[andyt]

stratos wrote:

andyt wrote:

I was refering to the headline.

Why is it you feel the need to ber insulting, are you so deprived of self confidence that they only way you feel good about yourself is to attempt to put down others? You have shown just how pathetic of a person you truly are.

And who is this God you seem to hate so much you spend so much time putting down God and christians you must realy have no life and only your hate of others to go on.

You want to argue logic with some headline writer, go ahead. But, even from the headline, Hawkins is not saying there is no God (something he is smart enough not to assert), just that the universe wasn't created by Him.

Sorry for being insulting. How's this: Your statement is not logically consistent, your conclusion does not logically follow your premise. You must have flunked logic 101.

Did I say I hate God? Is asking who you believe God is expressing hatred toward Him? As for Christians, believe it or not, there are many who are insightful enough to realize that a guy in the sky who first favors Jews and then switches to people who believe in His Son, micromanages human affairs and condemns many people to eternal torment just isn't much of a God. Their imaginations are bigger than that.

[sandorski]

GreenTiger wrote:

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

andyt wrote:

Nobody created people, just universes. Once created they follow the laws of physics and evolution to produce intelligent life. The article doesn't speculate, but maybe there's no beginning or end to time. "We have always created the universes, we always will create the universes. The moment is structured that way."

The only factual answer to who created this all, if anybody even had a hand in it is, WE HAVE NO IDEA! That's the only honest and true answer to that question. Any other answer be it scientific or theologic is pure specualtion/faith/belief.

To admit we don't don't know is part of science, we can try to find out through experimentation, but when you don't know and you attempt to come up with an explanation anyway is argument from ignorance. To him science is a religion.

Negative.

[CanadianJeff]

andy one of your biggest problems is that you assume that it has to be a who?

What if there is no such absolute as nothingness what if the universe?

M theory which is an offshoots of string theory proposes just this. It's worth researching.

[andyt]

CanadianJeff wrote:

andy one of your biggest problems is that you assume that it has to be a who?

What if there is no such absolute as nothingness what if the universe?

M theory which is an offshoots of string theory proposes just this. It's worth researching.

Geez, and I thought I had much bigger problems. Who am I assuming has to be a who?


WTF does this mean: "What if there is no such absolute as nothingness what if the universe?"

I'll look into M theory.

[andyt]

Quote:

Stephen Hawking originally believed that M-Theory may be the ultimate theory but later suggested that the search for understanding of mathematics and physics will never be complete.[2]

And the mystery continues. Could call it G theory (you know why) since then reality is ultimately unknowable.

[djakeydd]

Hawking needs to go back to his physics and forget philosophy, he's out of his league. The following is NOT my endorsement of RCism..

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/sep/10090704.html