Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
God did not create the universe...
-
03-09-2010 6:39pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,217 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59144
That line is so full of holes in another way though. Its like the old saw "if god created everything, what created god?" and so forth. Equally daft. Where and how did gravity itself arise? It's like he said a law(though even there...) but that law arose somehow. If the universe arose because gravity exists, he seems to be suggesting that gravity, or the parameters of the law of gravity existed "before" time. Therefore it had to spontaneously appear, along with every single quanta of information. Why should it exist? Why should that energy expand from a singularity, why should there be a singularity at all?Hawking wrote:Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,
Those questions I suspect will forever be just out of reach, mostly because as children of the universe and the experience of it we bring too many preconceptions to bear. Even the simple notion of before the universe. There was no before. Time didnt exist yet. Time may not exist in the way we think anyway. In the sense that it is but a part of the universe as we perceive it.
If you could stand out side the universe and see it in all dimensions, it may just look like an impossibly dense singularity, containing all the information states(in time and movement) of every single quanta that exists. To the outside it may not have ever gone bang in the first place. It just appears to us to have and we're just movements on the surface of a infinitely unsteady state singularity. Maybe gravity is the "sound" of those movements?
Ah feckit my head hurts and I had some after work beers so I beg your indulgences
:D Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
-
-
That line is so full of holes in another way though. Its like the old saw "if god created everything, what created god?" and so forth. Equally daft. Where and how did gravity itself arise? It's like he said a law(though even there...) but that law arose somehow. If the universe arose because gravity exists, he seems to be suggesting that gravity, or the parameters of the law of gravity existed "before" time. Therefore it had to spontaneously appear, along with every single quanta of information. Why should it exist? Why should that energy expand from a singularity, why should there be a singularity at all?
Those questions I suspect will forever be just out of reach, mostly because as children of the universe and the experience of it we bring too many preconceptions to bear. Even the simple notion of before the universe. There was no before. Time didnt exist yet. Time may not exist in the way we think anyway. In the sense that it is but a part of the universe as we perceive it.
If you could stand out side the universe and see it in all dimensions, it may just look like an impossibly dense singularity, containing all the information states(in time and movement) of every single quanta that exists. To the outside it may not have ever gone bang in the first place. It just appears to us to have and we're just movements on the surface of a infinitely unsteady state singularity. Maybe gravity is the "sound" of those movements?
Ah feckit my head hurts and I had some after work beers so I beg your indulgences:D
Ya the concept of time not existing before the big bang is a hard one for me to grasp.
Although it does stop the endless loop of who created the creator and so on.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
That line is so full of holes in another way though. Its like the old saw "if god created everything, what created god?" and so forth. Equally daft. Where and how did gravity itself arise? It's like he said a law(though even there...) but that law arose somehow. If the universe arose because gravity exists, he seems to be suggesting that gravity, or the parameters of the law of gravity existed "before" time. Therefore it had to spontaneously appear, along with every single quanta of information. Why should it exist? Why should that energy expand from a singularity, why should there be a singularity at all?
Those questions I suspect will forever be just out of reach, mostly because as children of the universe and the experience of it we bring too many preconceptions to bear. Even the simple notion of before the universe. There was no before. Time didnt exist yet. Time may not exist in the way we think anyway. In the sense that it is but a part of the universe as we perceive it.
If you could stand out side the universe and see it in all dimensions, it may just look like an impossibly dense singularity, containing all the information states(in time and movement) of every single quanta that exists. To the outside it may not have ever gone bang in the first place. It just appears to us to have and we're just movements on the surface of a infinitely unsteady state singularity. Maybe gravity is the "sound" of those movements?
Ah feckit my head hurts and I had some after work beers so I beg your indulgences:D
Gravity exists. I sit here typing on a keyboard. The fact hat every single thing on my desk is not stuck to the ceiling is a testament to the existence of gravity.
That this planet has not floated off into space is a testament to the gravitational pull of the large piece of mass that is the sun.
The existence of god (or lack thereof) is a testament to human imagination, fear of the unknown and our innate quest to explain that which we do not comprehend.
As we have progressed as a species, we have found ways to understand that which we previously put down to acts of God.
Let's take a simple bible story for example. Jesus walks on water.
Science has shown that the sea of Galilea was prone to freezing over in the time of Jesus. Ice is water in its frozen form. Jesus may have just walked across a frozen portion of the sea. Does that make him the son of God? I think not.
As for the creation of the universe, Hawkings' theories may indeed hold weight (and mass
), but as they are only theories, we cannot be sure.
Unlike either of us, he has devoted his life to studying the creation of the universe, so would know infinitely more than us. That's not to say either of us are clueless on the matter. It's just that he would know quite a lot more than both of us.
I would be more inclined to believe Hawking than the average preacher.
Hawking studies facts. Religious people study parables.
Terry 1: Wibbs 15,000.
Wibbs, you need to drink more and i need to drink less. 0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Ickle Magoo wrote: »Not unless you want to hear how well they can compartmentalise yet again.
Fortunately that's also nonsense. For many scientists it is their awe in Creation that leads them to study further about it.
Theists are merely open to the idea that maybe, not everything is material. Indeed, if everything isn't material, and if science is what deals with the material rather than the immaterial. That has intriguing consequences for epistemology doesn't it?
Indeed, an idea that not only has been in mainline religion, but also in metaphysical philosophy. This means that theism, and science can be perfectly compatible, as one is dealing with different content matter than another.
I hope the philosophy hasn't flown by anyones consideration :pac:0 -
-
-
-
-
Eh wrong hawkins....it says in the bible that he did create the universe and because the bible is also known as the gospel and gospel is another way of saying absolute truth then we must conclude that god indeed did create the universe.......stop having a go at god hawkins just because he put you in a wheelchair and gave you a funny voice
So if something is called 'gospel' it is automatically true?
'The gospel according to GarethWA: There is no god!'
Uh oh...paradox!
0 -
-
Advertisement
Advertisement