Genius Scientist Stephen Hawking declares that the universe created itself...

[Coyote]

Lets see. Who should I choose to believe. Steven Hawking, who is world renowned, or you, a crazy rwnj keyboard warrior.
Such a hard decision. Can I call a friend?

Stephen Hawking IQ = 160
Donald Trump IQ = 156

Actually, pretty close. So, the point is, you should start believing Trump more than you do.

How do we know Trump's IQ?

 

[JoeMoma]

I read a theory once that throughout eternity God has created and destroyed (in effect recycled) the universe uncountable times. This process is called the unicycle.

 

[BULLDOG]

credible link?

I posted it. Therefore it is.

liar

 

[Political Junky]

Lets see. Who should I choose to believe. Steven Hawking, who is world renowned, or you, a crazy rwnj keyboard warrior.
Such a hard decision. Can I call a friend?

Stephen Hawking IQ = 160
Donald Trump IQ = 156

Actually, pretty close. So, the point is, you should start believing Trump more than you do.

Link?

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Do guns die, or just people?

Which of the above is a human being and which is an object.....you have 20 years........GO!!!!

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

liar

Actually, it's true. Go Google it. I'm not in the mood to hold your hand

 

[Freewill]

Gravity is a law of the universe, having no application outside of it.

I guess then you are arguing the universe is self creating according to current knowledge of gravity.

That may be true, but Hawking can't explain how it began.

I don't really know what Hawkins said nor do I care. But if he is trying to say that the Universe was created by natural law then he is either accepting there is a God, who laid down the natural law, or he is just ignoring the ramifications of what he said. Much like saying that baseball wasn't created by rules or by intelligence.

My thought is, the Universe was created by the only logical entity, God. Whatever one want to believe God to be the conclusion is logical. God created the Universe out of Himself, energy to matter, and He used the law of nature to do so, so Hawkins is kinda right. I can really understand Hawkins being bitter and lashing out at God.

 

[ScienceRocks]

What created god?

That is even harder then a slow physical process. Do you understand child?

 

[Blackrook]

Gravity is a law of the universe, having no application outside of it.

I guess then you are arguing the universe is self creating according to current knowledge of gravity.

That may be true, but Hawking can't explain how it began.

I don't really know what Hawkins said nor do I care. But if he is trying to say that the Universe was created by natural law then he is either accepting there is a God, who laid down the natural law, or he is just ignoring the ramifications of what he said. Much like saying that baseball wasn't created by rules or by intelligence.

My thought is, the Universe was created by the only logical entity, God. Whatever one want to believe God to be the conclusion is logical. God created the Universe out of Himself, energy to matter, and He used the law of nature to do so, so Hawkins is kinda right. I can really understand Hawkins being bitter and lashing out at God.

No, that's pantheism. God is not the universe. The universe did not create itself.

 

[Coyote]

God is everything. Within and without. There for GoD is the universe.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It's ok to not know everything.

Every time I see one of these "science v. religion" threads, I can't help but laugh a little. You guys just don't get the point.

We don't know how the universe was created. That's ok. Stephen Hawking has a theory, but we don't have explicit proof.

That's ok.

Maybe one day we'll actually have givens to deal with. Maybe not. Not having all the answers is not a problem for me.

Religion exists to answer questions that we can't answer. But not everyone needs a belief system to answer the questions they don't know the answer to. Some of us are perfectly happy to just not know.

 

[Freewill]

Gravity is a law of the universe, having no application outside of it.

I guess then you are arguing the universe is self creating according to current knowledge of gravity.

That may be true, but Hawking can't explain how it began.

I don't really know what Hawkins said nor do I care. But if he is trying to say that the Universe was created by natural law then he is either accepting there is a God, who laid down the natural law, or he is just ignoring the ramifications of what he said. Much like saying that baseball wasn't created by rules or by intelligence.

My thought is, the Universe was created by the only logical entity, God. Whatever one want to believe God to be the conclusion is logical. God created the Universe out of Himself, energy to matter, and He used the law of nature to do so, so Hawkins is kinda right. I can really understand Hawkins being bitter and lashing out at God.

No, that's pantheism. God is not the universe. The universe did not create itself.

OK, God used something else, where did this something else come from and what is it made of? Or are you saying it was just magic? God even tells you that He doesn't create something out of nothing, you know like Adam.

 

[Freewill]

It's ok to not know everything.

Every time I see one of these "science v. religion" threads, I can't help but laugh a little. You guys just don't get the point.

We don't know how the universe was created. That's ok. Stephen Hawking has a theory, but we don't have explicit proof.

That's ok.

Maybe one day we'll actually have givens to deal with. Maybe not. Not having all the answers is not a problem for me.

Religion exists to answer questions that we can't answer. But not everyone needs a belief system to answer the questions they don't know the answer to. Some of us are perfectly happy to just not know.

It is just a mind candy debate, no one ever changes their mind. Nothing for you to worry about and nothing for you to get involved in if you don't want to. Seems like to me Hawkins did want to debate.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

It's ok to not know everything.

Every time I see one of these "science v. religion" threads, I can't help but laugh a little. You guys just don't get the point.

We don't know how the universe was created. That's ok. Stephen Hawking has a theory, but we don't have explicit proof.

That's ok.

Maybe one day we'll actually have givens to deal with. Maybe not. Not having all the answers is not a problem for me.

Religion exists to answer questions that we can't answer. But not everyone needs a belief system to answer the questions they don't know the answer to. Some of us are perfectly happy to just not know.

I don't often agree....but....

 

[cnm]

I'm still waiting for the concept of INMORTALITY to be explained. Now that's a slow process.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

But even if the law of gravity caused THIS universe to spontanously come in being, that doesn't solve Hawking's problem -- where did the law of gravity come from, and all the matter that went into this formation of the universe, where did that come from?

I don't know. Let's invent a god in order to explain it, what do you reckon?

My belief in God is based on the logical conclusion that this universe did not create itself, but must have been created by something outside the universe.

Logic only takes you that far. Were it not for the revelations of the Bible, I would believe in an impersonal God, who created the universe and then walked away, who was indiffferent to mankind and all our struggles. The facts seem to fit that model of God, but the Bible says otherwise.

You contradict yourself, and I think the root of it is that you misunderstand what "logic" is.

Logic is a tool to describe a causal system. It describes absolutes that for the most part, don't actually exist in reality.

If p, then q.
p.
Therefore, q.

Within this system, "logic" only applies when we deal with pure truths. If p is true, then logically, q must be true.

If the antecedent is true, the consequence must be true.

There is no possible way to "logically" conclude that God exists, because that's not the point of God. God, by definition, exists outside of logic.

 

[Picaro]

Formal logic is just circular reasoning. Informal logic is where the heavy lifting is re critical thinking, and empiricism is just a highly specialized methodology and very circular, which means it isn't suitable for such fare as bizarre evolution hypotheses or 'big bang theories' and the like; those are not reproducible events and aren't empirically provable.

And, whether or not 'God' exists is a matter of definition; see the Summa Theologica for almost perfectly logical explanations for such a conceptualization.

 

[Windparadox]

How do we know Trump's IQ?

`
`
Snopes - Donald Trump's Intelligence Quotient - 156? A: False. A chart purportedly showing Donald Trump's IQ ranking compared to that of other presidents is based on incomplete and inaccurate information.

 

[Kat]

Snopes is a left wing husband and wife joke. I didn't know there was anyone left that actually used them.

 

[Nosmo King]

Who created God?

Ask Voltaire.