Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God


Recommended Posts

Nihilus

So what created physics?

God.

What created God?

Physics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
JustGeorge

no, you are quite wrong here, our universe is not that old, and NOT infinite. As far as we currently understand, it's at most only around a dozen billion years old, and similarly around a dozen billion light years large. Far far FAR less than gazillions upon gazillions of years and gazillions upon gazillions of lightyears of space needed to make a spontaneously formed car a possibility. You obviously lack any knowledge regarding the age and size of our universe, and basic statistics. For example, the chance of all molecules in a cubic meter space, in their completely random movements, all spontaneously move in a certain way, to form a certain object, is around 1/10^50, and yes that's a practically negligible chance, but mathematically speaking, it is NOT zero, and given enough time and enough space, you may well find it happening at some time, some place.

On the other hand, if you make the requirement less strict, then you'll find the chance going higher considerably. For example, you may not be able to find a spontaneously formed car due to the relatively young age and small size of our universe, if you just want an appearance of a car, you may very well find some rocks on our Earth to have been carved into the likeness of a car by the random natural forces of our planet. Sure that's far from a full functional, working car, but heck the chance of random winds and storms carving rocks into the likeness of a car is still quite small, yet the age and size of our (cosmically speaking very young and very tiny) planet Earth is obviously enough for that to actually happen already.

Saying "No way a car is going to form radomly" just shows you don't know the meaning of the word "random", nor basic maths. Everything has a chance, but usually we just count chances as small as 1/10^50 as practically zero.

And semantically speaking, we humans are part of the forces of the universe, so yes everything we humans made ARE due to the forces of the universe. I just don't understand the sentiments that suggest we humans as not part of the universe, we are a part of the universe, we are a part of nature, we are a part of the lifeforms on Earth, and we are a species belonging to the Animal Kingdom.

Kingdom: Animalia

Phylum: Chordata

Class: Mammalia

Order: Primates

Family: Hominidae

Subfamily: Homininae

Tribe: Hominini

Genus: Homo

Species: H. sapiens

No we are not anything that special or separate from the universe.

Whatever.... I don't care what the the odds of a car forming by chance are mathematically on paper. A car and all its components were designed by an intelligent being (us) and everything its made of has a function to perform. All the particles and years you can muster will never come together to form such a complex machine. You believe what the math is telling you and I'll continue to ignorantly rely on common sense. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a goat to sacrifice :whistle:

BTW, when did I make any claims as to how old the universe was?

Link to post
Share on other sites
wellofsouls

Whatever.... I don't care what the the odds of a car forming by chance are mathematically on paper. A car and all its components were designed by an intelligent being (us) and everything its made of has a function to perform. All the particles and years you can muster will never come together to form such a complex machine. You believe what the math is telling you and I'll continue to ignorantly rely on common sense. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a goat to sacrifice :whistle:

heh, when it comes to quantum physics, you'd find that common sense has little meaning there. If you rely solely on your "common sense", then you have little place in a theoretical physics discussion. :whistle:

All the particles and years you can muster will never come together to form such a complex machine.

LOL, I don't disagree with that, since I can't really "muster" much particles and years. I'm a human being, meaning I can live around 100 years most, if not less, and I most likely won't go anywhere outside of planet Earth.

On the other hand, even with this severely limited "muster" of time and space, I can find the likeness of a car or even a human in naturally and randomly formed rocks. So what's the chances of rocks spontaneous formed into the appearance of cars from your "common sense"? Or, say, ten rocks each with one of the decimal digits carved on them as the result of corrosion from random winds and water flows? We invented the decimal digits each with a function to perform, and each of the decimal digits is designed by intelligent being (us) too. So how do you take the fact that random actions of winds and water flows somehow "predicted" them millions of years ago? :whistle:

BTW, when did I make any claims as to how old the universe was?

here

Your're basically saying that everything we've invented over the course of our existence would've been made anyway due to the forces of the universe.

you are clearly showing your ignorance on how old and large our universe is, or ever will be, in that sentence of yours :whistle:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nihilus

Whatever.... I don't care what the the odds of a car forming by chance are mathematically on paper. A car and all its components were designed by an intelligent being (us) and everything its made of has a function to perform. All the particles and years you can muster will never come together to form such a complex machine. You believe what the math is telling you and I'll continue to ignorantly rely on common sense. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a goat to sacrifice :whistle:

Hmm, it isn't really common sense if it goes against the math. And I'm coming in halfway through this argument, but are you comparing the complexity of life to the spontaneous generation of a car?

No current theory states that life came into existence that way, that's why we have evolution and natural selection. Complexity arising from the simple application of natural laws and processes, it lowers the odds in our favour considerably ;)

I can see/understand how some people think the universe happened without devine intervention and also the side of those that do believe in intelligent design creationism.

Fixed.
My opinion is that this universe coming into existence without a creator is about as likely as finding a car parked on the polar ice cap on Mars. Everything that makes up an automobile has a purpose, put there by its creator. The radiator cools the engine, the brakes stop the vehicle, the engine makes the vehicle go....etc. If you found a car on another planet, you would immediately come to the conclusion that someone created it because of how its made.

And yet, if you learnt a little about evolution, you would realise that it results in exactly what you describe above. Life, after a sufficient period of time, would be very well adapted to it's environment and so everything would appear "designed" to work there.

When I look at the universe and everything in it, including us, I apply the same logic. Everything seems to have a specific purpose or role to play.

What is the purpose of vestigial organs? What is the purpose of a universe so vast we could never traverse it? What is the purpose of Uranus?

There are plenty of things without any immediately apparent purpose in the universe, including ourselves, I find it hard to believe there is a mysterious and secret plan behind all of it.

I look at the universe and I see waste. If it was built by a creator it definitely wasn't an efficient one, it's almost as though it wasn't designed especially for you, but that life somehow... evolved... to live in it.

Not having proof of God's existence does not disprove his existence, again in my opinion.

Occam's Razor. Burden of Proof. Invisible pink unicorns etc.

Besides, you can't really expect people to find evidence god doesn't exist. I mean seriously, think of an experiment that couldn't be waved away with "oh, god doesn't like being tested". Or the old "it's a test of faith!". What's more telling IMHO is that after all this time, the only thing proved one way or another with religions has been in science's favour.

On the other side, one could argue that at some point, something had to come from nothing and if God just is because he is, then why could'nt everything else just have come into existence the same way? It really boggles my mind trying to wrap my head around the concept of something just coming to be which is where faith comes into play.

Well it doesn't seem that complicated. It's entirely plausible that you can get something from nothing. Happens all the time, look up vacuum energy. Maybe a more interesting question than "how did something come from nothing" would be "why is something more stable than nothing".

And again, with this complexity predicts likelihood of an event happening. The big bang was an immense burst of energy, and the resulting matter/energy coalesced and through natural laws eventually coalesced into suns, created heavy elements, planets etc. In turn on one of these trillions of planets RNA coalesced in a way that it could replicate (there is some work on this btw if you want I can find it.), and eventually through the process of evolution we came to be. Complexity from simplicity, reached through no more than the application of natural laws.

OR. God spontaneously came into existence. An omnipotent, omniscient entity infinitely powerful and knowledgeable, far more complicated than the universe itself (he must be, if he is omniscient) and yet capable of spontaneously appearing.

So let me get this straight, you won't believe a car can spontaneously appear given trillions of years, and trillions of light years of space/matter in which to do it... but you believe something more powerful, and containing more information, than the entire universe can?!

Believe what you wish, but don't bash someone else for having a belief thats different than yours.

Well that's a nice sentiment, but it's not really bashing. It's pointing out the flaws in their arguments. God is a scientific hypothesis like any other, it's just a flawed one. I don't see why people should be protected for choosing to believe in him. As long as we don't do it in their homes/places of worship their opinions are free game.

Especially when so often laws and political campaigns are based on flawed, subjective, religious opinions. Despite all that inconvenient "separation of church and state" crap every modern civilised nation worked so hard to accomplish.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Darius Alexander

People should not care what these people, such as Stephen Hawking, say. Instead, they should think for themselves instead of falling under the group mentality.

Propaganda by Jacques Elllul

http://web.archive.org/web/20030825213119/www.genfoods.net/?pid=9910807

Excerpted from Jacques Ellul. Propaganda: The Formation of Men?s Attitudes. New York: Vintage Books, 1973

In addition to a certain living standard, another condition must be met: if man is to be successfully propagandized, he needs at least a minimum of culture. Propaganda cannot succeed where people have no trace of Western culture. We are not speaking here of intelligence; some primitive tribes are surely intelligent, but have an intelligence foreign to our concepts and customs. A base is needed ? for example, education; a man who cannot read will escape most propaganda, as will a man who is not interested in reading. People used to think that learning to read evidenced human progress; they still celebrate the decline of illiteracy as a great victory; they condemn countries with a large proportion of illiterates; they think that reading is a road to freedom. All this is debatable, for the important thing is not to be able to read, but to understand what one reads, to reflect on and judge what one reads. Outside of that, reading has no meaning (and even destroys certain automatic qualities of memory and observation). But to talk about critical faculties and discernment is to talk about something far above primary education and to consider a very small minority. The vast majority of people, perhaps 90% percent, know how to read, but do not exercise their intelligence beyond this. They attribute authority and eminent value to the printed word, or, conversely, reject it altogether. As these people do not possess enough knowledge to reflect and discern, they believe ? or disbelieve ? in toto what they read. And as such people, moreover, will select the easiest, not the hardest, reading matter, they are precisely on the level at which the printed word can seize and convince them without opposition. They are perfectly adapted to propaganda.

Let us not say: "If one gave them good things to read... If these people received a better education?" Such an argument has no validity because things just are not that way. Let us not say, either: "This is only the first stage; soon their education will be better; one must begin somewhere." First of all, it takes a very long time to pass from the first to the second stage; in France, the first stage was reached half a century ago, and we still are very far from attaining the second. There is more, unfortunately. This first stage has placed man at the disposal of propaganda. Before he can pass to the second stage, he will find himself in a universe of propaganda. He will be already formed, adapted, integrated. This is why the development of culture in the U.S.S.R. can take place without danger. One can reach a higher level of culture without ceasing to be a propagandee as long as one was a propagandee before acquiring critical faculties, and as long as that culture itself is integrated into a universe of propaganda. Actually, the most obvious result of primary education in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries was to make the individual susceptible to superpropaganda.1 There is no chance of raising the intellectual level of Western populations sufficiently and rapidly enough to compensate for the progress of propaganda. Propaganda techniques have advanced so much faster than the reasoning capacity of the average man that to close this gap and shape this man intellectually outside the framework of propaganda is almost impossible. In fact, what happens and what we see all around us is the claim that propaganda itself is our culture and what the masses ought to learn. Only in and through propaganda have the masses access to political economy, politics, art, or literature. Primary education makes it possible to enter the realm of propaganda, in which people then receive their intellectual and cultural environment.

The uncultured man cannot be reached by propaganda. Experience and research done by the Germans between 1933 and 1938 showed that in remote areas, where people hardly knew how to read, propaganda had no effect The same holds true for the enormous effort in the Communist world to teach people how to read. In Korea, the local script was terribly difficult and complicated; so, in North Korea, the Communists created an entirely new alphabet and a simple script in order to teach all the people how to read. In China, Mao simplified the script in his battle with illiteracy, and in some places in China new alphabets are being created. This would have no particular significance except that the texts used to teach the adult students how to read ? and which are the only texts to which they have access ? are exclusively propaganda texts; they are political tracts, poems to the glory of the Communist regime, extracts of classical Marxism. Among the Tibetans, the Mongols, the Ouighbours, the Manchus, the only texts in the new script are Mao?s works. Thus, we see here a wonderful shaping tool: The illiterates are taught to read only the new script; nothing is published in that script except propaganda texts; therefore, the illiterates cannot possibly read ? or know ? anything else.

Also, one of the most effective propaganda methods in Asia was to establish "teachers" to teach reading and indoctrinate people at the same time. The prestige of the intellectual ? "marked with God?s finger" ? allowed political assertions to appear as Truth, while the prestige of the printed word one learned to decipher confirmed the validity of what the teachers said. These facts leave no doubt that the development of primary education is a fundamental condition for the organization of propaganda, even though such a conclusion may run counter to many prejudices, best expressed by Paul Rivet?s pointed but completely unrealistic words: "A person who cannot read a newspaper is not free."

This need of a certain cultural level to make people susceptible to propaganda2 is best understood if one looks at one of propaganda?s most important devices, the manipulation of symbols. The more an individual participates in the society in which he lives, the more he will cling to stereotyped symbols expressing collective notions about the past and the future of his group. The more stereotypes in a culture, the easier it is to form public opinion, and the more an individual participates in that culture, the more susceptible he becomes to the manipulation of these symbols. The number of propaganda campaigns in the West which have first taken hold in cultured settings is remarkable. This is not only true for doctrinaire propaganda, which is based on exact facts and acts on the level of the most highly developed people who have a sense of values and know a good deal about political realities, such as, for example, the propaganda on the injustice of capitalism, on economic crises, or on colonialism; it is only normal that the most educated people (intellectuals) are the first to be reached by such propaganda? All this runs counter to pat notions that only the public swallows propaganda. Naturally, the educated man does not believe in propaganda; he shrugs and is convinced that propaganda has no effect on him. This is, in fact, one of his great weaknesses, and propagandists are well aware that in order to reach someone, one must first convince him that propaganda is ineffectual and not very clever. Because he is convinced of his own superiority, the intellectual is much more vulnerable than anybody else to this maneuver?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nihilus

People should not care what these people, such as Stephen Hawking, say. Instead, they should think for themselves instead of falling under the group mentality.

+1

But when what that person says is backed up with evidence, logic and sound reasoning the least you could do is consider it. This is not just an argument from authority, nor is it classifiable as propaganda.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kirkburn

People should not care what these people, such as Stephen Hawking, say. Instead, they should think for themselves instead of falling under the group mentality.

That's way too black and white. Of course you should care what they say, just don't believe stuff without question or reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites
argonite

People should not care what these people, such as Stephen Hawking, say. Instead, they should think for themselves instead of falling under the group mentality.

This is a forum where we discuss ideas. I'd say caring about the topic is essential to starting a discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
wellofsouls

Hmm, it isn't really common sense if it goes against the math. And I'm coming in halfway through this argument, but are you comparing the complexity of life to the spontaneous generation of a car?

No current theory states that life came into existence that way, that's why we have evolution and natural selection. Complexity arising from the simple application of natural laws and processes, it lowers the odds in our favour considerably ;)

well, to be fair, common sense is in conflict with maths and science a lot of the time. If we just believe in common sense, we'd still be living in an age where we think the Sun is revolving around the Earth, and how fast an object falls depends on its weight :p

And yup, spontaneous generation of life and spontaneous generation of a car are two completely different things. Actually, a lifeform is a far less specific term than a car in this case. We can have carbon-based life, silicon-based life, or even weirder concepts like EM wave-based life and gravity-based life. And all we need is the formation of a simplest form of life and then it may evolve into more complex lifeforms from there.

the spontaneous generation of a car, on the other hand, is just a mathematical probability that most likely won't happen in the life time of our universe, it only becomes a certainty given infinite space and/or infinite time. But then every possibility becomes a certainty given infinite space and/or infinite time. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hardcore Til I Die

i think his said, God is unnecessary for the universe to be created and exist. but yeah, you have a point!.. anyone?

Whilst the burden of proof is on the person who submits the theory, I think that past studies and the lack of evidence to support a god, and the evidence to support the big bang and evolution (i.e. the universe continually expanding, our similarities to apes), is enough for his theory to hold more weight than that of creationists (who offer no scientific evidence whatsoever, only "faith" -- which I don't have a problem with, but faith cannot convince someone who doesn't believe already or is on the fence!)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Darius Alexander

+1

But when what that person says is backed up with evidence, logic and sound reasoning the least you could do is consider it. This is not just an argument from authority, nor is it classifiable as propaganda.

Yes Nihilus, you are correct about that. What I will point out also is that sometimes logic and evidence alone is not enough in terms of the saying burden of proof. In better words, some things are outside the scope of Science and require the individual's own experience and intuition to fully grasp. The reason I do not trust the people within science is because of its very foundation. Science came from the Royal Society which originated from the Invisible College. If you look into these, you will see they are Masonic and Rosicrucian in nature, by that respective order. Of course, it's not so simple as that as it requires a few hours of explanation.

Regards,

Darius

Link to post
Share on other sites
+M2Ys4U

Yes Nihilus, you are correct about that. What I will point out also is that sometimes logic and evidence alone is not enough in terms of the saying burden of proof. In better words, some things are outside the scope of Science and require the individual's own experience and intuition to fully grasp. The reason I do not trust the people within science is because of its very foundation. Science came from the Royal Society which originated from the Invisible College. If you look into these, you will see they are Masonic and Rosicrucian in nature, by that respective order. Of course, it's not so simple as that as it requires a few hours of explanation.

Regards,

Darius

Wait, what?

You think Science is some sort of Masonic/Rosicrucian conspiracy? Bahahahahahaha :rofl: The scientific method has been around way longer than you think it has.

Also, intuition is probably the worst thing to rely on. The human mind is subject to all sorts of evolutionary hacks that distort our judgement of the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kirkburn

I do not deal with conspiracy per se. Study this for starters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_College

Oooh, how mystical. Oh wait ... it's not. It's some guys with similar ideas getting together.

I fail to see how this has any relevance to modern science, anyway. Stop capitalizing it.

What things are outside the realm of science?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Darius Alexander

Oooh, how mystical. Oh wait ... it's not. It's some guys with similar ideas getting together.

I fail to see how this has any relevance to modern science, anyway. Stop capitalizing it.

What things are outside the realm of science?

I kindly suggest for you to do more studies before coming to conclusions. That, along with you are entitled to believe whatever you wish is all I have to say.

Kind regards Kirkburn,

Darius

Link to post
Share on other sites
McCordRm

We care about what other people say because they just

might be smarter than us. I would have never come

up with E=MC(2), so I'll just take Einstein's word for it.

That doesn't make me one of the sheeple.

Link to post
Share on other sites
wellofsouls

if you had said, <anything - not even space and time> then i wouldn't know. but then you also hit a limitation with language, you cant "create" if there is no space or time for it to be created :/

well, for the current Big Bang theory, space and time does not exist before the Big Bang. The arrow of time starts at Big Bang, and you can only go forward, not backward, since the universe, as a closed system, can only have increasing entropy as a whole.

speaking of language limitations, since Math dies with whenever inifinity / /0 encountered could it mean Physics will never be able to explain few things

well, not to be nitpicking, but Maths does not die with "whenever inifinity / /0 encountered", calculus deal with limits and infinity quite okay, and with the aleph family and complex numbers, people even deal with concepts greater than infinity (for example, 2^infinity > infinity, proven by Cantor with his Set Theory)

Currently Maths does die with things like Russell's Paradox (which deals with a fundamental flaw in the Set Theory) or the Continuum Hypothesis (proven to be a problem which is independent from our current maths system), but even Maths is not constant or unchanging, the mathematical system itself can evolve and change too. Or even multiple parallel maths systems can exist, for example the Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry systems (and our universe is now perceived as a non-Euclidean one). So even when there are cases where Maths "dies" for now, we can improve the Maths system itself or even formulate alternative parallel Maths systems, like we do with physics systems, and we just need to find out which one fits the Truth of our universe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nihilus

Yes Nihilus, you are correct about that. What I will point out also is that sometimes logic and evidence alone is not enough in terms of the saying burden of proof. In better words, some things are outside the scope of Science and require the individual's own experience and intuition to fully grasp.

Well, when it comes to these things the burden of proof really is quite important. You cannot use the scientific method to definitively test for a god, but you can use it to predict with Occam's razor which is more likely. Personally I think the likelihood of something as complicated as an omniscient, omnipotent creator "just existing" speaks for itself.

Using intuition and personal experience is far more suspect a method, as personal judgement is always inherently flawed. You may remember an experience that proves to you god exists, which was in fact only the culmination of coincidence and chance. Or you may mistake "feeling the presence of the divine" for the misfiring of perfectly healthy psychological processes. Or you might just be plain crazy.

To say something is outside the scope of the scientific method is to say it is supernatural. Which means it doesn't effect, and isn't a part of, our world and cannot be tested for. To me, that pretty much says it doesn't exist.

The reason I do not trust the people within science is because of its very foundation. Science came from the Royal Society which originated from the Invisible College. If you look into these, you will see they are Masonic and Rosicrucian in nature, by that respective order. Of course, it's not so simple as that as it requires a few hours of explanation.

Regards,

Darius

Well, that's nice. But science didn't originate from the invisible college. And the scientific method is not Masonic or Rosicrucian in nature. It's the scientific method.

If you honestly believe that the people within science in this day and age are part of a conspiracy, or are somehow biased by science's "mysterious masonic origins" then you should probably try thinking a little more clearly. And analyse exactly how such a vast conspiracy would function, how it would effect science's results and how you could look for that effect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
guru

well, not to be nitpicking, but Maths does not die with "whenever inifinity / /0 encountered", calculus deal with limits and infinity quite okay, and with the aleph family and complex numbers, people even deal with concepts greater than infinity (for example, 2^infinity > infinity, proven by Cantor with his Set Theory)

point taken. how did i miss calculus :blush:

Currently Maths does die with things like Russell's Paradox (which deals with a fundamental flaw in the Set Theory) or the Continuum Hypothesis (proven to be a problem which is independent from our current maths system), but even Maths is not constant or unchanging, the mathematical system itself can evolve and change too. Or even multiple parallel maths systems can exist, for example the Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry systems (and our universe is now perceived as a non-Euclidean one). So even when there are cases where Maths "dies" for now, we can improve the Maths system itself or even formulate alternative parallel Maths systems, like we do with physics systems, and we just need to find out which one fits the Truth of our universe.

great post! Thank you! i learned something new today!

Link to post
Share on other sites
wellofsouls

What I will point out also is that sometimes logic and evidence alone is not enough in terms of the saying burden of proof. In better words, some things are outside the scope of Science and require the individual's own experience and intuition to fully grasp.

well, and there are many things out there you can't ever fully grasp, whether with your own experience and intuition or not. I'd say the Truth is quite outside the scope of you, and everyone, anyway. We have been trying to approach it closer and closer, but we are not going to get there in this day and age, if ever. And believing in God or your intuition doesn't mean you suddenly have full grasp of Life, Universe and Everything. :p

Link to post
Share on other sites
JustGeorge

heh, when it comes to quantum physics, you'd find that common sense has little meaning there. If you rely solely on your "common sense", then you have little place in a theoretical physics discussion. :whistle:

LOL, I don't disagree with that, since I can't really "muster" much particles and years. I'm a human being, meaning I can live around 100 years most, if not less, and I most likely won't go anywhere outside of planet Earth.

On the other hand, even with this severely limited "muster" of time and space, I can find the likeness of a car or even a human in naturally and randomly formed rocks. So what's the chances of rocks spontaneous formed into the appearance of cars from your "common sense"? Or, say, ten rocks each with one of the decimal digits carved on them as the result of corrosion from random winds and water flows? We invented the decimal digits each with a function to perform, and each of the decimal digits is designed by intelligent being (us) too. So how do you take the fact that random actions of winds and water flows somehow "predicted" them millions of years ago? :whistle:

here

you are clearly showing your ignorance on how old and large our universe is, or ever will be, in that sentence of yours :whistle:

Wow, I was under the impression that this was just another new article that anyone was free to read and discuss. My deepest apologies for overstepping my bounds :whistle: Who exactly bestowed upon you the authority to tell others here where they have business being? If this was supposed to be a hardcore discussion on physics, I would've stayed out. You misunderstood some of what I was trying to convey which I normally would've been happy to elaborate, but since you've taken the opportunity to come off insulting with your smartass-like responses, I see little reason to indulge you further. Since you're so fond of the word "ignorant", I would like to comment on how "ignorant" your parents were for not considering the benefits of birth control prior to your conception.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nihilus

Since you're so fond of the word "ignorant", I would like to comment on how "ignorant" your parents were for not considering the benefits of birth control prior to your conception.

So much for healthy debate :/ If someone disagrees with you, then posts an explanation of why, either point out a flaw in his argument or accept it. Or stop posting in the thread.

And you weren't called ignorant, just ignorant concerning the age of the universe. It wasn't a personal attack, it was highlighting your mistake.

Link to post
Share on other sites
JustGeorge

So much for healthy debate :/ If someone disagrees with you, then posts an explanation of why, either point out a flaw in his argument or accept it. Or stop posting in the thread.

And you weren't called ignorant, just ignorant concerning the age of the universe. It wasn't a personal attack, it was highlighting your mistake.

Hey sorry, but his responses come off "holier than thou" which is a bit irritating. Like I said, I was under the impression that this was a simple read/comment kinda story, nothing more. And at no point did I ever make an attempt to guess the age of the universe! :angry:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nihilus

Hey sorry, but his responses come off "holier than thou" which is a bit irritating. Like I said, I was under the impression that this was a simple read/comment kinda story, nothing more. And at no point did I ever make an attempt to guess the age of the universe! :angry:

Meh, maybe he misinterpreted you. You commented that a car would not "form radomly no matter how many gazillion years and particles you have in the mix." Maybe he just took you a little too literally with the gazillion part.

Link to post
Share on other sites
GJVC

I can see/understand how some people think the universe happened without devine intervention and also the side of those that do believe in intelligent design. My opinion is that this universe coming into existence without a creator is about as likely as finding a car parked on the polar ice cap on Mars. Everything that makes up an automobile has a purpose, put there by its creator. The radiator cools the engine, the brakes stop the vehicle, the engine makes the vehicle go....etc. If you found a car on another planet, you would immediately come to the conclusion that someone created it because of how its made. When I look at the universe and everything in it, including us, I apply the same logic. Everything seems to have a specific purpose or role to play. Not having proof of God's existence does not disprove his existence, again in my opinion.

On the other side, one could argue that at some point, something had to come from nothing and if God just is because he is, then why could'nt everything else just have come into existence the same way? It really boggles my mind trying to wrap my head around the concept of something just coming to be which is where faith comes into play. I simply do not have the mental capacity or the information required to process such an event. We're all pretty young as far as universe goes and I don't expect any of us will be alive when this is all figured out.

Bottom line: Believe what you wish, but don't bash someone else for having a belief thats different than yours.

an automobile can't evolve from a box of scraps, unlike living creatures. Your argument is invalid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.