- This topic is empty.
- Posts
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20015425-71.html?tag=cnetRiver
To all Atheists.
One of your foremost Atheist prophets promotes the following dogma – the universe can come from nothing and gravity is sufficient to explain the universe spontaneously coming from nothing.
So do you concur with that belief. Is atheism the religion of nothing, no cause, 'no thing'?
An honest person would at least ask, “where did gravity come from and why is that considered 'no thing'”?
After all gravity is real and why is that nothing? Also, an honest person would surely conclude that if there was nothing, there would be nothing now.PS, a note to Stu, 'The the Vicar of Darwin'.
Are you with Hawking on this one?
Did everything come from nothing as he preaches?
Perhaps we can get a definitive answer from you on this now because one of your prophets has spoken this statement of Atheistic faith to the world.Quote (t8 @ Sep. 03 2010,08:39) An honest person would at least ask, “where did gravity come from and why is that considered 'no thing'”? 
Hawkings is simply starting to lose his mind.
Gravity only acts on Matter if it doesn't “matter” there is no gravity
His idea has too many suppositions basically all he is saying is that matter with gravity would cause matter to come to a pinpoint and explode outwards causing matter in the form of atoms to reorganize into heavier objects which would cause gravity to act on the objects and so on but the silly part is he still has to except E=mc2 since Gravity only has relevence to mass Hawkins assumes Mass has no creation. As I said he is now losing his mind but still books need to be written to take care of the bills
All unbelief in God starts somewhere and in his case it could have been fuelled by a possible grudge against an all powerful God who left him unchanged in a wheel chair. Years later, the seed grows and solidifies his now well developed atheism and then he uses his influence to turn people away from believing in him.
In any case, when he dies, he will see beyond the curtain, so we all find out in the end and our belief doesn't affect that reality.
But yes, BD, Hawking is certainly making an obvious blunder scientifically speaking because he assumes that laws are just there and gives no consideration as to their origin.
Of course scripture clearly demonstrates God as the great law-giver.
Looks like some journalists have taken some words out of Hawking's book and rearranged them to make their own sentences. What popular journalist does any of us know who is equipped to explain gravity, let alone motivated to try and understand Hawking?
In his book Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays, Hawking explains that matter is borrowed gravitational energy from the expansion of the universe. Most of that matter / energy came into existence at the time of fastest expansion, in the first second or so after the Big Bang.
In case anyone considers that matter just appearing is an unacceptable concept, firstly it is happening right now inside your own body: quantum particles disappear and reappear all the time. Secondly, if you are religious, would it not be hypocritical to attack an idea you find difficult to comprehend if you simultaneously criticise others for attempting to understand the nature of your god-that-cannot-be-understood?
Gravity is the experience we have that results from the curving effect mass has on space-time. It looks like BD has things exactly the wrong way round.
As for t8's attack on Hawking's character, perhaps t8 will make an honest person of himself and put up the mathematics that shows Hawking doesn't know what he is talking about. Failing that, perhaps he could justify his use of religious metaphor in describing the nature of scientific understanding.
We should acknowledge the genius of those who have investigated the universe and modeled it, while simultaneously keeping up a withering attack on those ideas in order to improve or replace the models with better ones. That is what those “prophets” expect. On the other hand, name a religion that does not expect mindless reverence for its prophets. Religions do not constantly seek to undermine ideas in an effort to make progress, it is generally the reverse. The Dalai Lama does have such a refined attitude though. Does he lead an actual religion? It is hard to tell!
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 03 2010,12:10) All unbelief in God starts somewhere and in his case it could have been fuelled by a possible grudge against an all powerful God who left him unchanged in a wheel chair. Years later, the seed grows and solidifies his now well developed atheism and then he uses his influence to turn people away from believing in him.
The christian world is full of invisible intent, conspiracy, grudge, retribution, threat of punishment, salvation by snake oil and self-flagellation.That does not reflect the nature of the reality I observe. I think Hawking would agree. His attitude to the Abrahamic god is one of gentle mocking of the concept, in the tradition of Laplace and even Einstein.
As a concept it is certainly deserving of mockery. If there really is a god like this which is interested in grudges, conspiracy and cure by snake oil then why would anyone worship something so small-minded?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 03 2010,15:58) In case anyone considers that matter just appearing is an unacceptable concept, firstly it is happening right now inside your own body: quantum particles disappear and reappear all the time. Secondly, if you are religious, would it not be hypocritical to attack an idea you find difficult to comprehend if you simultaneously criticise others for attempting to understand the nature of your god-that-cannot-be-understood?
I am sure you will agree that just because something disappears and reappears doesn't mean that it is something coming from nothing.Also, one is certainly allowed to ridicule the idea that something can come from nothing. But saying that something came from something and then denying that the something cannot be a someone is also open to ridicule because it is based solely on bias.
As it turns out, I think you will agree that those who believe in God get more ridicule than atheists do. That is generally because many atheists actually hate the whole idea of there being a God and those that believe in God generally speaking feel a little sorry for the blind.
I mean when has there been a time when atheists were thrown into a Colosseum and fed to lions for their belief? Or when was the last time an atheist was ridiculed on TV for example. I think generally speaking again, people leave them alone much more compared to those who believe in God. For some reason, believing in God invokes all kinds of attacks, disagreements, or passionate put downs from those who do not believe more so than vice versa.
I suppose you could look at like this. If we are wrong, no problem, if you are wrong, big problem. That might go some way toward explaining this perhaps, although we do have a spiritual reason as to why people get riled up about God and against those that love God.
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 03 2010,16:10) The christian world is full of invisible intent, conspiracy, grudge, retribution, threat of punishment, salvation by snake oil and self-flagellation.
I have to agree that the Christian religion does have such things as does other parts of society.But this website is not promoting the Christian religion or any other denomination and cult. It is promoting what is written in scripture, God, and the prophets. Catholicism and every other cism is not what we are touting and if anything we are exposing them for what they are.
I personally think that many religious systems are actually part of the world and the world by definition is a system. That is why scripture is clear that the Earth belongs to God and the world belongs to Satan (the adversary). The word world is 'eon' and it is really this 'eon' that is the problem. We live in troubled times.
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 03 2010,15:58) Looks like some journalists have taken some words out of Hawking's book and rearranged them to make their own sentences.
Um, did he say there was no God or not?
If he said it, then he is saying that something came from nothing. Unless he has a theory or belief in an eternal thing, but then that thing is God to him, even if it lacks intelligence.Quote (Stu @ Sep. 03 2010,15:58) As for t8's attack on Hawking's character, perhaps t8 will make an honest person of himself and put up the mathematics that shows Hawking doesn't know what he is talking about. Failing that, perhaps he could justify his use of religious metaphor in describing the nature of scientific understanding.
Stu. It is not hard to get zero and any other number from infinite. You can fluctuate numbers and concepts easily. 7 + -7 = 0, therefore 0 can be the result of 7-7 etc.The imagination can come up with all kinds of ideas. But you have to start with infinite or finite to begin with. So saying that there is no cause for infinite or finite is quite lame in my opinion as it assumes way to much and is not logical either.
e.g., if I say “in the beginning was 0”, then by definition of that, I am not ruling out that there was 7 or -7 and the opposite force cancelled it out.
But saying that it started with nothing is a belief with no proof and anyone can see that nothing is really the lack of something and that lack of something can be achieved quite easily in many ways with something and somethings.
The greatest and most poigniant question to just ask is, 'Why?'.
Athiests want to be the 'Creators of the Universe and all within'.
They do not realise that they are merely 'Satan's Tools' because then cannot believe that a Satan exists.
WHY would the Universe suddenly come into existence? Even the term, 'Cause and Effect', is here dismissed because to try and understand the initial 'Cause' would, in effect, mean believing that there is a source of power and intelligence (YHVH God) greater than their own God (Science).
They are driven by their desire for 'Godlike' status, to continue eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge and to find a way back into 'Eden', fight with the Cherub guarding the Tree of Life, eat of it's fruit, and live forever…(They currently 'live forever' through the 'life sustaining properties of their Word', their books not willing to see that even those will be burned beyond cinder in the everlasting fire after they are proved to be 'incomplete reality' of The Truth)
t8
Quote I am sure you will agree that just because something disappears and reappears doesn't mean that it is something coming from nothing.
Since the universe is still expanding, the number of particles appearing is greater than the numbers disappearing.Quote Also, one is certainly allowed to ridicule the idea that something can come from nothing. But saying that something came from something and then denying that the something cannot be a someone is also open to ridicule because it is based solely on bias.
No, it is the conclusion that the person claiming the existence of the “someone” in the absence of any unambiguous evidence for it is a joker trying it on.Quote As it turns out, I think you will agree that those who believe in God get more ridicule than atheists do.
As the homophobic zealot Saul of Tarsus was at pains to predict. Do you think that ridicule is not justified? Why not?Quote … those that believe in God generally speaking feel a little sorry for the blind.
…in their deluded opinions.Quote I mean when has there been a time when atheists were thrown into a Colosseum and fed to lions for their belief?
Ah the good old days.Quote Or when was the last time an atheist was ridiculed on TV for example.
Just look up the debates on YourTube between Christopher Hitchens and any of the truckload of christian apologists that have appeared against him on TV. Of course if you mean ridicule that was not turned back doubly and tellingly on the christian ridiculer then you would have to look elsewhere.Quote I think generally speaking again, people leave them alone much more compared to those who believe in God. For some reason, believing in God invokes all kinds of attacks, disagreements, or passionate put downs from those who do not believe more so than vice versa.
In the past there has been a kind of cultural tolerance to expressing god belief in public but many have lost patience with religious nonsense and the higher profile brought by the publicity of the “new atheists” has encouraged that open skepticism. Of course it should be all about who has the best argument. Unfortunately for the christians it is almost never the christian.Quote I suppose you could look at like this. If we are wrong, no problem, if you are wrong, big problem. That might go some way toward explaining this perhaps, although we do have a spiritual reason as to why people get riled up about God and against those that love God.
Well exactly why “if wrong then big problem”? If that is the nature of the god you worship, then I would suggest it is a small-minded jealous bigot and not worthy of your obsequiousness. If I am to be judged negatively because I “used my god-given brain” to its limits to find out as objectively as I could about how the universe works, conclude there is no god, but it turns out all along I was being misled by that brain, then where would be the justice in me being punished for doing what I was “designed” to do?I have concluded that christianity reflects the mentality of those who were the most convincing inventors of the mythology. You don’t have to have a healthy ethical sense to convince others to follow you. Godwin’s Law prevents me mentioning the most obvious example by name. This invented religious world of conspiracy and intrigue may appear convincing to the human brain but it has no basis in reality.
You are mistaken that I get “riled up” by any god, and actually you are dishonest to suggest it when you know perfectly well that the arguments are never against any Imaginary Being, they are against the christian’s perceptions of that Imaginary Being and the morality of following a christian worldview in relation to the being whose immorality they appear unable to see.
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 03 2010,17:07) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 03 2010,15:58) Looks like some journalists have taken some words out of Hawking's book and rearranged them to make their own sentences.
Um, did he say there was no God or not?
If he said it, then he is saying that something came from nothing. Unless he has a theory or belief in an eternal thing, but then that thing is God to him, even if it lacks intelligence.
You are asserting that it is your god or nothing. This is two logical fallacies rolled into one.Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 03 2010,17:13) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 03 2010,15:58) As for t8's attack on Hawking's character, perhaps t8 will make an honest person of himself and put up the mathematics that shows Hawking doesn't know what he is talking about. Failing that, perhaps he could justify his use of religious metaphor in describing the nature of scientific understanding.
Stu. It is not hard to get zero and any other number from infinite. You can fluctuate numbers and concepts easily. 7 + -7 = 0, therefore 0 can be the result of 7-7 etc.The imagination can come up with all kinds of ideas. But you have to start with infinite or finite to begin with. So saying that there is no cause for infinite or finite is quite lame in my opinion as it assumes way to much and is not logical either.
e.g., if I say “in the beginning was 0”, then by definition of that, I am not ruling out that there was 7 or -7 and the opposite force cancelled it out.
But saying that it started with nothing is a belief with no proof and anyone can see that nothing is really the lack of something and that lack of something can be achieved quite easily in many ways with something and somethings.
What you can do is say that there is something now, and demonstrate that there is more than there used to be in an expanding universe, then extrapolate backwards to t=0, the Big Bang, at which point you can see the maths says there was nothing.Let alone no proof, there isn't even any evidence even for what there was before 10^-13 seconds after the beginning of the universe. That is what the Hadron Collider is for.
Are you talking in absolute and final terms now, or will you wait the next installment of insights from the ever higher energy collisions being planned in Switzerland / France?
At the moment the best evidence says all matter arose from the expansion of space-time, and for the moment, based on maths, you can reasonably conclude that at t=0 there was no matter or energy.
Hawking is just asking you what point there is in levering a god into all that when it does not explain anything about the process, and when it is not supported by any evidence.
Stuart
Quote (JustAskin @ Sep. 03 2010,17:22) The greatest and most poigniant question to just ask is, 'Why?'. Athiests want to be the 'Creators of the Universe and all within'.
They do not realise that they are merely 'Satan's Tools' because then cannot believe that a Satan exists.
WHY would the Universe suddenly come into existence? Even the term, 'Cause and Effect', is here dismissed because to try and understand the initial 'Cause' would, in effect, mean believing that there is a source of power and intelligence (YHVH God) greater than their own God (Science).
They are driven by their desire for 'Godlike' status, to continue eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge and to find a way back into 'Eden', fight with the Cherub guarding the Tree of Life, eat of it's fruit, and live forever…(They currently 'live forever' through the 'life sustaining properties of their Word', their books not willing to see that even those will be burned beyond cinder in the everlasting fire after they are proved to be 'incomplete reality' of The Truth)
Sorry JustAskin but your post is another demonstration of why christianity can pretty easily be dismissed as flimsy, inconsequential nonsense.I don't want to be anything so grandiose as you suggest. For an atheist who has really thought about it, there is astonishment in existing at all, and especially in being born with a brain capable of considering such existential issues. Any atheist must conclude that the universe is something over which he has virtually no command whatever, and in which he is pretty insignificant in the grander scheme.
On the other hand we already know how special christianity makes the christian feel (although strangely not the non-christian). The supreme creator of the universe, omnipotent and almightly, is nevertheless waiting specifically for you to plead directly to him that he suspend the laws of nature temporarily to your benefit. That is one of the most egotistical worldviews you could have, isn't it?
Some christians have been immunised against critical thinking by Judeo-christian mythology. See the Python film Life of Brian for the logic behind the idea that if you deny you are the messiah then you must be the messiah because he will deny his own existence, and if you admit it, then you are the messiah!
Same logic applies with notions of satan. If I deny satan then that is what satan has made me do, and if I embrace satan and commend the idea to you, then I am definitely satanic. Can you see that those two positions constitute a logical nonsense? Another example is the dunking of a witch. If the witch survives then you burn her, if she doesn't then she wasn't a witch but nevertheless you have executed her anyway. Judging by what you wrote, you cannot see the absurdity of that. Perhaps you have not really thought about it. There is no crime there, of course, but I think you should think it through. It is a age-old con job, most significantly perpetrated by the aforementioned Saul of Tarsus.
Regarding the origin of the universe, you are half-way there, but then take a wrong turn down a religious blind alley. Consider it this way instead: effect follows cause. If we ran time backwards, cause would follow effect. If we say the universe is the effect, how can you talk of causes in a situation where time has not “yet” come into existence?
What would the god hypothesis actually explain, in this case? Do you have any statements that include the words “because” or “therefore” and that actually advance knowledge of the process that led to the existence of mass and energy, or are you just trying to jam your god in there because of the emotional energy you have invested in this fantasy worldview?
Stuart
Stu,
You are amazing. I don't know who you are because I haven't followed your posts.But hear this: God, YHVH by Hebrew name translated 'I Am' is complete Energy.
God is complete energy, and from God comes all that is seen and all that is unseen. All that is sentient, and all that is unsentient.God created from His own energy force all the atoms, molecules, quarks, quasies, every element known and unknown to mankind, to Science.
All elements are pure energy…you know that, eh?
All things, everything, is energy, all visible elements are compressed energy, energy so compressed that it forms a physical entity and a building block of the universe.
And the intelligence in the elements: All sentient life, all life of any sort, green grass, trees, plants, herbs, flora, all animal, insects, birds, creepy crawlies, bugs, microbes, higher leve' creatures, Apes, Elephants, Dolphins, Squid, Whales, everything, has intelligence within it's genetic makeup.
Where does that 'intelligence' cme from? Why do they all conform to the same standard: Survival, growth, procreation, protection, war, love, passion and vigour?By the way, Stu, do not count JustAskin among the many so-Calleds that you have been dealing with.
You have had an easy time with them because, as you have found out, most of them do not actually fully, or many not even partially, understand what they are talking about.
JustAskin understands Science as well as Scriptures so JustAskin is neither phazed by, nor overstating, reality and truth of either and both.
Athiest, no matter what they say, believe in God. Denying the Spirit that created you does not mean that you can deny the spirit that is IN you…even if you choose to hide it under a bushel.
If you truly did not believe…not possible…then what are you doing in this Web Forum?
JustAskin
Quote But hear this: God, YHVH by Hebrew name translated 'I Am' is complete Energy.
Religious platitude.Quote God is complete energy, and from God comes all that is seen and all that is unseen. All that is sentient, and all that is unsentient.
Three religious platitudes.Quote God created from His own energy force all the atoms, molecules, quarks, quasies, every element known and unknown to mankind, to Science.
Didn’t happen. Assertions unsupported by evidence are just as easily dismissed without evidence.Quote All elements are pure energy…you know that, eh?
E=mc2.Quote All things, everything, is energy, all visible elements are compressed energy, energy so compressed that it forms a physical entity and a building block of the universe.
That’s partly right, but also pseudoscientific.Quote And the intelligence in the elements: All sentient life, all life of any sort, green grass, trees, plants, herbs, flora, all animal, insects, birds, creepy crawlies, bugs, microbes, higher leve' creatures, Apes, Elephants, Dolphins, Squid, Whales, everything, has intelligence within it's genetic makeup.
I don’t think we really know enough to confidently talk about the nature of intelligence in humans, let alone your new-age pan-biological statement here. What on earth do you mean?Quote Where does that 'intelligence' cme from? Why do they all conform to the same standard: Survival, growth, procreation, protection, war, love, passion and vigour?
Sounds grandiose. Hard to distinguish it from nonsense. Can you clarify?Quote By the way, Stu, do not count JustAskin among the many so-Calleds that you have been dealing with. You have had an easy time with them because, as you have found out, most of them do not actually fully, or many not even partially, understand what they are talking about. JustAskin understands Science as well as Scriptures so JustAskin is neither phazed by, nor overstating, reality and truth of either and both.
Are you usually in the habit of referring to yourself in the third person? You must be one of the particularly special christians.Quote Athiest, no matter what they say, believe in God.
You really are deluded, aren’t you.Quote Denying the Spirit that created you does not mean that you can deny the spirit that is IN you…even if you choose to hide it under a bushel.
Religious platitude.Quote If you truly did not believe…not possible…then what are you doing in this Web Forum?
Is seems you already have the answers, so I’ll leave you to know already.Quote And Stu, what of poignant question, 'Why'?
Why WHAT?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 03 2010,15:58) Looks like some journalists have taken some words out of Hawking's book and rearranged them to make their own sentences. What popular journalist does any of us know who is equipped to explain gravity, let alone motivated to try and understand Hawking? In his book Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays, Hawking explains that matter is borrowed gravitational energy from the expansion of the universe. Most of that matter / energy came into existence at the time of fastest expansion, in the first second or so after the Big Bang.
In case anyone considers that matter just appearing is an unacceptable concept, firstly it is happening right now inside your own body: quantum particles disappear and reappear all the time. Secondly, if you are religious, would it not be hypocritical to attack an idea you find difficult to comprehend if you simultaneously criticise others for attempting to understand the nature of your god-that-cannot-be-understood?
Gravity is the experience we have that results from the curving effect mass has on space-time. It looks like BD has things exactly the wrong way round.
As for t8's attack on Hawking's character, perhaps t8 will make an honest person of himself and put up the mathematics that shows Hawking doesn't know what he is talking about. Failing that, perhaps he could justify his use of religious metaphor in describing the nature of scientific understanding.
We should acknowledge the genius of those who have investigated the universe and modeled it, while simultaneously keeping up a withering attack on those ideas in order to improve or replace the models with better ones. That is what those “prophets” expect. On the other hand, name a religion that does not expect mindless reverence for its prophets. Religions do not constantly seek to undermine ideas in an effort to make progress, it is generally the reverse. The Dalai Lama does have such a refined attitude though. Does he lead an actual religion? It is hard to tell!
Stuart
since Gravity only has relevence to mass, Hawkins assumes Mass has no creationyou wrote:
Quote Gravity is the experience we have that results from the curving effect mass has on space-time Compare what we both wrote and see that pbviously I know what I am talking about there is no curving effect without mass.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
