Hawking Says Universe Created Itself

[rightwinger]

It is a scientific impossibility for matter to self create itself
Energy is created.....matter is not

So, you agree with me. Matter was created. It's a start. Energy was also created. Nothing physical can be eternal. It cannot create itself either. That only leaves one explanation. God did it.

Matter has always been here
No additional matter has been created in billions of years
If there was a process to continually create new matter...it would still be occurring

God is a theory.....one totally unsubstantiated by science

Once again, I ask. Where is your evidence? There is no possible way that scientists could possibly know this. All they can do is observe and do experiments. None of that is applicable to why or how matter and energy exist.

If there is a physical process that creates matter it would be continuing today. Thee is no evidence of matter being created today

That's because it would occur outside of our space and time and therefore outside our realm of observation.

Gobbledygook

 

[ding]

It is only a singularity mathematically. Mathematically the solutions to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity can take us back to the point the universe was contained in a very very tiny, dense, hot state. Beyond that the equations yield infinities which I think is appropriate, but I digress. My point is that people bandy around terms like singularities without understanding what it really means. It means the euations can only go back to the point when all the matter and energy in the universe occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single freaking atom. If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning. Not to mention that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that it is not possible for the universe's age to approach infinity without thermal equilibrium occurring.

"If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning."

Wrong. That would only demonstrate that what we can observe in the universe began when that hot, dense state coalesced into observable matter. It would only demonstrate that our observations have a limit, not that everything began at that time. The other things you say about the early universe app[ear to be correct.

You never answered my questions. I'll skip to the point. The laws of nature predestined that beings that know and create would eventually exist given enough time and the right conditions. Those laws existed before space and time and are such that the matter that makes up you evolved from subatomic particles 14 billion years ago until today. Everything which has unfolded from that point to today is evidence that can be used just like any other evidence can be used. And if you examine that evidence, there is no other possible conclusion that can be reached except that intelligence behind the laws of nature and that there is a specific aim to those laws.

"And if you examine that evidence, there is no other possible conclusion that can be reached except that intelligence behind the laws of nature and that there is a specific aim to those laws."

Simply reiterating and repeating you authoritative declaration is not support of it. Yes, there are other possible conclusions. No, you have made no good argument otherwise. No, stomping your feet and insisting upon the truth of a statement is not support of it.

So what are those other possible conclusions?

That the laws of our universe were simply emergent from the initial conditions, and that what we see today is what selection, operating from those laws, has produced. I see no need to introduce an "intelligent designer", or "purpose" to explain these things. You may wish to graft those ideas onto the explanation (like a vestigial appendage whose only current purpose is to help you reconcile your beliefs with reality), but I certainly do no t find it to be necessary in any way.

Sorry, the laws could not be emergent if the creation of space and time followed those laws which it did if you believe the net energy of the universe is zero.

 

[ding]

So, you agree with me. Matter was created. It's a start. Energy was also created. Nothing physical can be eternal. It cannot create itself either. That only leaves one explanation. God did it.

Matter has always been here
No additional matter has been created in billions of years
If there was a process to continually create new matter...it would still be occurring

God is a theory.....one totally unsubstantiated by science

Once again, I ask. Where is your evidence? There is no possible way that scientists could possibly know this. All they can do is observe and do experiments. None of that is applicable to why or how matter and energy exist.

If there is a physical process that creates matter it would be continuing today. Thee is no evidence of matter being created today

That's because it would occur outside of our space and time and therefore outside our realm of observation.

Gobbledygook

Obviously you know nothing about multiverses.

 

[ding]

It is only a singularity mathematically. Mathematically the solutions to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity can take us back to the point the universe was contained in a very very tiny, dense, hot state. Beyond that the equations yield infinities which I think is appropriate, but I digress. My point is that people bandy around terms like singularities without understanding what it really means. It means the euations can only go back to the point when all the matter and energy in the universe occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single freaking atom. If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning. Not to mention that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that it is not possible for the universe's age to approach infinity without thermal equilibrium occurring.

"If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning."

Wrong. That would only demonstrate that what we can observe in the universe began when that hot, dense state coalesced into observable matter. It would only demonstrate that our observations have a limit, not that everything began at that time. The other things you say about the early universe app[ear to be correct.

Actually it does mean it does. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an eternal universe.

"The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an eternal universe."

Wrong. Scientists have come to believe that the net energy of our universe is zero.

So what? How do you think that affects entropy?

It means that our observable universe could indeed have a beginning and end, while not violating the 2nd law.

Right and that the universe is not infinite which is what I wrote. You do know what eternal means, right?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning."

Wrong. That would only demonstrate that what we can observe in the universe began when that hot, dense state coalesced into observable matter. It would only demonstrate that our observations have a limit, not that everything began at that time. The other things you say about the early universe app[ear to be correct.

You never answered my questions. I'll skip to the point. The laws of nature predestined that beings that know and create would eventually exist given enough time and the right conditions. Those laws existed before space and time and are such that the matter that makes up you evolved from subatomic particles 14 billion years ago until today. Everything which has unfolded from that point to today is evidence that can be used just like any other evidence can be used. And if you examine that evidence, there is no other possible conclusion that can be reached except that intelligence behind the laws of nature and that there is a specific aim to those laws.

"And if you examine that evidence, there is no other possible conclusion that can be reached except that intelligence behind the laws of nature and that there is a specific aim to those laws."

Simply reiterating and repeating you authoritative declaration is not support of it. Yes, there are other possible conclusions. No, you have made no good argument otherwise. No, stomping your feet and insisting upon the truth of a statement is not support of it.

So what are those other possible conclusions?

That the laws of our universe were simply emergent from the initial conditions, and that what we see today is what selection, operating from those laws, has produced. I see no need to introduce an "intelligent designer", or "purpose" to explain these things. You may wish to graft those ideas onto the explanation (like a vestigial appendage whose only current purpose is to help you reconcile your beliefs with reality), but I certainly do no t find it to be necessary in any way.

Sorry, the laws could not be emergent if the creation of space and time followed those laws which it did if you believe the net energy of the universe is zero.

"Sorry, the laws could not be emergent if the creation of space and time followed those laws which it did "

Actually, that's precisely the opppsite of what scientists believe, as they believe those laws broke down in the early universe. From whence are you divined this special knowledge?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning."

Wrong. That would only demonstrate that what we can observe in the universe began when that hot, dense state coalesced into observable matter. It would only demonstrate that our observations have a limit, not that everything began at that time. The other things you say about the early universe app[ear to be correct.

Actually it does mean it does. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an eternal universe.

"The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an eternal universe."

Wrong. Scientists have come to believe that the net energy of our universe is zero.

So what? How do you think that affects entropy?

It means that our observable universe could indeed have a beginning and end, while not violating the 2nd law.

Right and that the universe is not infinite which is what I wrote. You do know what eternal means, right?

I do. Do you know what "authoritative declaration" means?

 

[ding]

You never answered my questions. I'll skip to the point. The laws of nature predestined that beings that know and create would eventually exist given enough time and the right conditions. Those laws existed before space and time and are such that the matter that makes up you evolved from subatomic particles 14 billion years ago until today. Everything which has unfolded from that point to today is evidence that can be used just like any other evidence can be used. And if you examine that evidence, there is no other possible conclusion that can be reached except that intelligence behind the laws of nature and that there is a specific aim to those laws.

"And if you examine that evidence, there is no other possible conclusion that can be reached except that intelligence behind the laws of nature and that there is a specific aim to those laws."

Simply reiterating and repeating you authoritative declaration is not support of it. Yes, there are other possible conclusions. No, you have made no good argument otherwise. No, stomping your feet and insisting upon the truth of a statement is not support of it.

So what are those other possible conclusions?

That the laws of our universe were simply emergent from the initial conditions, and that what we see today is what selection, operating from those laws, has produced. I see no need to introduce an "intelligent designer", or "purpose" to explain these things. You may wish to graft those ideas onto the explanation (like a vestigial appendage whose only current purpose is to help you reconcile your beliefs with reality), but I certainly do no t find it to be necessary in any way.

Sorry, the laws could not be emergent if the creation of space and time followed those laws which it did if you believe the net energy of the universe is zero.

"Sorry, the laws could not be emergent if the creation of space and time followed those laws which it did "

Actually, that's precisely the opppsite of what scientists believe, as they believe those laws broke down in the early universe. From whence are you divined this special knowledge?

No. It's not.

See 5:24 mark. Of course you should probably watch the entire 6 minutes.

 

[ding]

Actually it does mean it does. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an eternal universe.

"The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an eternal universe."

Wrong. Scientists have come to believe that the net energy of our universe is zero.

So what? How do you think that affects entropy?

It means that our observable universe could indeed have a beginning and end, while not violating the 2nd law.

Right and that the universe is not infinite which is what I wrote. You do know what eternal means, right?

I do. Do you know what "authoritative declaration" means?

Yes, as in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics makes an authoritative declaration that as our universe approaches an infinite time, thermal equilibrium is approached. In other words if you follow our universe back in time to the very beginning, you reach the point where there was no disorder in the universe. Since that time disorder has only increased and will continue to do so until thermal equilibrium is reached.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"And if you examine that evidence, there is no other possible conclusion that can be reached except that intelligence behind the laws of nature and that there is a specific aim to those laws."

Simply reiterating and repeating you authoritative declaration is not support of it. Yes, there are other possible conclusions. No, you have made no good argument otherwise. No, stomping your feet and insisting upon the truth of a statement is not support of it.

So what are those other possible conclusions?

That the laws of our universe were simply emergent from the initial conditions, and that what we see today is what selection, operating from those laws, has produced. I see no need to introduce an "intelligent designer", or "purpose" to explain these things. You may wish to graft those ideas onto the explanation (like a vestigial appendage whose only current purpose is to help you reconcile your beliefs with reality), but I certainly do no t find it to be necessary in any way.

Sorry, the laws could not be emergent if the creation of space and time followed those laws which it did if you believe the net energy of the universe is zero.

"Sorry, the laws could not be emergent if the creation of space and time followed those laws which it did "

Actually, that's precisely the opppsite of what scientists believe, as they believe those laws broke down in the early universe. From whence are you divined this special knowledge?

No. It's not.

See 5:24 mark. Of course you should probably watch the entire 6 minutes.

Yes, it is. No,posting the opinion of one scientist does not change this.

I think you need to take a step back and see how impossible your position is in winning an argument, and how very easy it is for anyone to defeat it. You insist it is absolutly necessary to ascribe design and purpose to explain the universe. All any goofball has to do is offer a possible explanation which does not include these things. In other words, you lost this argument before you even began. You need to accept that it is your faith-based belief. And the only support you could possibly offer is, "because I say so".

 

[ding]

So what are those other possible conclusions?

That the laws of our universe were simply emergent from the initial conditions, and that what we see today is what selection, operating from those laws, has produced. I see no need to introduce an "intelligent designer", or "purpose" to explain these things. You may wish to graft those ideas onto the explanation (like a vestigial appendage whose only current purpose is to help you reconcile your beliefs with reality), but I certainly do no t find it to be necessary in any way.

Sorry, the laws could not be emergent if the creation of space and time followed those laws which it did if you believe the net energy of the universe is zero.

"Sorry, the laws could not be emergent if the creation of space and time followed those laws which it did "

Actually, that's precisely the opppsite of what scientists believe, as they believe those laws broke down in the early universe. From whence are you divined this special knowledge?

No. It's not.

See 5:24 mark. Of course you should probably watch the entire 6 minutes.

Yes, it is. No,posting the opinion of one scientist does not change this.

I think you need to take a step back and see how impossible your position is in winning an argument, and how very easy it is for anyone to defeat it. You insist it is absolutly necessary to ascribe design and purpose to explain the universe. All any goofball has to do is offer a possible explanation which does not include these things. In other words, you lost this argument before you even began. You need to accept that it is your faith-based belief. And the only support you could possibly offer is, "because I say so".

Can you tell me what laws were followed when space and time were created or do you believe no laws at all were involved? And if so, can you tell me why you are honoring the law of conservation for the formation of space and time?

 

[Desperado]

lol and he claims to be the smartest person in the world
and no one calls him on it because they feel sorry for him

 

[ding]

So what are those other possible conclusions?

That the laws of our universe were simply emergent from the initial conditions, and that what we see today is what selection, operating from those laws, has produced. I see no need to introduce an "intelligent designer", or "purpose" to explain these things. You may wish to graft those ideas onto the explanation (like a vestigial appendage whose only current purpose is to help you reconcile your beliefs with reality), but I certainly do no t find it to be necessary in any way.

Sorry, the laws could not be emergent if the creation of space and time followed those laws which it did if you believe the net energy of the universe is zero.

"Sorry, the laws could not be emergent if the creation of space and time followed those laws which it did "

Actually, that's precisely the opppsite of what scientists believe, as they believe those laws broke down in the early universe. From whence are you divined this special knowledge?

No. It's not.

See 5:24 mark. Of course you should probably watch the entire 6 minutes.

Yes, it is. No,posting the opinion of one scientist does not change this.

I think you need to take a step back and see how impossible your position is in winning an argument, and how very easy it is for anyone to defeat it. You insist it is absolutly necessary to ascribe design and purpose to explain the universe. All any goofball has to do is offer a possible explanation which does not include these things. In other words, you lost this argument before you even began. You need to accept that it is your faith-based belief. And the only support you could possibly offer is, "because I say so".

While you are at it can you tell me if the potential for beings that know and create to exist existed when space and time were created? And if so, can you tell me what laws that evolutionary process followed from the evolution of sub atomic particles to beings that know and create?

 

[usmbguest5318]

He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.

Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research

Seriously? Today, now, you decide to bring up that book from 2010? And we are supposed to give greater credence to your attestation that he's wrong on the basis of what? Surely not the 2014 mathematical proof that a whole f*cking universe can indeed come from nothing, so what exactly? Have you something new to add to Aquinas' and later philosophers' Cosmological Argument?

I have to ask whether you have something new because invariably the question of what got the universe created resolves to a binary end: something did or nothing did. On the "something did" side of things, that something is a god of some sort, which, of course is the something that somehow paradoxically exists and has no cause of its own, thereby defying the very logic that gives rise to the existence of the god-something. For now disregarding the "WTF?" that goes along with sussing one's way through that, there is the matter that even accepting the Cosmological Argument to the point of everything being created by something, one then needs to establish what that something is; merely naming it doesn't do it.

 

[RWNJ]

He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.

Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research

Seriously? Today, now, you decide to bring up that book from 2010? And we are supposed to give greater credence to your attestation that he's wrong on the basis of what? Surely not the 2014 mathematical proof that a whole f*cking universe can indeed come from nothing, so what exactly? Have you something new to add to Aquinas' and later philosophers' Cosmological Argument?

I have to ask whether you have something new because invariably the question of what got the universe created resolves to a binary end: something did or nothing did. On the "something did" side of things, that something is a god of some sort, which, of course is the something that somehow paradoxically exists and has no cause of its own, thereby defying the very logic that gives rise to the existence of the god-something. For now disregarding the "WTF?" that goes along with sussing one's way through that, there is the matter that even accepting the Cosmological Argument to the point of everything being created by something, one then needs to establish what that something is; merely naming it doesn't do it.

Too funny. You believe that the universe created itself from nothing? How absurd. And you say creationists are loony. LOL! By the way, if God does exist, he is not bound by the laws of physics. He created them, after all. The universe requires a creator. Any other explanation violates the law of cause and effect.

 

[MarkDuffy]

He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.

Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research

Seriously? Today, now, you decide to bring up that book from 2010? And we are supposed to give greater credence to your attestation that he's wrong on the basis of what? Surely not the 2014 mathematical proof that a whole f*cking universe can indeed come from nothing, so what exactly? Have you something new to add to Aquinas' and later philosophers' Cosmological Argument?

I have to ask whether you have something new because invariably the question of what got the universe created resolves to a binary end: something did or nothing did. On the "something did" side of things, that something is a god of some sort, which, of course is the something that somehow paradoxically exists and has no cause of its own, thereby defying the very logic that gives rise to the existence of the god-something. For now disregarding the "WTF?" that goes along with sussing one's way through that, there is the matter that even accepting the Cosmological Argument to the point of everything being created by something, one then needs to establish what that something is; merely naming it doesn't do it.

Too funny. You believe that the universe created itself from nothing? How absurd. And you say creationists are loony. LOL! By the way, if God does exist, he is not bound by the laws of physics. He created them, after all. The universe requires a creator. Any other explanation violates the law of cause and effect.

So God created rules that he broke.

Sorry, if that is true, then they are not rules.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.

Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research

Seriously? Today, now, you decide to bring up that book from 2010? And we are supposed to give greater credence to your attestation that he's wrong on the basis of what? Surely not the 2014 mathematical proof that a whole f*cking universe can indeed come from nothing, so what exactly? Have you something new to add to Aquinas' and later philosophers' Cosmological Argument?

I have to ask whether you have something new because invariably the question of what got the universe created resolves to a binary end: something did or nothing did. On the "something did" side of things, that something is a god of some sort, which, of course is the something that somehow paradoxically exists and has no cause of its own, thereby defying the very logic that gives rise to the existence of the god-something. For now disregarding the "WTF?" that goes along with sussing one's way through that, there is the matter that even accepting the Cosmological Argument to the point of everything being created by something, one then needs to establish what that something is; merely naming it doesn't do it.

Too funny. You believe that the universe created itself from nothing? How absurd. And you say creationists are loony. LOL! By the way, if God does exist, he is not bound by the laws of physics. He created them, after all. The universe requires a creator. Any other explanation violates the law of cause and effect.

"You believe that the universe created itself from nothing? How absurd. "

People believe it is possible. You religious goofballs always confuse yourselves. Let me help: ONLY YOU are the ones claiming you know these answers. Only you. Yet you dance and prance and cackle and point at everyone else for doing the thing ONLY YOU are doing. Get that through your heads! You're embarrassing yourselves!

 

[usmbguest5318]

He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.

Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research

Seriously? Today, now, you decide to bring up that book from 2010? And we are supposed to give greater credence to your attestation that he's wrong on the basis of what? Surely not the 2014 mathematical proof that a whole f*cking universe can indeed come from nothing, so what exactly? Have you something new to add to Aquinas' and later philosophers' Cosmological Argument?

I have to ask whether you have something new because invariably the question of what got the universe created resolves to a binary end: something did or nothing did. On the "something did" side of things, that something is a god of some sort, which, of course is the something that somehow paradoxically exists and has no cause of its own, thereby defying the very logic that gives rise to the existence of the god-something. For now disregarding the "WTF?" that goes along with sussing one's way through that, there is the matter that even accepting the Cosmological Argument to the point of everything being created by something, one then needs to establish what that something is; merely naming it doesn't do it.

Too funny. You believe that the universe created itself from nothing? How absurd. And you say creationists are loony. LOL! By the way, if God does exist, he is not bound by the laws of physics. He created them, after all. The universe requires a creator. Any other explanation violates the law of cause and effect.

You believe that the universe created itself from nothing?

you say creationists are loony.

I don't need you to tell me what I believe or say, and if you want to know what I believe, all you need to do is ask a neutrally phrased question and I'll answer it.

I asked you several questions. Are you going to answer them? Tell me "no," and I'll stop posting in this thread. If have substantive answers to the questions I asked then give them.

He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.

Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research

And we are supposed to give greater credence to your attestation that he's wrong on the basis of what? Surely not the 2014 mathematical proof that a whole f*cking universe can indeed come from nothing, so what exactly? Have you something new to add to Aquinas' and later philosophers' Cosmological Argument?​

 

[RWNJ]

He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.

Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research

Seriously? Today, now, you decide to bring up that book from 2010? And we are supposed to give greater credence to your attestation that he's wrong on the basis of what? Surely not the 2014 mathematical proof that a whole f*cking universe can indeed come from nothing, so what exactly? Have you something new to add to Aquinas' and later philosophers' Cosmological Argument?

I have to ask whether you have something new because invariably the question of what got the universe created resolves to a binary end: something did or nothing did. On the "something did" side of things, that something is a god of some sort, which, of course is the something that somehow paradoxically exists and has no cause of its own, thereby defying the very logic that gives rise to the existence of the god-something. For now disregarding the "WTF?" that goes along with sussing one's way through that, there is the matter that even accepting the Cosmological Argument to the point of everything being created by something, one then needs to establish what that something is; merely naming it doesn't do it.

Too funny. You believe that the universe created itself from nothing? How absurd. And you say creationists are loony. LOL! By the way, if God does exist, he is not bound by the laws of physics. He created them, after all. The universe requires a creator. Any other explanation violates the law of cause and effect.

You believe that the universe created itself from nothing?

you say creationists are loony.

I don't need you to tell me what I believe or say, and if you want to know what I believe, all you need to do is ask a neutrally phrased question and I'll answer it.

I asked you several questions. Are you going to answer them? Tell me "no," and I'll stop posting in this thread. If have substantive answers to the questions I asked then give them.

He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.

Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research

And we are supposed to give greater credence to your attestation that he's wrong on the basis of what? Surely not the 2014 mathematical proof that a whole f*cking universe can indeed come from nothing, so what exactly? Have you something new to add to Aquinas' and later philosophers' Cosmological Argument?​

Perhaps you should show us your evidence that the universe created itself from nothing. If you can do that, then we'll have something to discuss.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.

Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research

Seriously? Today, now, you decide to bring up that book from 2010? And we are supposed to give greater credence to your attestation that he's wrong on the basis of what? Surely not the 2014 mathematical proof that a whole f*cking universe can indeed come from nothing, so what exactly? Have you something new to add to Aquinas' and later philosophers' Cosmological Argument?

I have to ask whether you have something new because invariably the question of what got the universe created resolves to a binary end: something did or nothing did. On the "something did" side of things, that something is a god of some sort, which, of course is the something that somehow paradoxically exists and has no cause of its own, thereby defying the very logic that gives rise to the existence of the god-something. For now disregarding the "WTF?" that goes along with sussing one's way through that, there is the matter that even accepting the Cosmological Argument to the point of everything being created by something, one then needs to establish what that something is; merely naming it doesn't do it.

Too funny. You believe that the universe created itself from nothing? How absurd. And you say creationists are loony. LOL! By the way, if God does exist, he is not bound by the laws of physics. He created them, after all. The universe requires a creator. Any other explanation violates the law of cause and effect.

You believe that the universe created itself from nothing?

you say creationists are loony.

I don't need you to tell me what I believe or say, and if you want to know what I believe, all you need to do is ask a neutrally phrased question and I'll answer it.

I asked you several questions. Are you going to answer them? Tell me "no," and I'll stop posting in this thread. If have substantive answers to the questions I asked then give them.

He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.

Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research

And we are supposed to give greater credence to your attestation that he's wrong on the basis of what? Surely not the 2014 mathematical proof that a whole f*cking universe can indeed come from nothing, so what exactly? Have you something new to add to Aquinas' and later philosophers' Cosmological Argument?​

Perhaps you should show us your evidence that the universe created itself from nothing. If you can do that, then we'll have something to discuss.

Good god man, get it through your head: the evidence, in the form of a long mathematical proof, is evidence that it is POSSIBLE.

 

[usmbguest5318]

He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.

Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research

Seriously? Today, now, you decide to bring up that book from 2010? And we are supposed to give greater credence to your attestation that he's wrong on the basis of what? Surely not the 2014 mathematical proof that a whole f*cking universe can indeed come from nothing, so what exactly? Have you something new to add to Aquinas' and later philosophers' Cosmological Argument?

I have to ask whether you have something new because invariably the question of what got the universe created resolves to a binary end: something did or nothing did. On the "something did" side of things, that something is a god of some sort, which, of course is the something that somehow paradoxically exists and has no cause of its own, thereby defying the very logic that gives rise to the existence of the god-something. For now disregarding the "WTF?" that goes along with sussing one's way through that, there is the matter that even accepting the Cosmological Argument to the point of everything being created by something, one then needs to establish what that something is; merely naming it doesn't do it.

Too funny. You believe that the universe created itself from nothing? How absurd. And you say creationists are loony. LOL! By the way, if God does exist, he is not bound by the laws of physics. He created them, after all. The universe requires a creator. Any other explanation violates the law of cause and effect.

You believe that the universe created itself from nothing?

you say creationists are loony.

I don't need you to tell me what I believe or say, and if you want to know what I believe, all you need to do is ask a neutrally phrased question and I'll answer it.

I asked you several questions. Are you going to answer them? Tell me "no," and I'll stop posting in this thread. If have substantive answers to the questions I asked then give them.

He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.

Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research

And we are supposed to give greater credence to your attestation that he's wrong on the basis of what? Surely not the 2014 mathematical proof that a whole f*cking universe can indeed come from nothing, so what exactly? Have you something new to add to Aquinas' and later philosophers' Cosmological Argument?​

Perhaps you should show us your evidence that the universe created itself from nothing. If you can do that, then we'll have something to discuss.

You clearly don't know with whom you've engaged.

He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.

I'm not going to allow you to shift the burden of proof to me when it was never mine to begin with and you've not at all fulfilled the burden associated with your opening post's bare assertion that Hawking is wrong, which is the only thing I've asked that you do.

1. You are the one making the claim that Hawking is wrong. Accordingly, the burden of proof is on you to support your refutation of Hawking's ideas.
   
   I provided a link to the whole of Hawking's book....I suspect you aren't aware even that his exposition of how a universe can be spontaneously created is not in the chapter from which that one sentence Brian Thomas quoted came. Thomas took his quote from Chapter 8. Hawking's explanation is in Chapter 6. The point of Chapter 8 in Hawking's book was to demonstrate that the existence of laws of nature, rules everything must follow," gravity being one such law, facilitate the the spontaneous creation outcome Hawking describes in Chapter 6.
   
   Hawking is not saying that gravity itself is why the universe could have been spontaneously created without the God of the Bible. Accordingly, all that rigamarole that Thomas went through in his essay misses the point because it doesn't refute the spontaneous creation model Hawking posited.
2. In any discussion about a prime cause of everything, the burden of proof is on the people who assert God created the universe, not on the people who say there is no basis for thinking God created the universe, thus they don't accept as true.
   
   Why is that the case? Because regardless of what you post here, regardless of how you frame the matter, the fact is that the question of how the universe came into existence -- spontaneously or deliberately -- is "bigger" than you, I and everyone else here. In the realm of reality, the place were real people have to answer the question, the burden of proof lies with the theists. That's not going to change regardless of what you demand of me or what you or I write here.

Quite simply, the burden of proof always lies with the person who is making a claim, not the person who is hearing the claim and who may not initially believe it. You made the initial claim in this thread:

[Hawking]may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.

Hawking, in his book, presented the case for the validity of his claim that it's possible that the universe could have been created from nothing, spontaneously. You aren't required to agree with him, but if you are going to assert that he is wrong, you have to, with reference to the case he presented, show just cause for why Hawking's support for his claim is insufficient to warrant your and anyone else's rational belief of it.

Lastly, on this matter -- what caused the universe to exist -- even though you opened the discussion by tossing up Hawking's claim that the universe did not need God in order to come into existence, the fact remains that's your doing so is nothing more than a transposition of the same and strongest theist argument that's been around since "forever." That argument is the Cosmological Argument, to which Hawking's book is and has always been a refutation. Recognizing that is precisely why I in my first response to your OP asked the following:

And we are supposed to give greater credence to your attestation that he's wrong on the basis of what? Surely not the 2014 mathematical proof that a whole f*cking universe can indeed come from nothing, so what exactly? Have you something new to add to Aquinas' and later philosophers' Cosmological Argument?

I asked those questions because I was not willing to, out of hand, assert that you have nothing new and meritorious to add to the Cosmological Argument. You've, however, (1) thrice not directly answered any of those questions and (2) not put forth a refutation of Hawking's exposition. Accordingly, I am now certain that you have nothing new to offer and that as goes the matter of whether the universe could or could not have formed spontaneously and from nothing, there is nothing new for me to discover by continuing this conversation with you because I have no interest in playing a mere rhetorical game with you, and that is what you've been entreating for with me, whether you realize it or not.