Hawking Says Universe Created Itself

[Fort Fun Indiana]

`
The article, from a "creationist" web site, is commenting on Hawking's book, The Grand Design, in which Hawking postulates; "that invoking God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe, and that the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone. In response to criticism, Hawking has said; "One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary."

Those who take the bible literally, will object to that of course. They have no use for such things as science anyways. As creationists are all "faith based", argumentation in regards to science is totally lost on them. Hawking does not state an absolute in his book but offers instead, a mathematical and scientifically sound explanation of a "possible" alternative to the creationist concept.

"The Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone."
Where did the laws of physics come from?

"Where did the laws of physics come from?"

One explanation is that all possible universes exist, with all possible laws of physics. We just happen to live in this one. Another answer is, "we don't know."

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How so?

Are you familiar with ABG theory?

"ABG Theory"

"abiogenesis" is one word. And someone who had strong faith could just accept any scientific explanation and say, "that's how god did it!". So, your problem with abiogenesis goes beyond merely "believing in a creator". You need to be honest with yourself and everyone else about this simple fact.

Sure, that's where studying how matter evolved from sub atomic particles to beings that know and create comes into play.

"Sure, that's where studying how matter evolved from sub atomic particles to beings that know and create comes into play."

huh? how would that confirm or deny the existence of a creator? It wouldn't. We could never do this via science.

Because you can't tell what something is by how it starts. You can only tell what it is when it is finished.

"ecause you can't tell what something is by how it starts. You can only tell what it is when it is finished."

I asked how any such study would confirm or deny the existence of a creator. that being the case, I can't make any sense of your answer. help me out.

 

[ding]

The universe was never created.

`
That may be true in a "closed universe" where the expansion driven by the Big Bang stops and causes its own eventual contraction, only to reform and expand again in another Big Bang. Hawking's theory is based on that. The existence of a god has no effect on that.

SO, why was there a big bang? What caused it? Someone had to cause it to happen, otherwise it violates the LAW of cause and effect.

There is no law of cause and effect. There is just cause and effect. We live in a universe where there has never been an uncaused event.

 

[RWNJ]

Whether he's right, it's not just opinio"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.In the forthcoming book, published on 9 September, Hawking says that M-theory, a form of string theory, will achieve this goal: "M-theory is the unified theory Einstein was hoping to find," he theorises.https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/sep/02

`
Attempting to explain science to certain religious people, is an exercise in futility.

Not at all. There are many Christian scientists. In fact, some of the greatest scientists ever were Christians. Just because we don't buy into your BS about evolution does not mean we reject science. I could show you a list of 1,000 scientists who do not believe in Darwinian evolution.

 

[ding]

Are you familiar with ABG theory?

"ABG Theory"

"abiogenesis" is one word. And someone who had strong faith could just accept any scientific explanation and say, "that's how god did it!". So, your problem with abiogenesis goes beyond merely "believing in a creator". You need to be honest with yourself and everyone else about this simple fact.

Sure, that's where studying how matter evolved from sub atomic particles to beings that know and create comes into play.

"Sure, that's where studying how matter evolved from sub atomic particles to beings that know and create comes into play."

huh? how would that confirm or deny the existence of a creator? It wouldn't. We could never do this via science.

Because you can't tell what something is by how it starts. You can only tell what it is when it is finished.

"ecause you can't tell what something is by how it starts. You can only tell what it is when it is finished."

I asked how any such study would confirm or deny the existence of a creator. that being the case, I can't make any sense of your answer. help me out.

I'm trying but you are acting a little bit like a dick.

So are you ready to concede that the matter and energy that make up who you are existed when space and time were created?

 

[ding]

Are you familiar with ABG theory?

"ABG Theory"

"abiogenesis" is one word. And someone who had strong faith could just accept any scientific explanation and say, "that's how god did it!". So, your problem with abiogenesis goes beyond merely "believing in a creator". You need to be honest with yourself and everyone else about this simple fact.

Sure, that's where studying how matter evolved from sub atomic particles to beings that know and create comes into play.

"Sure, that's where studying how matter evolved from sub atomic particles to beings that know and create comes into play."

huh? how would that confirm or deny the existence of a creator? It wouldn't. We could never do this via science.

Because you can't tell what something is by how it starts. You can only tell what it is when it is finished.

"ecause you can't tell what something is by how it starts. You can only tell what it is when it is finished."

I asked how any such study would confirm or deny the existence of a creator. that being the case, I can't make any sense of your answer. help me out.

Can I use something you create as evidence even if I didn't know you created it?

 

[K9Buck]

Or that we lack knowledge.

I think you mean to say that YOU lack the knowledge to name anything else.

My position is that the only solution which exists for the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.

Not if you follow the ABG theory.

How so?

Are you familiar with ABG theory?

Not at all which I why I asked how so.

Oh wow. You're missing out on a whole world of possibilities for the committed atheist. ABG theory stands for "Anything but God". Anything is possible when one is an ABG adherent.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"ABG Theory"

"abiogenesis" is one word. And someone who had strong faith could just accept any scientific explanation and say, "that's how god did it!". So, your problem with abiogenesis goes beyond merely "believing in a creator". You need to be honest with yourself and everyone else about this simple fact.

Sure, that's where studying how matter evolved from sub atomic particles to beings that know and create comes into play.

"Sure, that's where studying how matter evolved from sub atomic particles to beings that know and create comes into play."

huh? how would that confirm or deny the existence of a creator? It wouldn't. We could never do this via science.

Because you can't tell what something is by how it starts. You can only tell what it is when it is finished.

"ecause you can't tell what something is by how it starts. You can only tell what it is when it is finished."

I asked how any such study would confirm or deny the existence of a creator. that being the case, I can't make any sense of your answer. help me out.

I'm trying but you are acting a little bit like a dick.

So are you ready to concede that the matter and energy that make up who you are existed when space and time were created?

"So are you ready to concede that the matter and energy that make up who you are existed when space and time were created?"

yes, due to the principle of conservation of energy

 

[RWNJ]

The universe was never created.

`
That may be true in a "closed universe" where the expansion driven by the Big Bang stops and causes its own eventual contraction, only to reform and expand again in another Big Bang. Hawking's theory is based on that. The existence of a god has no effect on that.

There is no compelling evidence that the "big bang" hypothesis is correct in the first place.

And the math breaks down before they get to the actual event itself. I wonder why. Perhaps, that is the point in which God created the physical laws of the universe.

 

[ding]

`
The article, from a "creationist" web site, is commenting on Hawking's book, The Grand Design, in which Hawking postulates; "that invoking God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe, and that the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone. In response to criticism, Hawking has said; "One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary."

Those who take the bible literally, will object to that of course. They have no use for such things as science anyways. As creationists are all "faith based", argumentation in regards to science is totally lost on them. Hawking does not state an absolute in his book but offers instead, a mathematical and scientifically sound explanation of a "possible" alternative to the creationist concept.

"The Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone."
Where did the laws of physics come from?

"Where did the laws of physics come from?"

One explanation is that all possible universes exist, with all possible laws of physics. We just happen to live in this one. Another answer is, "we don't know."

No. We actually have a pretty good idea that the laws of nature exited before space and time were created. How else would space and time have been created without following rules/laws governing their interactions?

 

[K9Buck]

Maybe, maybe not. What ya got?

For one, what I already said: it would appear to us that time has no beginning.

Well, if we could travel back, wouldn't we see all of matter condensing into one point and, with it, the collapsing of space itself? Upon reaching the final point, I believe we would actually see that there was nothing at all. No matter, no space, nothing. Then if we could fast-forward, the matter would appear, literally out of nowhere followed up instantly by the biggest explosion our universe has ever had. And then we would see the first seconds of the universe.

Where have I got it wrong?

No, we would never reach that point, even without a singularity.we could never observe the beginning of the universe directly, as we are a part of it.

On a side note, new ideas about what "time" is are emerging And that's an appropriate word, as they describe time as an emergent property of quantum entanglement. An observer outside our universe would not perceive any passing of time at all, when observing our universe. It would not even appear to exist at all!

If we were with the creator, we could see all of the matter retract and consolidate into nothing.

Your point about an observer not perceiving the passing of time might be true for us, but the creator would certainly know what is happening.

On another note, we can create programs to simulate the big bang and to even create worlds and to fill it with life. What we CAN'T do is give the creatures in our world sentience. But our creator can. The whole concept of a creator creating the universe and life seems fantastic but, when you look at it using the computer programming analogy, it's not that difficult to imagine at all.

<<If we were with the creator, we could see all of the matter retract and consolidate into nothing. >>


No. If we were the creator, we would be riding a pink unicorn and making it poop dragons, all the while making love to our gay god-lover. Dang, i guess there is no way to tell who is right, huh? You REALLY need to recognize the difference between evidence-based thought and magical thought.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I think you mean to say that YOU lack the knowledge to name anything else.

My position is that the only solution which exists for the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.

Not if you follow the ABG theory.

How so?

Are you familiar with ABG theory?

Not at all which I why I asked how so.

Oh wow. You're missing out on a whole world of possibilities for the committed atheist. ABG theory stands for "Anything but God". Anything is possible when one is an ABG adherent.

"
ABG theory stands for "Anything but God". Anything is possible when one is an ABG adherent.
"

Ridiculous and false. "ABG" is actually the ONLY method to rule out anything, which makes your statement ridiculous. Second, "anything but god" is the only way to explain anything, as positing "God did it!" explains exactly nothing.

 

[ding]

Sure, that's where studying how matter evolved from sub atomic particles to beings that know and create comes into play.

"Sure, that's where studying how matter evolved from sub atomic particles to beings that know and create comes into play."

huh? how would that confirm or deny the existence of a creator? It wouldn't. We could never do this via science.

Because you can't tell what something is by how it starts. You can only tell what it is when it is finished.

"ecause you can't tell what something is by how it starts. You can only tell what it is when it is finished."

I asked how any such study would confirm or deny the existence of a creator. that being the case, I can't make any sense of your answer. help me out.

I'm trying but you are acting a little bit like a dick.

So are you ready to concede that the matter and energy that make up who you are existed when space and time were created?

"So are you ready to concede that the matter and energy that make up who you are existed when space and time were created?"

yes, due to the principle of conservation of energy

Thank you.

That's important because my next point is that what controlled you evolving from sub atomic particles to a being that knows and creates?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

For one, what I already said: it would appear to us that time has no beginning.

Well, if we could travel back, wouldn't we see all of matter condensing into one point and, with it, the collapsing of space itself? Upon reaching the final point, I believe we would actually see that there was nothing at all. No matter, no space, nothing. Then if we could fast-forward, the matter would appear, literally out of nowhere followed up instantly by the biggest explosion our universe has ever had. And then we would see the first seconds of the universe.

Where have I got it wrong?

No, we would never reach that point, even without a singularity.we could never observe the beginning of the universe directly, as we are a part of it.

On a side note, new ideas about what "time" is are emerging And that's an appropriate word, as they describe time as an emergent property of quantum entanglement. An observer outside our universe would not perceive any passing of time at all, when observing our universe. It would not even appear to exist at all!

If we were with the creator, we could see all of the matter retract and consolidate into nothing.

Your point about an observer not perceiving the passing of time might be true for us, but the creator would certainly know what is happening.

On another note, we can create programs to simulate the big bang and to even create worlds and to fill it with life. What we CAN'T do is give the creatures in our world sentience. But our creator can. The whole concept of a creator creating the universe and life seems fantastic but, when you look at it using the computer programming analogy, it's not that difficult to imagine at all.

<<If we were with the creator, we could see all of the matter retract and consolidate into nothing. >>


No. If we were the creator, we would be riding a pink unicorn and making it poop dragons, all the while making love to our gay god-lover. Dang, i guess there is no way to tell who is right, huh? You REALLY need to recognize the difference between evidence-based thought and magical thought.

yes, "this shit" again. If you are going to introduce untestable, magical nonsense which we could never verify the truth of, then I am going to put it on the same shelf with any ridiculous nonsense that anyone makes up. and there will never be any way to tell which goofy, magical idea is true and which is false. That should be a big, huge hint to you that "Because I say so!" is ALL you have to support these magical ideas.

 

[K9Buck]

Or that we lack knowledge.

I think you mean to say that YOU lack the knowledge to name anything else.

My position is that the only solution which exists for the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.

Not if you follow the ABG theory.

How so?

Are you familiar with ABG theory?

"ABG Theory"

"abiogenesis" is one word. And someone who had strong faith could just accept any scientific explanation and say, "that's how god did it!". So, your problem with abiogenesis goes beyond merely "believing in a creator". You need to be honest with yourself and everyone else about this simple fact.

Yea, we already talked about this. I'm not buying that non-living material, such as rocks, morphed into living forms. There's your magical fucking unicorn carrying your boyfriend.

 

[ding]

I think you mean to say that YOU lack the knowledge to name anything else.

My position is that the only solution which exists for the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.

Not if you follow the ABG theory.

How so?

Are you familiar with ABG theory?

Not at all which I why I asked how so.

Oh wow. You're missing out on a whole world of possibilities for the committed atheist. ABG theory stands for "Anything but God". Anything is possible when one is an ABG adherent.

I don't worry about that.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I think you mean to say that YOU lack the knowledge to name anything else.

My position is that the only solution which exists for the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.

Not if you follow the ABG theory.

How so?

Are you familiar with ABG theory?

"ABG Theory"

"abiogenesis" is one word. And someone who had strong faith could just accept any scientific explanation and say, "that's how god did it!". So, your problem with abiogenesis goes beyond merely "believing in a creator". You need to be honest with yourself and everyone else about this simple fact.

Yea, we already talked about this. I'm not buying that non-living material, such as rocks, morphed into living forms. There's your magical fucking unicorn carrying your boyfriend.

"I'm not buying that non-living material, such as rocks, morphed into living forms."

see what I mean? you keep saying this same, stupid thing, though nobody posits this. Nobody says life came from rocks. You don't care... you just keep repeating the lie....


lemme guess: you're a trump guy, heh heh

 

[K9Buck]

"ABG Theory"

"abiogenesis" is one word. And someone who had strong faith could just accept any scientific explanation and say, "that's how god did it!". So, your problem with abiogenesis goes beyond merely "believing in a creator". You need to be honest with yourself and everyone else about this simple fact.

Sure, that's where studying how matter evolved from sub atomic particles to beings that know and create comes into play.

"Sure, that's where studying how matter evolved from sub atomic particles to beings that know and create comes into play."

huh? how would that confirm or deny the existence of a creator? It wouldn't. We could never do this via science.

Because you can't tell what something is by how it starts. You can only tell what it is when it is finished.

"ecause you can't tell what something is by how it starts. You can only tell what it is when it is finished."

I asked how any such study would confirm or deny the existence of a creator. that being the case, I can't make any sense of your answer. help me out.

I'm trying but you are acting a little bit like a dick.

So are you ready to concede that the matter and energy that make up who you are existed when space and time were created?

He's a devoted ABG follower.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sure, that's where studying how matter evolved from sub atomic particles to beings that know and create comes into play.

"Sure, that's where studying how matter evolved from sub atomic particles to beings that know and create comes into play."

huh? how would that confirm or deny the existence of a creator? It wouldn't. We could never do this via science.

Because you can't tell what something is by how it starts. You can only tell what it is when it is finished.

"ecause you can't tell what something is by how it starts. You can only tell what it is when it is finished."

I asked how any such study would confirm or deny the existence of a creator. that being the case, I can't make any sense of your answer. help me out.

I'm trying but you are acting a little bit like a dick.

So are you ready to concede that the matter and energy that make up who you are existed when space and time were created?

He's a devoted ABG follower.

when trying to actually explain things in the material world? yes, as that is the correct thing to be. you know, there are theists who agree with me. You should, too.

 

[K9Buck]

Well, if we could travel back, wouldn't we see all of matter condensing into one point and, with it, the collapsing of space itself? Upon reaching the final point, I believe we would actually see that there was nothing at all. No matter, no space, nothing. Then if we could fast-forward, the matter would appear, literally out of nowhere followed up instantly by the biggest explosion our universe has ever had. And then we would see the first seconds of the universe.

Where have I got it wrong?

No, we would never reach that point, even without a singularity.we could never observe the beginning of the universe directly, as we are a part of it.

On a side note, new ideas about what "time" is are emerging And that's an appropriate word, as they describe time as an emergent property of quantum entanglement. An observer outside our universe would not perceive any passing of time at all, when observing our universe. It would not even appear to exist at all!

If we were with the creator, we could see all of the matter retract and consolidate into nothing.

Your point about an observer not perceiving the passing of time might be true for us, but the creator would certainly know what is happening.

On another note, we can create programs to simulate the big bang and to even create worlds and to fill it with life. What we CAN'T do is give the creatures in our world sentience. But our creator can. The whole concept of a creator creating the universe and life seems fantastic but, when you look at it using the computer programming analogy, it's not that difficult to imagine at all.

<<If we were with the creator, we could see all of the matter retract and consolidate into nothing. >>


No. If we were the creator, we would be riding a pink unicorn and making it poop dragons, all the while making love to our gay god-lover. Dang, i guess there is no way to tell who is right, huh? You REALLY need to recognize the difference between evidence-based thought and magical thought.

yes, "this shit" again. If you are going to introduce untestable, magical nonsense which we could never verify the truth of, then I am going to put it on the same shelf with any ridiculous nonsense that anyone makes up. and there will never be any way to tell which goofy, magical idea is true and which is false. That should be a big, huge hint to you that "Because I say so!" is ALL you have to support these magical ideas.

You're hilarious. Everything you've spewed is utter horseshit. LOL!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, we would never reach that point, even without a singularity.we could never observe the beginning of the universe directly, as we are a part of it.

On a side note, new ideas about what "time" is are emerging And that's an appropriate word, as they describe time as an emergent property of quantum entanglement. An observer outside our universe would not perceive any passing of time at all, when observing our universe. It would not even appear to exist at all!

If we were with the creator, we could see all of the matter retract and consolidate into nothing.

Your point about an observer not perceiving the passing of time might be true for us, but the creator would certainly know what is happening.

On another note, we can create programs to simulate the big bang and to even create worlds and to fill it with life. What we CAN'T do is give the creatures in our world sentience. But our creator can. The whole concept of a creator creating the universe and life seems fantastic but, when you look at it using the computer programming analogy, it's not that difficult to imagine at all.

<<If we were with the creator, we could see all of the matter retract and consolidate into nothing. >>


No. If we were the creator, we would be riding a pink unicorn and making it poop dragons, all the while making love to our gay god-lover. Dang, i guess there is no way to tell who is right, huh? You REALLY need to recognize the difference between evidence-based thought and magical thought.

yes, "this shit" again. If you are going to introduce untestable, magical nonsense which we could never verify the truth of, then I am going to put it on the same shelf with any ridiculous nonsense that anyone makes up. and there will never be any way to tell which goofy, magical idea is true and which is false. That should be a big, huge hint to you that "Because I say so!" is ALL you have to support these magical ideas.

You're hilarious. Everything you've spewed is utter horseshit. LOL!

Grown man typing fake "LOL"s on internet = frustrated, angry person