to pretend that the op was your IP.

I did nothing of the sort. There is a short introductory paragraph. The very next line has the name of the author. Richard Deem.

exactly. you did no sourcing at all.

The source is in what I copied and pasted. His name is right there. Plain as day. Now STFU!

you are a troll, a dumb troll.

 

[aris2chat]

completely copied and unsourced.

I gave a source. Look again. It's Richard Deem.

You failed. that is not how you source anything. but do not worry, no one would think you tried to pretend that the op was your IP.

I did nothing of the sort. There is a short introductory paragraph. The very next line has the name of the author. Richard Deem.

exactly. you did no sourcing at all.

Why Stephen Hawking is Wrong About God Not Creating the Universe

was not hard to find

 

[L.K.Eder]

completely copied and unsourced.

I gave a source. Look again. It's Richard Deem.

You failed. that is not how you source anything. but do not worry, no one would think you tried to pretend that the op was your IP.

I did nothing of the sort. There is a short introductory paragraph. The very next line has the name of the author. Richard Deem.

exactly. you did no sourcing at all.

Why Stephen Hawking is Wrong About God Not Creating the Universe

was not hard to find

that is not the point. not hard to understand.

 

[ding]

Steven Hawking, the man that knows everything EXCEPT on how to jump out of that wheel chair.

I reckon he studied the wrong thing.

Here is an interesting read on Hawking....

Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and God

"...Perhaps the most important event of Stephen Hawking's life occurred on December 31, 1962. He met his future wife of 25 years, Jane Wilde, at a New Year's Eve party. One month later, Hawking was diagnosed with a debilitating disease, ALS or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, known in North America as Lou Gehrig's disease. He was given two years to live at the time. That was nearly 40 years ago. I have seen three chemistry professor friends die of this terrible disease. My three friends lasted two, three, and five years, respectively, the last surviving on an iron lung for his last tortuous year. By anyone's estimation, the preservation of Stephen Hawking's life is a medical miracle. And he is a man of great personal courage.

At this point in his life, 1962, Stephen was by all accounts an average-performing graduate student at Cambridge University. I hasten to add that even average doctoral students at Cambridge, still one of the five great universities in the world, can be very good. Let me quote from his biographers, White and Gribbon, on this point:

However, there is little doubt that Jane Wilde's appearance on the scene was a major turning point in Stephen Hawking's life. The two of them began to see a lot more of one another and a strong relationship developed. It was finding Jane Wilde that enabled him to break out of his depression and regenerate some belief in his life and work. For Hawking, his engagement to Jane was probably the most important thing that ever happened to him. It changed his life, gave him something to live for and made him determined to live. Without the help that Jane gave him, he would almost certainly not have been able to carry on or had the will to do so.
They married in July of 1965, somewhat past the expected date of Stephen Hawking's death. The fact that three children followed is indisputable evidence that Stephen was not dead. Hawking himself said in an interview shortly following the publication of A Brief History of Time that "what really made a difference was that I got engaged to a woman named Jane Wilde. This gave me something to live for." Jane Wilde is an interesting person in her own right. I think she decided early on to pursue an academic discipline as far as possible from her husband. She has a doctorate in Medieval Portuguese Literature!

Jane Hawking is a Christian. She made the statement in 1986, "Without my faith in God, I wouldn't have been able to live in this situation (namely, the deteriorating health of her husband, with no obvious income but that of a Cambridge don to live on). I would not have been able to marry Stephen in the first place because I wouldn't have had the optimism to carry me through, and I wouldn't have been able to carry on with it."..."

 

[fncceo]

Accepting the Big Bang as a plausible cosmic origin story doesn't mean rejecting G-d. It just means that you accept the concept that G-d works smart, not hard.

 

[jillian]

Introduction
The Grand Design?
Stephen Hawking's latest book is entitled The Grand Design. However, the book's conclusion is exactly the opposite—that the universe is not designed at all, but just popped into existence because of some fortuitous physical laws that just happen to produce universes at will.

Rich Deem
Stephen Hawking has garnered a lot of admiration and respect as a brilliant physicist and cosmologist. His book, A Brief History of Time, is a bestseller for its ability to translate physics and cosmology into terms that a layman can understand. So, when he came out recently promoting his new book claiming, "There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our world—no Gods required" a lot of people took notice. Is our understanding of physics really sufficient to conclude that we know everything necessary to explain the existence of everything?

What new theory?
In his new book, Hawking claims that the reason the universe needs no creator is due to a "new theory" called M-theory (where "M" stands for "membrane," or just "m," or "murky" or "missing"1 depending upon one's particular version of the theory). Originally promoted as "superstring" theory 20 years ago, it has evolved from "strings" to "membranes," although all forms of the theory propose extra dimensions (11, in fact). However, M-theory is no single theory, but, rather, a number of theories through which one may obtain just about anything one wants. How one can test such a nebulous set of theories, which "predict" just about anything and everything, seems to be a problem.

M-theory: science or faith?
Stephen HawkingStephen Hawking
The nature of the universe requires that membranes from M-theory, if they exist at all, must be on the order of Planck length (10-35 m). Such a size is way less than microscopic or even well below subatomic particle sizes. In order to confirm such objects, one would need an accelerator on the order of 6,000,000,000,000,000 miles in circumference.2 It would seem likely, therefore, that confirmation of M-theory, based upon observable data, is impossible. Do such a set of theories that predict everything and anything and are not testable through observational data really fall within the realm of science?

Whence the laws of physics?
According to Stephen Hawking, "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." However, neither gravity nor any other law of physics provides a mechanism by which universe can be spontaneously created. The question Hawking never answered was why those laws of physics exist? Although it is possible for things such as particles to pop into existence from "nothing," it has never been shown that non-quantum-sized objects can perform such feats. Even if it were possible, why would it be expected that such laws of physics would exist that universes to be created from nothing? Why wouldn't a true nothing consist of no laws of physics and no possibility of anything popping into existence?

Conclusion Top of page
So, Stephen Hawking wants us to believe that a nebulous set of theories, which cannot be confirmed through observational data, absolutely establishes that an infinite number of diverse universes exist, having been created from laws of physics that just happen to allow this. John Horgan, a fellow atheist, says that the popularity of M-theory is the result of "stubborn refusal of enthusiasts to abandon their faith."3 Is it not more likely that a super-intelligent, powerful Being invented the laws of physics that produced the universe? Skeptics always ask, "Who created God?" Maybe they already have the answer to that question—Nothing! After all, they seem to think that nothing is a powerful force for creating things!

1) String People: Ed Witten.
2) Cosmic Clowning: Stephen Hawking's "new" theory of everything is the same old CRAP by John Horgan (Scientific American).
3) ibid. "For more than two decades string theory has been the most popular candidate for the unified theory that Hawking envisioned 30 years ago. Yet this popularity stems not from the theory's actual merits but rather from the lack of decent alternatives and the stubborn refusal of enthusiasts to abandon their faith."

it's so cute that you think a genius is wrong, but your idiot self is smarter.

aren't you embarrassed?

never mind... trump scum are never embarrassed