Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by K.Snyder »

LONDON, England (CNN) -- God did not create the universe, world-famous physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book that aims to banish a divine creator from physics.

Hawking says in his book "The Grand Design" that, given the existence of gravity, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing," according to an excerpt published Thursday in The Times of London.

"Spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," he writes in the excerpt.

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper [fuse] and set the universe going," he writes.

His book -- as the title suggests -- is an attempt to answer "the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything,"...

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe - CNN.com


I find it to be an interesting paradox between the suggestion that the discovering of other planets with life on them argues in favor of a "Godless" existence while Hawking seems to imply doing so will argue in favor of "God".

I said "imply" for anyone wishing to argue to bloody teeth,..

ah yes, here they come now...
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15816
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by Bryn Mawr »

K.Snyder;1331116 wrote: I find it to be an interesting paradox between the suggestion that the discovering of other planets with life on them argues in favor of a "Godless" existence while Hawking seems to imply doing so will argue in favor of "God".

I said "imply" for anyone wishing to argue to bloody teeth,..

ah yes, here they come now...


I've every intention of getting the book and seeing his argument in full (rather than the journo's eye view of it) before making a judgement.
User avatar
jennyswan
Posts: 1781
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 1:33 pm

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by jennyswan »

Sounds like Hawkins is in agreement with Richard Dawkins who also claims no God needs to exist in his book the God Delusion. I mean there is little evidence for God in reality except in the reality of faith itself which isn't grounded on reality in my opinion. Faith is grounded on the most part on the want to believe in something bigger then ourselves and it is also based on an instinct to believe in something.
User avatar
binbag
Posts: 690
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 5:49 am

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by binbag »

jennyswan;1331170 wrote: Sounds like Hawkins is in agreement with Richard Dawkins who also claims no God needs to exist in his book the God Delusion. I mean there is little evidence for God in reality except in the reality of faith itself which isn't grounded on reality in my opinion. Faith is grounded on the most part on the want to believe in something bigger then ourselves and it is also based on an instinct to believe in something.Hi jennyswan. :)

Here's a slightly different slant on the meaning of faith....



Faith is the substance of things hoped for. The old Greek meaning of substance is, stand under, that is, to be a foundation. Faith is the foundation on which all hopes for the future are built.

Faith is the belief in the evidence of things not seen. The conviction or the belief of things not seen. Without faith, the "faithful", would be restricted to the narrow world comprehended by the senses.

Best wishes,

bb
[FONT=Arial]Just above the clouds

the sun is always shining.

[/FONT]
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by K.Snyder »

Generally, I think the point Hawking is stressing is that we don't necessarily have to argue in favor of "God" now due to the fact we're currently unsure how to go about explaining the Universe, at least "we're" as in everyone other than Hawking of course.

He's arguing now a point, I've no doubt he'll elaborate on, that suggests a clause of spontaneity relative to the Universe that defines a self sustaining existence through the "unexplained" in which we call an assumption through the very faith binbag speaks of.

I agree that I'd like to read the book, as Bryn has eluded, but I'm afraid I'm not necessarily knowledgeable enough in M-theory to come away from the experience with the slightest confidence I understood the constant mumbling within my brain, courteous of Mr. Hawking himself.

It's more of a point in favor of science rather than a decisive blow to religion contrary to the title's apparent tone.
User avatar
binbag
Posts: 690
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 5:49 am

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by binbag »

binbag;1331309 wrote: Hi jennyswan. :)

Here's a slightly different slant on the meaning of faith....



Faith is the substance of things hoped for. The old Greek meaning of substance is, stand under, that is, to be a foundation. Faith is the foundation on which all hopes for the future are built.

Faith is the belief in the evidence of things not seen. The conviction or the belief of things not seen. Without faith, the "faithful", would be restricted to the narrow world comprehended by the senses.

Best wishes,

bbA thought...

Why should anyone believe the above simply on my say so.

With the same token, why should anyone believe (with the greatest repect for) Mr Hawkings, simply on his say so.

We should prove all things to ourselves, take no man's word for anything...until, that is, we prove it to ourselves.

Take for example the climate change argument. Millions believed the information scientists issued on the subject for the newspapers and TV news reports.

What happened next? Oh, weeell, perhaps it wasn't so true after all.

Prove all things to yourselves friends......

If you can't, well, why should anyone believe the above simply on my say so.

Tip, prove all things to yourself.
[FONT=Arial]Just above the clouds

the sun is always shining.

[/FONT]
User avatar
theia
Posts: 8242
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:54 pm

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by theia »

binbag;1331645 wrote: A thought...

Why should anyone believe the above simply on my say so.

With the same token, why should anyone believe (with the greatest repect for) Mr Hawkings, simply on his say so.

We should prove all things to ourselves, take no man's word for anything...until, that is, we prove it to ourselves.

Take for example the climate change argument. Millions believed the information scientists issued on the subject for the newspapers and TV news reports.

What happened next? Oh, weeell, perhaps it wasn't so true after all.

Prove all things to yourselves friends......

If you can't, well, why should anyone believe the above simply on my say so.

Tip, prove all things to yourself.


good post, bb :-6
Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answers...Rainer Maria Rilke
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by K.Snyder »

binbag;1331645 wrote: A thought...

Why should anyone believe the above simply on my say so.

With the same token, why should anyone believe (with the greatest repect for) Mr Hawkings, simply on his say so.

We should prove all things to ourselves, take no man's word for anything...until, that is, we prove it to ourselves.

Take for example the climate change argument. Millions believed the information scientists issued on the subject for the newspapers and TV news reports.

What happened next? Oh, weeell, perhaps it wasn't so true after all.

Prove all things to yourselves friends......

If you can't, well, why should anyone believe the above simply on my say so.

Tip, prove all things to yourself.


That logic might be correct in regards to things like global warming compared to Mr. Hawking whose mathematical equations can be worked on resulting in a particularly curvature that leaves anyone going against what's then defined as "proven" to be incredibly stupid

Everyone calls Einstein a genius but if it wasn't for the many scientists, physicists, and mathematicians before him we could have very well not ended up with general relativity. Einstein was able to complete his work in a timely manner because those people found the evidence before him. It's a continuous step forward in which society would barely be past the stone wheel without new ideas. Even if they're wrong it creates interest enough to know what's right based off of what's wrong, not what's right because he/she says so, what's right is what's not wrong

Comparing global warming and the worlds continuous fluctuations with Hawking's decision to feed his dog Iams is enough to send the man into a spitting rage...A well trusted theoretical physicist like of Hawking's caliber demands nothing remotely close. You've alot of reading to do
User avatar
binbag
Posts: 690
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 5:49 am

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by binbag »

K.Snyder;1331715 wrote: That logic might be correct in regards to things like global warming compared to Mr. Hawking whose mathematical equations can be worked on resulting in a particularly curvature that leaves anyone going against what's then defined as "proven" to be incredibly stupid

Everyone calls Einstein a genius but if it wasn't for the many scientists, physicists, and mathematicians before him we could have very well not ended up with general relativity. Einstein was able to complete his work in a timely manner because those people found the evidence before him. It's a continuous step forward in which society would barely be past the stone wheel without new ideas. Even if they're wrong it creates interest enough to know what's right based off of what's wrong, not what's right because he/she says so, what's right is what's not wrong

Comparing global warming and the worlds continuous fluctuations with Hawking's decision to feed his dog Iams is enough to send the man into a spitting rage...A well trusted theoretical physicist like of Hawking's caliber demands nothing remotely close. You've alot of reading to doYou misunderstand K.Snyder, I was not comparing scientist's global warming argument with Stephen Hawking's argument.

I was using the global warming argument as an example of why we should prove all things to ourselves.

Another example I used was, "why should anyone believe the above, simply because I say so".

Prove all things to yourself....That is my argument.
[FONT=Arial]Just above the clouds

the sun is always shining.

[/FONT]
User avatar
binbag
Posts: 690
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 5:49 am

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by binbag »

theia;1331647 wrote: good post, bb :-6Thank you theia, I really do appreciate you comment.
[FONT=Arial]Just above the clouds

the sun is always shining.

[/FONT]
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by gmc »

binbag;1331645 wrote: A thought...

Why should anyone believe the above simply on my say so.

With the same token, why should anyone believe (with the greatest repect for) Mr Hawkings, simply on his say so.

We should prove all things to ourselves, take no man's word for anything...until, that is, we prove it to ourselves.

Take for example the climate change argument. Millions believed the information scientists issued on the subject for the newspapers and TV news reports.

What happened next? Oh, weeell, perhaps it wasn't so true after all.

Prove all things to yourselves friends......

If you can't, well, why should anyone believe the above simply on my say so.

Tip, prove all things to yourself.


You're entitled to your opinion. So far as global warming is concerned you can look at the evidence and decide for yourself. It is not a question of whether you choose to believe or not - the science is there you can dispute the facts or the conclusions drawn from the facts but you don't have to base your decision on faith or anyone's opinion. I can look at the evidence for global warming, I know from my own experience things are a lot warmer than they used to be, that the earth is warming up is not in dispute by any reputable scientist. That the earth has warmed up and cooled down in the past is not in dispute. There is dispute as to what is causes it and whether man's activities are now making things worse. Only a complete numpty would think nothing is happening and an even bigger one to think it is not a cause of concern.

Hawking is putting forward a scientific theory so you can look at his case and decide for yourself. I doubt very much if he expects you to believe anything on his say so - unlike the pope, ayatollah etc etc etc. He has no need to prove god doesn't exist, How can you prove something doesn't exist? It's the religious who need to make their case and provide evidence that god exists - and they can't be bothered they just want people to believe and not think about it. They get very upset at those who don't believe as they do. No doubt there will be calls to have the book banned in some quarters.

Prove all things to yourself....That is my argument.


I would qualify that slightly, prove all things to your satisfaction.
User avatar
binbag
Posts: 690
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 5:49 am

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by binbag »

gmc;1331823 wrote: You're entitled to your opinion. So far as global warming is concerned you can look at the evidence and decide for yourself. It is not a question of whether you choose to believe or not - the science is there you can dispute the facts or the conclusions drawn from the facts but you don't have to base your decision on faith or anyone's opinion. I can look at the evidence for global warming, I know from my own experience things are a lot warmer than they used to be, that the earth is warming up is not in dispute by any reputable scientist. That the earth has warmed up and cooled down in the past is not in dispute. There is dispute as to what is causes it and whether man's activities are now making things worse. Only a complete numpty would think nothing is happening and an even bigger one to think it is not a cause of concern.

Hawking is putting forward a scientific theory so you can look at his case and decide for yourself. I doubt very much if he expects you to believe anything on his say so - unlike the pope, ayatollah etc etc etc. He has no need to prove god doesn't exist, How can you prove something doesn't exist? It's the religious who need to make their case and provide evidence that god exists - and they can't be bothered they just want people to believe and not think about it. They get very upset at those who don't believe as they do. No doubt there will be calls to have the book banned in some quarters.



I would qualify that slightly, prove all things to your satisfaction.
"You're entitled to your opinion."

We're all entitled to our own opinion gmc.

So far as global warming is concerned you can look at the evidence and decide for yourself.

That's it, you decided for yourself, you proved it to yourself, you chose to believe the evidence, to your own satisfaction.

"I know from my own experience things are a lot warmer than they used to be"

There you go, You proved it to yourself, to your own satisfaction.

"It's the religious who need to make their case and provide evidence that god exists".

Why gmc?

Everyone has the freedom of choice. (referring to Christianity)

Nobody is forced to believe in God, each individual has the freewill and the freedom to choose whether to believe in Him or not.

If you don't believe in God, that's your choice. Nobody is (or shouldn't be attempting) to force you to believe in God.

We all, have been given the freedom to choose.



bb
[FONT=Arial]Just above the clouds

the sun is always shining.

[/FONT]
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by K.Snyder »

binbag;1331856 wrote: "You're entitled to your opinion."

We're all entitled to our own opinion gmc.

So far as global warming is concerned you can look at the evidence and decide for yourself.

That's it, you decided for yourself, you proved it to yourself, you chose to believe the evidence, to your own satisfaction.

"I know from my own experience things are a lot warmer than they used to be"

There you go, You proved it to yourself, to your own satisfaction.

"It's the religious who need to make their case and provide evidence that god exists".

Why gmc?

Everyone has the freedom of choice. (referring to Christianity)

Nobody is forced to believe in God, each individual has the freewill and the freedom to choose whether to believe in Him or not.

If you don't believe in God, that's your choice. Nobody is (or shouldn't be attempting) to force you to believe in God.

We all, have been given the freedom to choose.



bb


Who is "we all" exactly? So strong is the identification of God with omnipotence, that much theology has long consisted in reasoning from this doctrine, assuming it to be non-negotiable despite its lack of clear biblical warrant. We are all familiar with the standard form in which the problem of theodicy is posed. The really tough-minded theologians have subordinated such other doctrines as those of God’s goodness, justice, and love to that of divine omnipotence.

At an early point in its development, this sense of God as in total control expressed itself and was reinforced by the affirmation of creation out of nothing. Today, at least, it is widely recognized that this idea is not present in the Bible. Hence its great importance in the Christian tradition has other causes. These are to be found directly in controversies in the early church that did not focus systematically on the doctrine of omnipotence. But the result has been closely related to that doctrine. God’s power is most clearly demonstrated when it is exercised in complete independence of any medium or other power. The ideal form of power is understood to be determination of what happens by pure fiat. The phrase: "Because I say so" says in all.

Two conclusions can be drawn from this understanding of God. One logical deduction is that if God has all the power and determines everything that occurs, then all creatures, including rulers, are powerless. However, such implications are drawn by most thinkers only very selectively. Some do argue that, with respect to our salvation, we are entirely powerless. But few draw the conclusion that what we decide to do makes no difference at all.

The second conclusion, less logical, but more characteristically religious, comes from the imitatio dei. Believers want to embody the traits of the One they regard as supremely admirable. They want to be like the One they worship. If the most notable characteristic of God is unilateral controlling power, then analogous power seems to be a desirable goal for human attainment as well. Human beings, made in the likeness of God, have tended to understand their dominion over other creatures in terms of such unilateral control. The human father has tended to aim at the sort of control in the family that the Heavenly Father is thought to exercise over the world as a whole. The earthly king is likely to emulate the Heavenly King, to whom he owes his exalted position.

Even if such teaching cannot be derived directly from the Bible, the hierarchical understanding that supports it is quite explicit. God is viewed as ruler over the world. God gives Israel a king to rule over all the tribes and then chooses David to succeed. The husband is to rule over his wife and their children. Human beings are to rule over the other creatures.

One can also derive from the Bible, at least from the New Testament, the idea that the salvation of the soul is incomparably more important than the well being of the body. In this case, almost any action at the temporal level is justified if it results in the salvation of the soul. The only condition for this salvation can be understood to be baptism into the church as an expression of acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Savior. If subjugation of people to Christian imperial rule, or even their individual enslavement to Christian masters, furthers the goal of their eternal salvation, the earthly injustice and suffering cannot compare to their eternal betterment.

I assume this is enough, or more than enough, to show how and why Christians have appealed to their tradition to justify imperial policies and to affirm the sorts of value systems that support empire. The Bible and the tradition give support to such attitudes and such policies. Christianity and Empire


Case in point; Charlemagne

It is not known when burning was first used in Britain, but there is a recorded burning for heresy in 1222, when a deacon of the church was burnt at Oxford for embracing the Jewish faith so he could marry a Jew.

In 1401, the king authorised a Statute of Heresy which gave the clergy power to arrest and try those suspected of heresy. The first to suffer under the new act was one William Sautre, a priest, who was executed at (Kings) Lynn in 1402. This statute was repealed in 1553, but burning was re-introduced by Henry VIII. His daughter, Mary Tudor ("Bloody Mary"), was also very keen on this method and 274 burnings of both sexes for heresy were recorded during her 5 year reign (reign of terror) in the mid 16th century. In most cases their only "crime" was following the Protestant faith. The normal place of execution in London being at West Smith Field (now called just Smithfield). An engraving of the period shows that these unfortunates were stood in empty tar barrels at the stake and then had faggots heaped round them. It was not the practice to strangle heretics before they were burnt so they died slow and horrible deaths - being literally burned alive. Burning at the stake


As if there's no sense of pressure to become religious in order to have equal rights or something...You'd think this type of garbage would cease after so long but really I doubt it will ever die,..religion that is

Well, at least we can read what Hawking has to say...
User avatar
theia
Posts: 8242
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:54 pm

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by theia »

K.Snyder;1331901 wrote: Who is "we all" exactly?

Case in point; Charlemagne



As if there's no sense of pressure to become religious in order to have equal rights or something...You'd think this type of garbage would cease after so long but really I doubt it will ever die,..religion that is

Well, at least we can read what Hawking has to say...


I thought I was following your argument, K.Snyder, but when I read through it again, I realised I was lost. I can't understand your argument of the use of "we all."
Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answers...Rainer Maria Rilke
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by K.Snyder »

theia;1331903 wrote: I thought I was following your argument, K.Snyder, but when I read through it again, I realised I was lost. I can't understand your argument of the use of "we all."


Sure, "we all" as in the case of direct descendants from these people forced to accept christianity only to be brain washed having absolutely no choice in the matter but to adhere to the dogma of the teachings of religion...

"Brainwash" serves to prove my point enough but it seems not very many people accept the idea so I added what cannot be avoided, well,..at least as far as logical sense is concerned

Edit*if it helps all of the text within the quotes in my previous post was between binbag and gmc, not I
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by gmc »

binbag;1331856 wrote: "You're entitled to your opinion."

We're all entitled to our own opinion gmc.

So far as global warming is concerned you can look at the evidence and decide for yourself.

That's it, you decided for yourself, you proved it to yourself, you chose to believe the evidence, to your own satisfaction.

"I know from my own experience things are a lot warmer than they used to be"

There you go, You proved it to yourself, to your own satisfaction.

"It's the religious who need to make their case and provide evidence that god exists".

Why gmc?

Everyone has the freedom of choice. (referring to Christianity)

Nobody is forced to believe in God, each individual has the freewill and the freedom to choose whether to believe in Him or not.

If you don't believe in God, that's your choice. Nobody is (or shouldn't be attempting) to force you to believe in God.

We all, have been given the freedom to choose.



bb


We are actually on broad agreement you know.

However.

Why gmc?

Everyone has the freedom of choice. (referring to Christianity)

Nobody is forced to believe in God, each individual has the freewill and the freedom to choose whether to believe in Him or not.

If you don't believe in God, that's your choice. Nobody is (or shouldn't be attempting) to force you to believe in God.

We all, have been given the freedom to choose.




It is the churches that make the claim there is a god and then mock and get upset with those that disagree and object to books like the hawkimngs one beimng published. You cannot prove something (such as god) does not exist. Those who make the claim have the burden of proof. You can respect someone right to believe and worship as they wish, that does not mean you have to respect the belief itself just as you can respect someone's right to believe there are fairies at the bottom of the garden, but there is no need to take the actual belief seriously unless of course you can prove there are fairies.

Churches do their best to prevent the teaching of science or anything that might p[rove a challenge to religion and are not averse to forcing their views on other people.
User avatar
theia
Posts: 8242
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:54 pm

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by theia »

K.Snyder;1331905 wrote: Sure, "we all" as in the case of direct descendants from these people forced to accept christianity only to be brain washed having absolutely no choice in the matter but to adhere to the dogma of the teachings of religion...

"Brainwash" serves to prove my point enough but it seems not very many people accept the idea so I added what cannot be avoided, well,..at least as far as logical sense is concerned

Edit*if it helps all of the text within the quotes in my previous post was between binbag and gmc, not I


Ah right, I had overlooked that, thanks.
Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answers...Rainer Maria Rilke
User avatar
binbag
Posts: 690
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 5:49 am

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by binbag »

gmc;1331915 wrote: We are actually on broad agreement you know.

However.



It is the churches that make the claim there is a god and then mock and get upset with those that disagree and object to books like the hawkimngs one beimng published. You cannot prove something (such as god) does not exist. Those who make the claim have the burden of proof. You can respect someone right to believe and worship as they wish, that does not mean you have to respect the belief itself just as you can respect someone's right to believe there are fairies at the bottom of the garden, but there is no need to take the actual belief seriously unless of course you can prove there are fairies.

Churches do their best to prevent the teaching of science or anything that might p[rove a challenge to religion and are not averse to forcing their views on other people.It is the churches that make the claim there is a god and then mock and get upset with those that disagree and object to books like the hawkimngs one beimng published.

gmc, any church that mocks a person for anything they believe in is woefully off target. No church, absolutely no church, has the authority to scorn or ridicule (mock) any person. Mocking is, or should be, completely against the role of any individual church.

You cannot prove something (such as god) does not exist. Those who make the claim have the burden of proof.

I disagree, the onus is on you.

No matter what a pastor preaches or a church teaches, it is up to you to prove all things to yourself.

Even if it's basically with the thought in mind that we all are human, and prone to making mistakes, it is up to each individual to go away and prove to themselves that what has been offered is true and acceptable, based on their own findings after the event.

bb
[FONT=Arial]Just above the clouds

the sun is always shining.

[/FONT]
User avatar
binbag
Posts: 690
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 5:49 am

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by binbag »

K.Snyder;1331901 wrote: Who is "we all" exactly?
In the context of my reply, why not have a guess as to who the "we all" is referring to K.Snyder.

K.Snyder;1331901 wrote: As if there's no sense of pressure to become religious in order to have equal rights or something. .No need to go into a big rigmarole, but would you rephrase your sentence for me please.

bb
[FONT=Arial]Just above the clouds

the sun is always shining.

[/FONT]
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by K.Snyder »

binbag;1331972 wrote: In the context of my reply, why not have a guess as to who the "we all" is referring to K.Snyder.

No need to go into a big rigmarole, but would you rephrase your sentence for me please.

bbbinbag history shows that if one does not adhere to the same philosophies, which includes religion, then they are cast out of the definition of an "ideal society".

You'd said "we all" as in the context of everyone living in the present but seem to not care the relevancy of how people before "we all" were forced to adhere to religion. It's more than analogous to the present context of "we all" as if you feel the children growing up being bashed by their parents(Does anyone actually understand the scope of "brainwash" exactly or have "you" fallen victim as well?) in which these kids don't stand a chance. Not a glimmering hope.

You say the burden of proof lays in the hands of those against the concept of "God" but fail to associate the importance of scientific research to society as a direct result, and I'm quite positive you cannot see the connection. It's natural instinct for humans to conduct experiments in which the end result is based off of those people's intelligence all courteous of past experiences/scientists, physicists, mathematicians, etc etc

The only research religion does is "because I said so" which I'd presented in one of my previous posts but it seems that everyone is far too proud to give a glance to something that might enlighten them and ultimately satisfy their intellects...
User avatar
theia
Posts: 8242
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:54 pm

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by theia »

I find it interesting that if you read about some of the experiences of the mystics, of whatever religion, and the findings of some of the scientists, they seem to reach a similar point of unpredictability and mystery.
Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answers...Rainer Maria Rilke
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by gmc »

posted by binbag

It is the churches that make the claim there is a god and then mock and get upset with those that disagree and object to books like the hawkimngs one beimng published.

gmc, any church that mocks a person for anything they believe in is woefully off target. No church, absolutely no church, has the authority to scorn or ridicule (mock) any person. Mocking is, or should be, completely against the role of any individual church.


That may be so but sadly many of the churches claim the authority to control everybody's lives just as they claim the right to discriminate and preach hatred because their bible tells them so.

You cannot prove something (such as god) does not exist. Those who make the claim have the burden of proof.

I disagree, the onus is on you.

No matter what a pastor preaches or a church teaches, it is up to you to prove all things to yourself.

Even if it's basically with the thought in mind that we all are human, and prone to making mistakes, it is up to each individual to go away and prove to themselves that what has been offered is true and acceptable, based on their own findings after the event.






I'm satisfied with the conclusions I have reached but I wasn't talking on a personal level. Those who claim to speak for god are the ones imo who need to prove he exists. Their argument against those who do not believe is usually to try and shut them up, by force if necessary and complain that their belefs are entitled to especial respect and , yes reverence.

posted by theia

I find it interesting that if you read about some of the experiences of the mystics, of whatever religion, and the findings of some of the scientists, they seem to reach a similar point of unpredictability and mystery.


It's because they realise they don;t know all the answers. It's those who think they do that are a problem in the world.
User avatar
theia
Posts: 8242
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:54 pm

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by theia »

gmc;1332063 wrote: posted by binbag



That may be so but sadly many of the churches claim the authority to control everybody's lives just as they claim the right to discriminate and preach hatred because their bible tells them so.



I'm satisfied with the conclusions I have reached but I wasn't talking on a personal level. Those who claim to speak for god are the ones imo who need to prove he exists. Their argument against those who do not believe is usually to try and shut them up, by force if necessary and complain that their belefs are entitled to especial respect and , yes reverence.

posted by theia



It's because they realise they don;t know all the answers. It's those who think they do that are a problem in the world.


How true that is, gmc. And they seem to possess a beautiful humility inherent in not knowing.
Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answers...Rainer Maria Rilke
User avatar
binbag
Posts: 690
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 5:49 am

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by binbag »

Hi again folks,

Do you feel you could mention your experience which is leading you to state you're views/feelings on the subject of God, and/or religion.

bb
[FONT=Arial]Just above the clouds

the sun is always shining.

[/FONT]
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15816
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by Bryn Mawr »

binbag;1332136 wrote: Hi again folks,

Do you feel you could mention your experience which is leading you to state you're views/feelings on the subject of God, and/or religion.

bb


Why assume a single experience? Such views and feelings are made up of a lifetime of thought and observation.
User avatar
binbag
Posts: 690
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 5:49 am

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by binbag »

Bryn Mawr;1332141 wrote: Why assume a single experience? Such views and feelings are made up of a lifetime of thought and observation.'Tis you, dear Bryn Mawr, who made an assumption.
[FONT=Arial]Just above the clouds

the sun is always shining.

[/FONT]
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15816
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by Bryn Mawr »

binbag;1332209 wrote: 'Tis you, dear Bryn Mawr, who made an assumption.


'Tis English, not assumption
User avatar
Saint_
Posts: 3311
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:05 pm
Location: The Four Corners

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by Saint_ »

A disillusioned man with a broken body who is dying from a horrifying illness and has lost his faith says "There is no God."

Yeah, I can see how he'd think that. But of course, it's now that he needs God most of all.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by gmc »

Saint_;1332235 wrote: A disillusioned man with a broken body who is dying from a horrifying illness and has lost his faith says "There is no God."

Yeah, I can see how he'd think that. But of course, it's now that he needs God most of all.


But if god is the one that has done that to him, or to you, would you want to go and meet him? What would he/you say? If a scientist comes up with a cure rayher than deciding it is god's will he should suffer and die should he thank god for putting non-nbelievers in the world?

posted by binbag

Hi again folks,

Do you feel you could mention your experience which is leading you to state you're views/feelings on the subject of God, and/or religion.




It's up to you to find your own way binbag, there are plenty of churches that will tell you the way, the more extreme ones may even kill you if you stop following their way the less extreme will ostracise you, which is a fairly powerful mechanism for social control in small communities, others will pray for you. Religious societies got that way by force, by fear and by social control and try and maintain their grip by any that work for them.

You will find many non believers are the ones that question and don't just accept what they are told, religious establishments have always been afraid of them. I am free to make up my own mind is a radical thought in any age.
User avatar
binbag
Posts: 690
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 5:49 am

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by binbag »

gmc;1332267 wrote: But if god is the one that has done that to him, or to you, would you want to go and meet him? What would he/you say? If a scientist comes up with a cure rayher than deciding it is god's will he should suffer and die should he thank god for putting non-nbelievers in the world?

You will find many non believers are the ones that question and don't just accept what they are told, religious establishments have always been afraid of them. I am free to make up my own mind is a radical thought in any age.




Can I just make clear I'm not telling or attempting to force anyone to accept anything I say, it just wouldn't work, it would be futile, it would be wrong of me. I'm offering "my take" (as far as Christianity is concerned) in replying to what has been mentioned.

God isn't the one who would do that to him gmc, and if a scientist discovered a cure for him, then I don't see any problem in accepting that cure if the person is given a choice.

If he didn't have a choice, I don't see any problem if hospital consultants ultimately made the decison.

What we should be thankful for and grateful to is the medical scientists (whether they have a belief in God or not) who work diligently for the benefit of society .

Incidentally there are many scientists who believe in God.

God didn't put non-believers in the world, we all have the free choice to decide whether we believe in Him or not. God doesn't force anyone to believe in Him, it's our free choice.

gmc;1332267 wrote: You will find many non believers are the ones that question and don't just accept what they are told, religious establishments have always been afraid of them. I am free to make up my own mind is a radical thought in any age.Religious establishments who are afraid of non-believers who question do not have much faith in their own beliefs. Believers and non believers alike have the right to question if they so wish.

gmc, of course you are free to make up your own mind, that's what I've been saying all along.
[FONT=Arial]Just above the clouds

the sun is always shining.

[/FONT]
User avatar
binbag
Posts: 690
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 5:49 am

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by binbag »

Bryn Mawr;1332222 wrote: 'Tis English, not assumptionYou don't want to answer my question, ok I understand Bryan Mawr.
[FONT=Arial]Just above the clouds

the sun is always shining.

[/FONT]
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by K.Snyder »

theia;1331990 wrote: I find it interesting that if you read about some of the experiences of the mystics, of whatever religion, and the findings of some of the scientists, they seem to reach a similar point of unpredictability and mystery.


If we're to look at this in respect to the present and not the past nor the future then who'd disagree that science holds trump as far as research and ultimate fact is concerned?

That's just it in a nutshell, there is no past nor future. Everything is defined in present tense. You cannot suggest there's a past and future within a table that has of yet to see a beginning and an end. Mr. Hawking is placing his theory forward in this book that suggests that beginning which we could then make the correct calculation, from this beginning, to then come to a presumed end, and a very definitive one at that. Saying "In the beginning there was light" is rather primitive in my mind. What's next "In the end there's dark"? Hmmmm...by my calculations "In the beginning there was light" ultimately leads to "In the end there's dark"...What I fear are individuals that are content with this level of intelligence. If that were the case for everyone we'd barely be past melting iron.

It takes an intelligent mind to get past the teachings of religion. It takes a smarter one to actually make technological advancements that ends up practicing what religion preaches.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by gmc »

posted by binbag

Can I just make clear I'm not telling or attempting to force anyone to accept anything I say, it just wouldn't work, it would be futile, it would be wrong of me. I'm offering "my take" (as far as Christianity is concerned) in replying to what has been mentioned.


We get the point, it would indeed be futile. I'm giving you "my take" on religion and the existence or not of god. For one thing how can there be a christian god and a muslim god. There is either only one, in which case you are all referring to the same one or there is not. You cannot argue about who has the right god if you believe there is only one, otherwise it is literally nonsense.

posted by binbag

God isn't the one who would do that to him gmc, and if a scientist discovered a cure for him, then I don't see any problem in accepting that cure if the person is given a choice.

If he didn't have a choice, I don't see any problem if hospital consultants ultimately made the decison.


God either is responsible for all things or he is not. He either creates all things or he does not. If he didn't do it to him then who or what did? If it is not god's will there is no point praying to him because he can't do anything about it. If it is god's will and there is a reason behind everything that happens then pray to a god that inflicts so much misery on his creations if you want to. Many religious people ( no not you) take great delight in the suffering of other as a sign of god's punishing of those who have sinned. If not recentlu then art some time in the distant past.



What we should be thankful for and grateful to is the medical scientists (whether they have a belief in God or not) who work diligently for the benefit of society .

Incidentally there are many scientists who believe in God.


So there are. developed science in the teeth of opposition from those who believed man should not try and understand the world around them or prevent death and disease as it flew in the face of god's will.

God didn't put non-believers in the world, we all have the free choice to decide whether we believe in Him or not. God doesn't force anyone to believe in Him, it's our free choice.


If you believe god created all things then he is the one who put non-believer in the world. If he didn't do it then who did. If he did do it there must have been a purpose and who the hell are the religious to tell non-believers what that is. they too must be serving god's purpose.

It's all a load of bollocks.

posted by K snyder

It takes an intelligent mind to get past the teachings of religion. It takes a smarter one to actually make technological advancements that ends up practicing what religion preaches.


Richard dawkins take on the issue

YouTube - Eye2EyeIIV's Channel

I've yet to hear or read any of hawkins, dawkins etc etc claim to have the answers to live the universe and everything. Don't you get fed up with the religious not only claiming to have all the answers but trying to make everybody agree with them.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15816
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by Bryn Mawr »

binbag;1332373 wrote: You don't want to answer my question, ok I understand Bryan Mawr.


I find it impossible to answer your question because Such views and feelings are made up of a lifetime of thought and observation


How can I describe an experience when the answer involves the sum total of thousands of such experiences?
User avatar
binbag
Posts: 690
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 5:49 am

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by binbag »

Bryn Mawr;1332950 wrote: I find it impossible to answer your question because

How can I describe an experience when the answer involves the sum total of thousands of such experiences?




You and I think differently then Bryan Mawr, I would find it impossible to answer the subject adequately if I did not have, as you mentioned earlier, a lifetime's experience.

All the best.

bb
[FONT=Arial]Just above the clouds

the sun is always shining.

[/FONT]
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by K.Snyder »

binbag;1333091 wrote: You and I think differently then Bryan Mawr, I would find it impossible to answer the subject adequately if I did not have, as you mentioned earlier, a lifetime's experience.

All the best.

bb


Would it be correct to assume you believe in holism as opposed to reductionism?

Holism is the idea that all the properties of a given system (physical, biological, chemical, social, economic, mental, linguistic, etc.) cannot be determined or explained by its component parts alone. Instead, the system as a whole determines in an important way how the parts behave.

The general principle of holism was concisely summarized by Aristotle in the Metaphysics: "The whole is more than the sum of its parts" (1045a10).

Reductionism is sometimes seen as the opposite of holism. Reductionism in science says that a complex system can be explained by reduction to its fundamental parts. For example, the processes of biology are reducible to chemistry and the laws of chemistry are explained by physics. Holism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I myself know reductionism to be what's true...

Reductionism can either mean (a) an approach to understanding the nature of complex things by reducing them to the interactions of their parts, or to simpler or more fundamental things or (b) a philosophical position that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts, and that an account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents.[1] This can be said of objects, phenomena, explanations, theories, and meanings.

Reductionism strongly reflects a certain perspective on causality. In a reductionist framework, phenomena that can be explained completely in terms of relations between other more fundamental phenomena, are called epiphenomena. Often there is an implication that the epiphenomenon exerts no causal agency on the fundamental phenomena that explain it. Reductionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I'm an Epiphenomenalist myself..

Epiphenomenalism

In philosophy of mind, epiphenomenalism, also known as Type-E Dualism, is a view according to which some or all mental states are mere epiphenomena (side-effects or by-products) of physical states of the world. Thus, epiphenomenalism denies that the mind (as in its states, not its processing) has any influence on the body or any other part of the physical world: while mental states are caused by physical states, mental states do not have any influence on physical states. Some versions of epiphenomenalism claim that all mental states are inert, while others claim that only some mental states are inert. The latter version often claims that only those types of mental states that are especially difficult to account for scientifically are epiphenomenal, such as qualitative mental states (e.g., the sensation of pain). Epiphenomenalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The original and most famous example of classical conditioning involved the salivary conditioning of Pavlov's dogs. During his research on the physiology of digestion in dogs, Pavlov noticed that, rather than simply salivating in the presence of meat powder (an innate response to food that he called the unconditioned response), the dogs began to salivate in the presence of the lab technician who normally fed them. Pavlov called these psychic secretions. From this observation he predicted that, if a particular stimulus in the dog's surroundings were present when the dog was presented with meat powder, then this stimulus would become associated with food and cause salivation on its own. In his initial experiment, Pavlov used a bell to call the dogs to their food and, after a few repetitions, the dogs started to salivate in response to the bell. Classical conditioning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
User avatar
binbag
Posts: 690
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 5:49 am

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by binbag »

Let me put it this way KS, I would not be against simplifying wording, thus allowing someone a better understanding of a complex issue. However, I certainly would not attempt to distort the truth.



On the other hand, if say, the subject of the human being was under discussion, I would certainly say there's more to the human being than the mere total of the visual bodily parts.
[FONT=Arial]Just above the clouds

the sun is always shining.

[/FONT]
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by K.Snyder »

binbag;1333225 wrote: Let me put it this way KS, I would not be against simplifying wording, thus allowing someone a better understanding of a complex issue. "Meat powder" threw me off at first as well but I was able to eventually discern the general meaning...binbag;1333225 wrote: However, I certainly would not attempt to distort the truth.The distortion is not a cause it's an effect. holism suggests truth is divine. Reductionism states, quite clearly, that truth is a series of progression. This progression is what Mr. Hawking establishes within all of his books. I'd expect as much from one as intelligent to be able to put pieces together to then be able to understand the truth. It's the entire argument the man is plagued with...



binbag;1333225 wrote: On the other hand, if say, the subject of the human being was under discussion, I would certainly say there's more to the human being than the mere total of the visual bodily parts.


Epiphenomenalism is indicative of the human being bin. What context do you use the the phrase "human being" exactly? Do you mean soul?
User avatar
Saint_
Posts: 3311
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:05 pm
Location: The Four Corners

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by Saint_ »

K.Snyder;1332403 wrote: Saying "In the beginning there was light" is rather primitive in my mind. What's next "In the end there's dark"? Hmmmm...by my calculations "In the beginning there was light" ultimately leads to "In the end there's dark"..


Not at all, K. As you know, quantum physics breaks down when you try to go beyond the Big Bang, but we now estimate that there is enough dark matter in the Universe to slow, then stop the expansion and bring it all falling back to the starting point. There, the Universe will explode again!

So it's possible that the Universe cycles. But we still have the question, what, or Who, started that cycle?
User avatar
Saint_
Posts: 3311
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:05 pm
Location: The Four Corners

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by Saint_ »

binbag;1333225 wrote:

On the other hand, if say, the subject of the human being was under discussion, I would certainly say there's more to the human being than the mere total of the visual bodily parts.


I absolutely agree. I'd even say that since consciousness is electrical, why can't the "soul" be an energy field? Kirlian photography seems to prove that as well. And if the soul exists as an unseen, unexplained energy field....why not God?

K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by K.Snyder »

Saint_;1333239 wrote: Not at all, K. As you know, quantum physics breaks down when you try to go beyond the Big Bang, but we now estimate that there is enough dark matter in the Universe to slow, then stop the expansion and bring it all falling back to the starting point. There, the Universe will explode again!

So it's possible that the Universe cycles. But we still have the question, what, or Who, started that cycle?


I understand the argument Saint. What I'm failing to get across is the fact that we have to use human knowledge as the fundamental premise for plausibility. It's proportionately implausible to suggest magic occurred based off of human perspective, therefore it must be concluded that humans have no right to suggest it did happen more than it did not. It's not pragmatic in the very least. It's about proportion Saint. Proportion. A fundamental point that should be seen as logical truth, which in turn helps to educate what I myself like to call a complete and utter blessing that I don't lack the brain power to understand what's important, which is to make a virtue out of science respectively and not magic, because it's equally as defined as such based off of the axiom of physics not unexplained phenomena.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by K.Snyder »

Saint_;1333240 wrote: I absolutely agree. I'd even say that since consciousness is electrical, why can't the "soul" be an energy field? Kirlian photography seems to prove that as well. And if the soul exists as an unseen, unexplained energy field....why not God?

Because those occurences can be explained scientifically. It's very indicative of one happier to educate themselves as opposed to being content with...K.Snyder;1332403 wrote: Saying "In the beginning there was light" is rather primitive in my mind. What's next "In the end there's dark"? Hmmmm...by my calculations "In the beginning there was light" ultimately leads to "In the end there's dark"...What I fear are individuals that are content with this level of intelligence. If that were the case for everyone we'd barely be past melting iron.

It takes an intelligent mind to get past the teachings of religion. It takes a smarter one to actually make technological advancements that ends up practicing what religion preaches.
User avatar
binbag
Posts: 690
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 5:49 am

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by binbag »

K.Snyder;1333235 wrote:

What context do you use the the phrase "human being" exactly? Do you mean soul?


I was referring to the human being as is commonly understood.

Do I mean soul? No, my belief is, the soul is certainly connected with the human being, but it is also separate from it. The soul is not a "visual bodily part".

There's more to the Homo sapien than meets the eye, but please don't ask me "What context do you use the phrase "Homo sapien" exactly? Do you mean Evolution? :)



K.Snyder;1332403 wrote: Saying "In the beginning there was light" is rather primitive in my mind. What's next "In the end there's dark"? Hmmmm...by my calculations "In the beginning there was light" ultimately leads to "In the end there's dark".Now then KS, in the end their is dark!! Where is the end? Well, that's a question far and beyond human comprehension. My belief is, there is no end. It always was, always will be, a dark void without end.

There is no end.
[FONT=Arial]Just above the clouds

the sun is always shining.

[/FONT]
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by K.Snyder »

binbag;1333614 wrote: I was referring to the human being as is commonly understood.

Do I mean soul? No, my belief is, the soul is certainly connected with the human being, but it is also separate from it. The soul is not a "visual bodily part".

There's more to the Homo sapien than meets the eye, but please don't ask me "What context do you use the phrase "Homo sapien" exactly? Do you mean Evolution? :)



Now then KS, in the end their is dark!! Where is the end? Well, that's a question far and beyond human comprehension. My belief is, there is no end. It always was, always will be, a dark void without end.

There is no end.


Evolution is an observation not a characteristic so any reference to anything is indicative of evolution.

On that, the point is that by understanding the "present" one can calculate what the "future" entails.

Further, "There is no end" implies quite clearly there was no beginning. The "void" has to be present in the "beginning" if applied to the "future". Quite simply I know both the "past" and "future" to not exist. Meaning quite clearly that "time" does not exist as an entity rather an invention by man to accommodate society. We do not die in retrospect, we only change shape. Mr. Hawking's book should be embraced by anyone with brain power worth it's wait in intelligence. Arguing against the mere suggestion of a theory is equally as ignorant as the importance of even a failed insinuation.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12141
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by LarsMac »

Just a thought:

Hawkings was right.

God did not create the universe.

God IS the Universe.
“All it takes to get elected in twenty-first-century America is a mob of frightened sheep and a wolf with a nice smile,”
― Greg Bear, Darwin's Children
User avatar
Saint_
Posts: 3311
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:05 pm
Location: The Four Corners

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by Saint_ »

LarsMac;1333683 wrote: Just a thought:

Hawkings was right.

God did not create the universe.

God IS the Universe.


BINGO!!! (man... that was some sharp posting!)

:yh_clap:yh_dance:yh_giggle:yh_worshp
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by K.Snyder »

Saint_;1333239 wrote: Not at all, K. As you know, quantum physics breaks down when you try to go beyond the Big Bang, but we now estimate that there is enough dark matter in the Universe to slow, then stop the expansion and bring it all falling back to the starting point. There, the Universe will explode again!

So it's possible that the Universe cycles. But we still have the question, what, or Who, started that cycle?


I was going to create a thread in which we all could discuss the Universe as a whole but I suppose this one can do just fine...

On that, "So it's possible that the Universe cycles" is horribly inappropriate when followed by "we now estimate that there is enough dark matter in the Universe to slow, then stop the expansion and bring it all falling back to the starting point"...

What exactly is estimated? Everything I've read indicates we're not even half as close to discovering the dark matter necessary in having an oscillating Universe so I ask with all kindness where you've found this to be a true statement...

Firstly, my intuition leads me to assume "dark matter" exists in relative abundance but since we're talking about what we as human beings can prove, "intuition" becomes mere fun and games for the person partaking in it.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by K.Snyder »

If anyone's innately interested...

I'm interested to know what others believe at this point...Guess if you'd like...

Dark Energy, Dark Matter

In the early 1990's, one thing was fairly certain about the expansion of the Universe. It might have enough energy density to stop its expansion and recollapse, it might have so little energy density that it would never stop expanding, but gravity was certain to slow the expansion as time went on. Granted, the slowing had not been observed, but, theoretically, the Universe had to slow. The Universe is full of matter and the attractive force of gravity pulls all matter together. Then came 1998 and the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) observations of very distant supernovae that showed that, a long time ago, the Universe was actually expanding more slowly than it is today. So the expansion of the Universe has not been slowing due to gravity, as everyone thought, it has been accelerating. No one expected this, no one knew how to explain it. But something was causing it. Dark Energy, Dark Matter - NASA Science
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15816
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by Bryn Mawr »

K.Snyder;1333996 wrote: If anyone's innately interested...

I'm interested to know what others believe at this point...Guess if you'd like...


Fiddle factors covering holes in the theory.
User avatar
binbag
Posts: 690
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 5:49 am

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

Post by binbag »

K.Snyder;1333996 wrote: If anyone's innately interested...

I'm interested to know what others believe at this point...Guess if you'd like...Dark energy and the Universe's expansion!!!

What I'm interested in is what lies far and beyond that, so called, "dark energy and the Universe's expansion".

There is no ending out there, no brick wall, no steel perimeter fence with signs stating "THE END".

The blackness observed, as we stare upwards on a dark clear night, is called Eternity, a place of Eternal Existence.

Incredible awsome, fascinating, darkness beyond the darkness, never ending glorious Eternity.

The mere thought of it fills me with great expectation.
[FONT=Arial]Just above the clouds

the sun is always shining.

[/FONT]

Return to “Space and Astronomy”