Hawking says physics proves there is no time for "Gawd".

[koshergrl]

why should hawking cause so much chaos with believers ?
if their myth is correct then gawd lives outside of time and is unaffected by it or physics or anything in the material universe..
on the flip side there is no evidence for anything outside the material universe not gawd or anything at all.

He doesn't create chaos for me.

The people who seem to get all hot and bothered by him are his groupies, who think he's the ultimate say-so in re: God's existence.

Which believers, as well as real intellectuals, know to be ridiculous.

 

[daveman]

Right, because Genesis makes more sense, sure.



The thing that made the things for which there is no known maker. - YouTube


Morons.

It makes more sense to me. Perhaps you just lack imagination.

Yeah makes much more sense to say some craetor magically made everything than to admit we don't know everyth

I admit I don't know everything.

I'll ask God about the details when I meet Him.

 

[daws101]

why should hawking cause so much chaos with believers ?
if their myth is correct then gawd lives outside of time and is unaffected by it or physics or anything in the material universe..
on the flip side there is no evidence for anything outside the material universe not gawd or anything at all.

He doesn't create chaos for me.

The people who seem to get all hot and bothered by him are his groupies, who think he's the ultimate say-so in re: God's existence.

Which believers, as well as real intellectuals, know to be ridiculous.

another declarative statement with no basis in fact.
you did get one thing right (accidentally) that believers are not intellectuals.
to be an intellectual, you first have to have an intellect.
dogma spewers don't cut it.

 

[koshergrl]

why should hawking cause so much chaos with believers ?
if their myth is correct then gawd lives outside of time and is unaffected by it or physics or anything in the material universe..
on the flip side there is no evidence for anything outside the material universe not gawd or anything at all.

He doesn't create chaos for me.

The people who seem to get all hot and bothered by him are his groupies, who think he's the ultimate say-so in re: God's existence.

Which believers, as well as real intellectuals, know to be ridiculous.

another declarative statement with no basis in fact.
you did get one thing right (accidentally) that believers are not intellectuals.
to be an intellectual, you first have to have an intellect.
dogma spewers don't cut it.

Although your ungrammatical post is nonsensical, I will do what I can with what you have provided:

I think I get to declare whether or not Hawking creates chaos for me without providing any other evidence. You, like your bud bob, seem to have an interesting view of what requires evidence..and what evidence requires.

The people who are hot and bothered in this thread are definitely Hawking's groupies. I suspect you may be one, as you got hot and bothered by that statement, as Hawking groupies are wont.

I haven't spewed any dogma. I suspect you are under the influence, or just stupid. So you'll excuse me if I give your ludicrous post exactly zero credence.

 

[bobcollum]

koshrgrl you make the usual mistake of assuming I'm a full-fledged atheist.

I know there isn't a way to know for sure in either direction...but I definitely think I know what side will prevail in the end.

It doesn't matter if you are, or aren't. The approach the New Atheists referenced in my source is the exact same one you're using, and it's a big fat fail for the same reasons.

Have fun spreading your "faith based theories".

We'll see what's there after it's all said and done, I'm not worried about it, I see which direction the wind is blowing.

 

[bobcollum]

And by all means, let me have that link where I claim to be a "master debater", or you're just a liar.

 

[Liability]

They say: "Matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed."

Yet -- it's here.

So, folks like me ask: "Where did it come from?"

Their 'Answer': The Big Bang.

So folks like me ponder and then ask: "Oh. Well the stuff that was in the Big Bang that came spewing out so prolifically when it went Bang. Where did THAT stuff come from?"

They say: "It was always there BECAUSE it can't be created or destroyed."

Folks like me ponder and then ask: "Uh huh. But for 'it' to have 'always existed' aren't you saying that something can exist before it exists? For example, if there was a period in the Universe (in the nano instant of the Bang in the Big Bang) where there was no life, then life did not always exist. It got created. What created life? The stuff that came prior to life. Ok. But what created that? The precursors to that stuff. Ok. But what created THAT stuff? It was always there! But if it was always there then why wasn't life always there? Why do some things require creation but some things don't?"

 

[daws101]

He doesn't create chaos for me.

The people who seem to get all hot and bothered by him are his groupies, who think he's the ultimate say-so in re: God's existence.

Which believers, as well as real intellectuals, know to be ridiculous.

another declarative statement with no basis in fact.
you did get one thing right (accidentally) that believers are not intellectuals.
to be an intellectual, you first have to have an intellect.
dogma spewers don't cut it.

Although your ungrammatical post is nonsensical, I will do what I can with what you have provided:

I think I get to declare whether or not Hawking creates chaos for me without providing any other evidence. You, like your bud bob, seem to have an interesting view of what requires evidence..and what evidence requires.

The people who are hot and bothered in this thread are definitely Hawking's groupies. I suspect you may be one, as you got hot and bothered by that statement, as Hawking groupies are wont.

I haven't spewed any dogma. I suspect you are under the influence, or just stupid. So you'll excuse me if I give your ludicrous post exactly zero credence.

1.my grammar is fine, so once again you're talking out your ass.
2.I don't know bob , that's an erroneous assumption(like all your assumptions)
3.to be fact, all things require evidence. if not, they, by definition are false.
4.Not a hawking groupie...since I'm fairly sure you've never read any of his work, any statement you make is subjective and coincidentally is dogma spouting.
5. your assumption: (" I suspect you are under the influence, or just stupid") is not only wrong on both counts but proves you have the maturity of 7th grade boy.
6. " So you'll excuse me if I give your ludicrous post exactly zero credence" [insert irony here]

 

[Liability]

another declarative statement with no basis in fact.
you did get one thing right (accidentally) that believers are not intellectuals.
to be an intellectual, you first have to have an intellect.
dogma spewers don't cut it.

Although your ungrammatical post is nonsensical, I will do what I can with what you have provided:

I think I get to declare whether or not Hawking creates chaos for me without providing any other evidence. You, like your bud bob, seem to have an interesting view of what requires evidence..and what evidence requires.

The people who are hot and bothered in this thread are definitely Hawking's groupies. I suspect you may be one, as you got hot and bothered by that statement, as Hawking groupies are wont.

I haven't spewed any dogma. I suspect you are under the influence, or just stupid. So you'll excuse me if I give your ludicrous post exactly zero credence.

1.my grammar is fine, so once again you're talking out your ass.
2.I don't know bob , that's an erroneous assumption(like all your assumptions)
3.to be fact, all things require evidence. if not, they, by definition are false.
4.Not a hawking groupie...since I'm fairly sure you've never read any of his work, any statement you make is subjective and coincidentally is dogma spouting.
5. your assumption: (" I suspect you are under the influence, or just stupid") is not only wrong on both counts but proves you have the maturity of 7th grade boy.
6. " So you'll excuse me if I give your ludicrous post exactly zero credence" [insert irony here]

A "fact" does not always require evidence, although proving a fact does; and a lack of evidence does not make an assertion false. It just makes it unproved.

 

[daws101]

They say: "Matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed."

Yet -- it's here.

So, folks like me ask: "Where did it come from?"

Their 'Answer': The Big Bang?

So folks like me ponder and then ask: "Oh. Well the stuff that was in the Big Bang that came spewing out so prolifically when it went Bang. Where did THAT stuff come from?"

They say: "It was always there BECAUSE it can't be created or destroyed."

Folks like me ponder and then ask: "Uh huh. But for 'it' to have 'always existed' aren't you saying that something can exist before it exists? For example, if there was a period in the Universe (in the nano instant of the Bang in the Big Bang) where there was no life, then life did not always exist. It got created. What created life? The stuff that came prior to life. Ok. But what created that? The precursors to that stuff. Ok. But what created THAT stuff? It was always there! But if it was always there then why wasn't life always there? Why do some things require creation but some things don't?"

correct me if I'm wrong but the BBTdoes not state anything about something coming from nothing.
what it does say is that all matter in the universe was compacted in an infinitesimally small space....

 

[bobcollum]

Folks like me ponder and then ask: "Uh huh. But for 'it' to have 'always existed' aren't you saying that something can exist before it exists? For example, if there was a period in the Universe (in the nano instant of the Bang in the Big Bang) where there was no life, then life did not always exist. It got created. What created life? The stuff that came prior to life. Ok. But what created that? The precursors to that stuff. Ok. But what created THAT stuff? It was always there! But if it was always there then why wasn't life always there? Why do some things require creation but some things don't?"

That's a fair argument, and anyone that argues against that with certainty isn't being completely honest. At the same rate, your side of the argument doesn't have a legitimate explanation either, which is why it's futile to discuss such existential topics.

 

[bobcollum]

They say: "Matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed."

Yet -- it's here.

So, folks like me ask: "Where did it come from?"

Their 'Answer': The Big Bang?

So folks like me ponder and then ask: "Oh. Well the stuff that was in the Big Bang that came spewing out so prolifically when it went Bang. Where did THAT stuff come from?"

They say: "It was always there BECAUSE it can't be created or destroyed."

Folks like me ponder and then ask: "Uh huh. But for 'it' to have 'always existed' aren't you saying that something can exist before it exists? For example, if there was a period in the Universe (in the nano instant of the Bang in the Big Bang) where there was no life, then life did not always exist. It got created. What created life? The stuff that came prior to life. Ok. But what created that? The precursors to that stuff. Ok. But what created THAT stuff? It was always there! But if it was always there then why wasn't life always there? Why do some things require creation but some things don't?"

correct me if I'm wrong but the BBTdoes not state anything about something coming from nothing.
what it does say is that all matter in the universe was compacted in an infinitesimally small space....

That too, is true.

 

[koshergrl]

another declarative statement with no basis in fact.
you did get one thing right (accidentally) that believers are not intellectuals.
to be an intellectual, you first have to have an intellect.
dogma spewers don't cut it.

Although your ungrammatical post is nonsensical, I will do what I can with what you have provided:

I think I get to declare whether or not Hawking creates chaos for me without providing any other evidence. You, like your bud bob, seem to have an interesting view of what requires evidence..and what evidence requires.

The people who are hot and bothered in this thread are definitely Hawking's groupies. I suspect you may be one, as you got hot and bothered by that statement, as Hawking groupies are wont.

I haven't spewed any dogma. I suspect you are under the influence, or just stupid. So you'll excuse me if I give your ludicrous post exactly zero credence.

1.my grammar is fine, so once again you're talking out your ass.
2.I don't know bob , that's an erroneous assumption(like all your assumptions)
3.to be fact, all things require evidence. if not, they, by definition are false.
4.Not a hawking groupie...since I'm fairly sure you've never read any of his work, any statement you make is subjective and coincidentally is dogma spouting.
5. your assumption: (" I suspect you are under the influence, or just stupid") is not only wrong on both counts but proves you have the maturity of 7th grade boy.
6. " So you'll excuse me if I give your ludicrous post exactly zero credence" [insert irony here]

We'll start here, and work our way up:

"Instructions

1. • 1 Capitalize the first word of every sentence. It does not matter if it is a regular sentence, a question or an exclamation.

Read more: [FONT=339e00dc408581130d4e9e10#f01100]How to Capitalize Correctly | eHow.com[/FONT] [FONT=339e00dc408581130d4e9e10#f01100]http://www.ehow.com/how_2054185_capitalize-correctly.html#ixzz1xoAEoti1[/FONT]​

I still think you're under the influence. It has nothing to do with my maturity, it has to do with certain giveaways in writing.

 

[bobcollum]

^ KG doesn't like when people change the subject.

 

[daws101]

Although your ungrammatical post is nonsensical, I will do what I can with what you have provided:

I think I get to declare whether or not Hawking creates chaos for me without providing any other evidence. You, like your bud bob, seem to have an interesting view of what requires evidence..and what evidence requires.

The people who are hot and bothered in this thread are definitely Hawking's groupies. I suspect you may be one, as you got hot and bothered by that statement, as Hawking groupies are wont.

I haven't spewed any dogma. I suspect you are under the influence, or just stupid. So you'll excuse me if I give your ludicrous post exactly zero credence.

1.my grammar is fine, so once again you're talking out your ass.
2.I don't know bob , that's an erroneous assumption(like all your assumptions)
3.to be fact, all things require evidence. if not, they, by definition are false.
4.Not a hawking groupie...since I'm fairly sure you've never read any of his work, any statement you make is subjective and coincidentally is dogma spouting.
5. your assumption: (" I suspect you are under the influence, or just stupid") is not only wrong on both counts but proves you have the maturity of 7th grade boy.
6. " So you'll excuse me if I give your ludicrous post exactly zero credence" [insert irony here]

We'll start here, and work our way up:

"Instructions

1. • 1 Capitalize the first word of every sentence. It does not matter if it is a regular sentence, a question or an exclamation.

Read more: [FONT=339e00dc408581130d4e9e10#f01100]How to Capitalize Correctly | eHow.com[/FONT] [FONT=339e00dc408581130d4e9e10#f01100]http://www.ehow.com/how_2054185_capitalize-correctly.html#ixzz1xoAEoti1[/FONT]​

I still think you're under the influence. It has nothing to do with my maturity, it has to do with certain giveaways in writing.

and you'd be wrong!
as an extra added bonus, you're deflection...

 

[koshergrl]

"and you'd be wrong" isn't a complete sentence.

"as an extra added bonus, you're deflection...." makes no sense whatever. Please try again.

 

[Liability]

They say: "Matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed."

Yet -- it's here.

So, folks like me ask: "Where did it come from?"

Their 'Answer': The Big Bang?

So folks like me ponder and then ask: "Oh. Well the stuff that was in the Big Bang that came spewing out so prolifically when it went Bang. Where did THAT stuff come from?"

They say: "It was always there BECAUSE it can't be created or destroyed."

Folks like me ponder and then ask: "Uh huh. But for 'it' to have 'always existed' aren't you saying that something can exist before it exists? For example, if there was a period in the Universe (in the nano instant of the Bang in the Big Bang) where there was no life, then life did not always exist. It got created. What created life? The stuff that came prior to life. Ok. But what created that? The precursors to that stuff. Ok. But what created THAT stuff? It was always there! But if it was always there then why wasn't life always there? Why do some things require creation but some things don't?"

correct me if I'm wrong but the BBTdoes not state anything about something coming from nothing.
what it does say is that all matter in the universe was compacted in an infinitesimally small space....

Ok.

It was compacted to a really tiny "point." But it was still there.

And, that still begs the question: Where did it come from?

To say "it was ALWAYS" there also begs the question since it doesn't answer how it could "always be there."

 

[daws101]

^ KG doesn't like when people change the subject.

only she can (read her last post)

 

[Liability]

What CAN exist prior to itself without being created?

How does THAT work?

 

[koshergrl]

In order to address the subject, you have to be capable of making yourself understood.

And you can't make yourself understood if you don't make use of capitalization, correct and complete sentence structures, correct pronoun useage and proper syntax.

I'm willing to help you express yourself in a manner that people will understand. But first you must admit you have a problem.