Hawking: Universe happened without god.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Why is your statement "3" exempt from your laws '1' and '2' ???

Well God as I said isn't part of His creation, He is what He is. He was, is, and
always will be the same, this is not part of the universe's history as defined by
everyone who dates it. So what is applied to the universe is not an issue with
God.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
I know I have pointed this out to you many many times before, but that claim is not known to be true, and quantum mechanics strongly suggests that it is false.

Strongly suggests it is false, okay...you have the first cause some where you'd
like to share with me than?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Well God as I said isn't part of His creation, He is what He is. He was, is, and
always will be the same, this is not part of the universe's history as defined by
everyone who dates it. So what is applied to the universe is not an issue with
God.
Kelly

And you know this how?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I would be satisfied in the truth were taught. I am not advocating for religious rituals or anything of that nature be taught in the science class or in any class in school, only the truth.

In other words you are ok with religious indoctrination being foisted on kids in a science class. Case closed.

Originally posted by KellyJay
How do you know, no God is required? As I pointed out something from nothing
isn't ever answered, ever! There is always something that is apart of the
current universe that caused another part of the current universe and so on.
While God is the creator of the universe and does not have a cause. So unless
you can come up with a something from nothing tha ...[text shortened]... t a valid reason or cause than
any other matter of faith, and in my opinion more so.
Kelly

God from nothing seems just as much a non-answer as any other something from nothing. If you can get god from nothing why not a whole universe?

Originally posted by RJHinds
It beams Him down to Earth when He wants to intervene in the affairs of man.

It must be broken then. He hasn't put in a personal appearance for well over 2000 years.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Not knowing just means you are ignorant.

Correct. Fortunately though ignorance can be cured if one is willing to put in some work. I have come to the conclusion that the root cause of the continued existence of absolute belief in the contents of the bible is simply intellectual laziness.

Originally posted by Kepler
Correct. Fortunately though ignorance can be cured if one is willing to put in some work. I have come to the conclusion that the root cause of the continued existence of absolute belief in the contents of the bible is simply intellectual laziness.

Intellectual laziness is only part of the answer. I think the rest is due to religious indoctrination at an early age. Like Hitler said, give me a child at 6, I'll make him mine for life.

Originally posted by sonhouse
And you know this how?

Faith, not science...
The same thing you have when it comes to a Godless beginning of all things.
Kelly

Originally posted by Kepler
God from nothing seems just as much a non-answer as any other something from nothing. If you can get god from nothing why not a whole universe?

I never said you get God from nothing, I said God always was, is, and will be
the same. That takes out all need for a cause for God, which is not what we
have when it comes to all things within in the universe. Which brings me back
to my earlier point, science has nothing about the beginning yet people believe
or want to believe in this void of cause or reason anyway just to say God is not
required.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Faith, not science...
The same thing you have when it comes to a Godless beginning of all things.
Kelly

Not the same at all. You theists INSIST on equating evidence based science with faith and that is utter nonsense. You go with what evidence you have. We have the idea of the big bang, it so far fits all the known facts so we run with it and see where it takes us.

All we know is the BB idea fits what we know about the cosmos.

If something else comes along, new telescope gets built that totally refutes the Hubble scope or Hershel and so forth, after checking and rechecking, we go, ok, we were wrong about that so lets see some new physics.

Scientists HOPE to find new physics since they know full well the standard model does not explain everything.

If something better comes along that explains the cosmos, so be it, we go with the new evidence that supersedes the old. That by definition is not faith.

In your 'faith', your story stays exactly the same 1000 years ago, today, and 1000 later since there is only one bible and so many people are already indoctrinated by Christianity.

If you can't recognize the difference, you have a big issue with a concept called 'cognitive dissonance.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Not the same at all. You theists INSIST on equating evidence based science with faith and that is utter nonsense. You go with what evidence you have. We have the idea of the big bang, it so far fits all the known facts so we run with it and see where it takes us.

All we know is the BB idea fits what we know about the cosmos.

If something else comes recognize the difference, you have a big issue with a concept called 'cognitive dissonance.

I insist on calling faith what it is, and if you do not have anything at all to call
"this is how it was done" you do not have a leg to stand on dismissing God as
the cause! You don't have a cause, so to say God is not required is faith on
your part, due to for no reason other than He isn't something you want to
acknowledge, because you don't have another cause/reason to say this is how
it all began! There isn't an all things being equal so take the what doesn't
require this or that if you don't have a this or that to show what was more
likely.
Kelly

Originally posted by sonhouse
Not the same at all. You theists INSIST on equating evidence based science with faith and that is utter nonsense. You go with what evidence you have. We have the idea of the big bang, it so far fits all the known facts so we run with it and see where it takes us.

All we know is the BB idea fits what we know about the cosmos.

If something else comes recognize the difference, you have a big issue with a concept called 'cognitive dissonance.

Your stories about how it all began are just that too, they may be based upon
what you call evidence, but in the end they are still stories on how it could have
happen. They can wrong just like a movie based upon a true story can be,
which is they can be completely wrong on many of the key points or most of
them. Look at the movie Jurassic park do you think/believe the movie was a
correct error free representation of what dinosaurs looked like an acted like, or
was it the author’s beliefs only even though he may have used what he could
to come up with the appearances and behaviors!?
Kelly

Originally posted by sonhouse
Not the same at all. You theists INSIST on equating evidence based science with faith and that is utter nonsense. You go with what evidence you have. We have the idea of the big bang, it so far fits all the known facts so we run with it and see where it takes us.

All we know is the BB idea fits what we know about the cosmos.

If something else comes ...[text shortened]... recognize the difference, you have a big issue with a concept called 'cognitive dissonance.

"If something better comes along that explains the cosmos, so be it, we go with the new evidence that supersedes the old. That by definition is not faith."

That is just someone saying I don't know if I'm right, but I know your wrong.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Strongly suggests it is false, okay...you have the first cause some where you'd
like to share with me than?
Kelly

No, I do not have the first cause nor did I even suggest that I did. In fact, I suggested the exact opposite - that no first cause is required, but that was not my main point. My main point is that your claim is false (or at best not known to be true) and any argument based on said claim is thus flawed.