Only a REAL FOOL would claim there is no God! Man creates awesome skyscrapers, fake hearts, tunnels, vehicles etc.. If we are very imperfect then what more can God create THE UNIVERSE! You must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior to receive eternal rest in heaven! Simple! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! Repent & accept Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ or HELL?!? Visit cbn. com
This was a fantastic interview (this vid is only a tiny segment). I think the music and video you added, and the editing, were great! :) Much enjoyed.
@slugfly want to learn the Truth about God: human + being(soul), please read thewayhomeorfacethefiredotnet ( not a religious book or book about religions)
@AnimeTV100 ok. yes that was a somewhat stupid question, but it was innocent, and to hear hawkings, answer stupid question with such brilliance is just awesome
@AnimeTV100 want to learn the Truth about God: human + being(soul), please read thewayhomeorfacethefiredotnet ( not a religious book or book about religions)
Religion will always be speculation, at least within a time frame i can comprehend, i think it is fair to say we know so little about the world around that if there was a god it would be beyond any we can imagine, an entity so complex that there would have to be an explanation for the creation of himself independent of the laws the govern us. i think this seems far fetched, i take the view, the universe has been and will walways exist.maybe thats because i can't comprehend a god that fits.
@XepicmeauX Without doubt, one of the factors in the emergence of anti-religious ideas and a phalanx of deniers of God, has been the false teachings, the inadequacies and the intellectual perversions of the followers of some religions. The peculiarities and separate characteristics of each religion must, therefore, be individually examined when studying the reasons that have led men to adhere to that religion.
@1tabligh I think all religions tend to promise enlightment and exclusive acess to some unknown truths or superstitious abilities. At the end of the day nothing can be proved, not even the existence of our own materialistic reality, so that is why i think Religion is nothing more than speculation on what we do not know yet. Organised religion tends to demand faith and the suspend critical thinking, what was once probably centres of philosophy have turned into thought dicatorships.
Scholars are agreed that religious beliefs have always been intertwined with human life. However, their opinions differ concerning the fundamental roots of religion and the factors that have played a primary role in its establishment and development. Their judgments, in this respect, are generally based on studies of *superstitious* religions and primitive beliefs, with the result that their conclusions are, in the final analysis, defective and illogical.
@XepicmeauX Western intellectuals were aware only of the superstitious aspect of false religion and how the established dogmas of religion lacked all logical basis, so they had no hesitation in condemning religion as such to be baseless. Their judgment was based on their discouraging experiences with their own religion, and it could not fail, then, to be hasty, unrealistic, irrational and illogical.
I have a theory, so don't flame me yet, but is it possible that, for example, he was only the spark on your lighter, but you are the oxygen that supplies it with fuel to hold the flae alive? IMHO, thats what i think, he is watching, and doesn't interfere since then he would ruin everything he built, like when you build a skyskraper(?) by those woody things and you simple nudge it and it falls down again. He would have to rebuild it again. And he is nothing but mass, he is not shaped, he is E.T.!
@bdrake196 then why is he getting his hypothetical ass kicked by a cripple who can't walk and can only talk through a machine that uses his eye movements to create language?
@bdrake196 That doesn't convince, when you consider what happens to a shutting down (commonly via oxygen deprivation (to the brain, not the body itself)) brain.
@bdrake196 No evidence of anything even remotely LIKE a spirit, and I never mentioned anyone actually dying: it IS possible to be revived while the brain is shut(ting) down.
@bdrake196 Actually, there ARE those that do. We live in a predominately christian area of the world, and the media usually only shows what they think will sell, so it's really no surprise that you haven't heard of them.
Do some research next time:
near-death(dot)com/experiences/buddhism02.html
near-death(dot)com/hindu.html
I'm too lazy to find you more, but I'm sure you could.
I will not debate your age, but I will debate the "13 year-olds are smart" bit, having been there before, and considering your calling of one of the smartest people of our time "stupid", when he supplied proof of the no-hair theorem of black holes.
13 year-old are, for instance, just getting started on physics.
@therealfriday13th and yes, that is an appropriate use of "your", and you called him stupid, and you own what you say; it is "your" speech, not "you are" speech.
@bdrake196 360, but I don't have live or mw3. Which reminds me to find something other than fraps for recording Skyrim...Xfire's saying "fark you" and fraps breaks up the recording into minute segments that skip.
@Jerkanos want to learn the Truth about God: human + being(soul), please read thewayhomeorfacethefiredotnet ( not a religious book or book about religions)
@bdrake196 So if an alien comes along,touches hawkings and he stands up will you bow down before him and worship him as your god? If a human doctor manadges to cure him will he be your god?
Just because a being has superior knowladge and understanding doesn't make it a god.Even if there is a creator he still wouldn't be divine.Simply put,he'd be smarter/viser.
I ask you this.If one day our decendents were to create a universe would that make them divine?
@TheBlackIdentety no,i wouldn't,because he says himself he is the messiah,but whatever,and ur late for commenting on this a month or more after i post it
@bdrake196 I can tell my oppinion of the bullshit you're talking any day and you didn't answer my question eather.You just came back with more bullshit.
Took me several pauses to absorb all this info....but what Carl Sagan says about God and religion is so damn correct. If the laws of the universe are considered 'god' then yes, god exists...but lets be honest, no religious person will admit his god is only scientific and created by studying science...for them the notion that God is an all governing spirit with human qualities will live on, sadly...the good news is, Carl Sagan's teachings will always live on..
in india ,tamilnadu ,human souls are taken under earth ,under rocks ,even to several thousnds kilometers under rocks,taking old revenges ,vengenes ,conspirancies ,polatics and given different shapes .in sevrages and made like aliens .taking under earth and beating and burning .please save to every one,every molecules and request to bring all the souls ,creatures from under earth to on earth .and requests to request not to spoil souls and humans.please save from pains sufferings .please save
I believe that man kind is at its beginning not that we r not advanced but that there is a thousand more questions to solve and that to answer them we need to be more advanced that we already r
ABsence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. SImply the fact is that there is no known evidence that any scientificly literate person could accept in either the existance or the lack of existance of a deity or deities.
Politics and Religion are redundant, it is time for Science and Spirituality. Being an avid lover of both of the latter, I totally agree. What I can't understand is this... if you believe that God created the world, and then created us in HIS image, why can't you then understand, that creation now lies in our own hands. GOD lies in our own hands... and every day, we create - either in his name - ie love, peace and joy, or not - ie war, hatred and pain. Science is just us, learning the recipe.
God is the ultimate scientist, and we are just learning from his creations. Until now there are things in this world that we don't know, and we keep ourselves knowing it even though it's beyond our limit.
God is the Ultimate Scientist, and we are just learning from His creations, and until now, there are still things in world that we don't know, and we are keeping ourselves to know them even though it's beyond our limit.
Physics & Theology # Everybody creates his God according to his own image and spirit If triangles made a God they would give him three sides / C. de Montesquieu / If physicists made God they would give him concrete physical parameters Which parameters they can be ? We know that God is something Infinite The conception of Infinity we can find in Bible & Physics Are they different ? I think they are equal Does Physicists meet God in Infinite ? Nobody knows what Infinity is
I am not a "creationist" but a scientist who uses the empirical methods of science. If something is speculation then I do not treat it as fact. Why would Hawking or any other scientist think there was a beginning? If you extrapolate backwards mathematically to some sort of beginning it is all speculation. Where did the energy/matter come from? Where did the laws of the Universe come from? Just saying there was a "beginning" because it makes you feel good is not science. It is a creation myth.
correct me if i'm wrong but emptiness has been explained by antimatter....you must try to understand the facts.... and you don't need to be direspectfull.
Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein — considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. Who denys the existence of physical laws?
Just because Gamers make games, doesn't mean they don't like to play them, thats why there called gamers, the rules are the artwork of the game that frame it just sooooo=) Once a law is found the object of the game is to use the laws of spirit, nature and science to break the laws of reality. Sometimes ya make a game and ya gotta ya know....make a couple friends...>.<
@ulisesroche you seem to not understand when a person is speaking in allegory, or metaphor. I put words in qoutes for a reason; I was speaking in parable, and I don't believe in a literal god any more then scientists do. The god I make reference to is nothing more then the natural laws and order of the universe, anthropomorphized. Of course there's not an actual god, of course I don't believe in him. BUT - These kinds of concepts need to be taught in order for science to accessible to more.
you see I've never understood this uneccessary struggle between science and religion. It's possible that science covers the how and religion covers the way. I think that science is a way of exploring what a supposed creator left behind by using the tools given to discover the world. It's impossible to make a thing without putting yourself into it, so it stands to reason that science is the way a believer of any religion can grow closer to their deity. We can gleam 'god' by knowing his 'creation'
My issue with god is that there exists no empirical evidence in support of the idea, and that no mortal can argue the idea entirely sanely or logically in a scientific way. And if there exists no hard evidence, then no empirical study can be performed and no concepts of logic or rationalism can comprehend god therefor no human can or ever has comprehended god rationally.
I don't know if god or a god exists. But I'm not stupid enough or closed - minded to rule him or her or it out of the equation of the workings of this universe, time or space. For a scientist to blindly believe in no god is just as bad as acceptance without giving the question true thought. Yes, science doesn't want a god involved. This is logical, but to say there is no god without a scientific framework that scientists use is unlogical. Science should stick to what it's good at.
@TheLogic1010 Yes, science doesn't want a god involved. This is logical, but to say there is no god without a scientific framework that scientists use is unlogical.... Your claim about science is ridiculous. Science doesn`t care about god. He is out of i`ts scope. No atheist, with an ounce of gray matter ever claims... there is no god .. Because you can`t prove that. Atheists state,.. the existence of a god, given the absence of evidence is very, very unlikely. That`s a reasonable position
@tallliza I never said science was ridiculous, show me where! No scientist can claim there is no god because then it would require evidence and no scientist would dare go down that road. If there is no evidence either for or against the existance of god. Why does science get involved? That was the point of my original comment that seems lost on yourself.
@TheLogic1010 Read, my friend. I never said.. you claim science is ridiculous... I said your claim about science is ridiculous. As I said one can never prove the non-existence of anything. It `s up to those who make a positive claim to provide evidence
. Why does science get involved? Because religion gets involved in science. They should stay out of it.
@tallliza My only claim against science is that science doesn't do science but entertains bias, personal opinions. So my claim science is ridiculous is true but on the merit that science is pretending to do science when infact it this is false. True science is wonderful, but bogus science of bias, opinion, belief is of no good to anyone. Have I made myself clear?
@TheLogic1010 Well, this FALSE science made your computer and your toilet paper. Without this FALSE science you would not be wandering this earth. Science cannot be bogus. It can be wrong(science is not perfect). But bogus( fake) science is a contradiction in itself.
@tallliza What on earth are you going on about?? False science?? Get a grip of yourself, your not making any sense whatsoever! You obviously didn't read or understand my comment. What are you doing here if you have no intelligence?
@gigaboy47 When the term god is used it obviously means different things to believers or non - believers. Or as Carl Jung said, when asked does he believe in god? He replied"I know." It would be nice if science just said, what we do is purely alongs the lines of any outside influence, e.g. God. We don't believe or disbelieve in god. This would be the ideal answer, unfortuately we have an arrogant, know it all stance. What is definite, science cannot answer every question.
@gigaboy47 The science of yesteryear was more in keeping to the original message of what science should be. As science moves further away from its roots it's having to take a look at the world and universe in a different light. Unfortuately, science might have to consider the unthinkable. But science doesn't want to do that. Quantum Mechanics is the start. Where it might end will surprise many!
@TheLogic1010 its not blindly not believing in god, they understand a lot more about how the universe ACTUALLY functions, and not like the majority of idiots who say "god is the reason for everything"
@sXePwnageDan The Material scientists don't actually know how the universe works, it's mostly guessing! I wouldn't call anyone who states god is the answer for everything. Knowledge has limitations, imagination doesn't.
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can you, the atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
@1tabligh your poetic statement has a nice ring to it, but unfortunately I don't think you, who believe in a fictional overlord, are the right one to judge.
In his equation, Einstein says that energy is equal to the mass of muter times the velocity of light squared (E = mc2 where E is energy, m mass, and c velocity of light). The velocity of light is equal to 186,282 miles per second. Also, the mass is equal to the energy divided by the velocity of light squared (m= E/c2).
With this, it became established that the atom with its protons and electrons is nothing in reality but concentrated energy that can be analyzed and reduced to its primordial state. Thus, according to the modern analysis, energy is the substratum of the world. It is manifested in various shapes and in numerous forms, whether sonic, magnetic, electrical, chemical or mechanical.
In light of this, the duality between matter and radiation, between particles and waves, and between the appearance
With this, it became established that the atom with its protons and electrons is nothing in reality but concentrated energy that can be analyzed and reduced to its primordial state. Thus, according to the modern analysis, energy is the substratum of the world. It is manifested in various shapes and in numerous forms, whether sonic, magnetic, electrical, chemical or mechanical.
In light of this, the duality between matter and radiation, between particles and waves, and between the appearance
of electrons sometimes as matter and some other times as light was no longer strange. Rather, it became somewhat understood; since all these phenomena are [but] forms of one reality, namely, energy.
Then how can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
of electrons sometimes as matter and some other times as light was no longer strange. Rather, it became somewhat understood; since all these phenomena are [but] forms of one reality, namely, energy.
Then how can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
How is that for YOUR "poetic statement " and answer the question instead?!
I repeat again!
How can you delude yourself and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
@1tabligh We are still very young as a specie, but maybe we could have been a bit closer to finding answers, if times like the dark ages had not happened. Maybe we could be exploring/colonizing planets in other galaxies now if it weren't for setbacks like that. that is what I "believe".
However discussions like our never sees an end and we could probably keep this going for decades, but I don't feel like doing that. I'm gonna go watch some "fail compilations" instead.
Hur skulle de tillåta sig att göra ett påstående som skulle kräva kunskap lika omfattande som det system av universum, när deras kunskap om den totala systemet av att vara nära noll?
En del ser frågan som självständiga och föreställa sig att den själv har fått denna frihet och utarbetade lagar som styr över det.
Men hur kan de tro att väte och syre, elektroner och protoner, första bör själva producerar, då källan för alla andra varelser, och slutligen dekret de lagar som reglerar sig själva och resten av den materiella världen?
@1tabligh still why would the idea of self produced protons, electrons etc. be a more deluded thought, than the actual belief of an Entity so powerful that he/she could create an entire universe. There are tons of questions humans cant answer and there will be tons of more questions to arise in the future that we wont have the answer for either. That doesn't mean that a god must be the reason for our creation simply because we don't have answers for everything.
@TheLogic1010 Hi. I agree, we cannot extinguish the question without any thought. But scientists have considered this for a long time, and the conclusion, until now, is that God is a human delusion. Considering the circumstances in which the name of this entity called God is used, better discharge it of our work and search for the answers we have condition and need to search right now, and not speculate endlessly about it, what foment even more some superstitions minds.
@Rogerfon2010 Science has made a lot of money out of there being no god. For well over 100 years the same story about god doesn't exist has been published. I think this is a grave disrespect to science. Science has supposed to have nailed the god question. Why does it keep revisting god. Richard Dawkins is one of the main culprits to visit the god question. God could well be a human delusion. Isn't it time that science moved on and practised science.
@TheLogic1010 Ok, you have a point. But remember that is a scientist work’s to fight against any kind of dogmatism! The god idea is the dogma prototype and often used by charlatans to take advantage from poor, sad and desperate people.
@TheLogic1010 From what i read (excuse me if i misinterperate) you sort of ignore the pratical part of it. I am an atheist, and yes, i do not believe there to be a god for both pratical and theoretical reasons, wheres why: God is the construct of man, made to fit in where we did not have any other alternative, and to unite humans who lived in larger societies (in some cases). God´s reason to exist is about as farfetched to me as to say the toothfairy, santa and whatnot exists. Cont...
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
@1tabligh What im about to write will probably not make you change your mind a bit, but i am however going to answer to the best of my ability. Oxygen, Hydrogen electrons ect ect Did not create itself. There is a process known as quantum fluctuations which does that, and it arises from the fundamental uncertainty with regards to energy/time/position/velocity as stated by Heisenberg´s Uncertainty principle. Cont..
@1tabligh That FUNDAMENTAL uncertainty permits the arise of those quantum fluctuations, which created soemthing out of "nothing". I cant help but being stunned by your take on reality, it is as if YOUR definitions are the guidelines for our universe, which it is not. All the talk about a need for a creation is absolutly delusion, stuff pop in and out of existance ALL THE TIME. In fact, most of the mass contained within the protons are quantum fluctuations or virtual partciles as it is called.
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
@1tabligh No, science is a mindset, a prosess and a evolving medium which tries to fit the actual evidence. Your worldview comes from a crazy profet who claimed, without evidence, that some sort of almighty father (who fits well within our narrow view of the cosmos of that time) gave him a bunch of lectures which contains some falsified perspectives of a humancentered reality. Humans are not significant within this vast universe, we are merely a spec of dust.
@Deliwio If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.
@1tabligh And your point is that Allah is the "lord of the universe" because its not disproved? The point your probably reffering to was more directed towards the view of us humans as being somehow centered in the universe, which is quite obviously not the case. We cant disprove unicorns and fairies either, any sensible person still doesnt believe in it.
@Deliwio We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing.
@TheLogic1010 As you stated first in your comment, you admited to not know if god existed or not, which is perfectly right. But be aware that absolute certainty about something can never be claimed, thus the meaning of "I dont believe there is a god" means about the same as any other claim with unproven enteties. It doesnt claim absolute certainty, it just claims that by any messures of certainty we have available, god does highly probably not exist. If we were to keep god in mind all the time..
@Ourfragileminds ...while probing nature for truths, we would end up like any other example of where great minds give up their work simply because they believed there to be a greater intellectual shaping their field (Newton for example). Newton stopped working on the "several bodies" problem because he believed there to be a god who finetuned/intervened to make the solarsystem so elegant. Point is: It is both absurd and unpractical to put god in the "equations".
@TheLogic1010 This isn't how science works. The default stance on any subject is "negative", until sufficient undeniable evidence is accrued to make the "positive" apparent. Science won't and can't propose the existence of god until it can reasonably infer that god is likely, in a way that doesn't also make Russel's Teapot or any number of parody arguments equally likely. It's not the business of science to prove the nonexistence of god, nor can it prove his existence as god cannot be tested.
@BarrakDraconis I have looked hard at how science works and I think your in for a bit of a surprise. I have never stated that science had to prove the non existance of god. The point I make is why does science keep on revisiting the god question when it has supposed to have already dealy with the matter!
So you are also agnostic towards anything else that hasn't been disproved, correct? The teapot orbiting Saturn and the gnomes living in my back yard? Also, I know of no atheists who say, "God doesn't exist, I dismiss that notion." I and nearly all other atheists I know are agnostic atheists, or "I'm not 100% certain that god isn't real, but based on lack of any evidence, I support the null hypothesis that he is not."
@PipingMike Your teapot comment is so funny! Why do you comment, when you obviously have not read my comment properly?? Go back to your teapot fantasy and believe that the uniiverse is purely mechanical, that's what you want to believe in! Stephen Hawking said, something like because we have gravity, god probably doesn't exist? For a so called clever bloke, his logic is pretty stupid!
@TheLogic1010 Well you didn't actually address his points you just went off on an incoherent rant......he pointed out the problems in your comment that you made the false claims that most people say some definition of God CANNOT exist when even the "Arch-Atheist" as he has become, Richard Dawkins, admits he is still an Agnostic Atheist.
@TheLogic1010 But to point your claim "but to say there is no god without a scientific framework that scientists use is unlogical" well they do use the scientific framework, if we have a hypothesis there is no evidence for it is not accepted in the scientific body and that is exactly what the hypothesis of God has, no evidence and not a single logical necessary reason to believe that there is a God. So when dealing with Philosophical certainty we have to of course say "We don't know"...
@TheLogic1010 (CONT) But in practical terms most people who hold that position call themselves Atheist as they do not believe in a God and that is all the term means. To further address your point I believe what you are saying when Hawking said "we have gravity, god probably doesn't exist" a dire misreading or misunderstanding of Hawking, if I am correct I believe he says that the naturally occurring laws were enough to 'start' the universe without the need for the intervention of a creator.
@TheLogic1010 (CONT) And please do not try and shrug of peoples points by merely trying to reduce their arguments of positions to absurdity by saying the usual rubbish such as "that's what you want to believe!" I am sure any truly 'logical' people would with hold judgement on the nature of the whole universe until we have a more acute understanding, yet even though we cannot have absolute certainty all we have experienced or had any reason to believe in is the physical
@TheLogic1010 (CONT) There could be an immaterial world is a gather from your comment, but to bring this full circle to what PipingMIke said, there could also be Russells Teapot....we have no reason to disbelieve that there is aside from the fact we have had no evidence either way.
@ARecordMachine There is no immaterial world to gather from my comment. My original comment consisted of keeping an open mind to what we can see and what we can't see. I did say science should stick to what it's good at. Science and god do not go together. Science trying to have an opinion about god is nonsensical.
@TheLogic1010 Thank-you for not providing any proper rebuttal and just claiming my response to be "funny". That further proves my point and discredits your own words. You say, "Science should stick to what it's good at." Even in approaching the case of god, it is. In any situation other than a deist god, god takes an active role in the universe, producing measurable affects. If the, Judeo-Christian god, let's say, did exist, I should be able to conduct an experiment where 1000 sick people..
@TheLogic1010 are prayed for and 1000 sick people aren't. With all variables eliminated, the people who are prayed for should get better at a faster rate than those who aren't prayed for. This just illustrates the fact that any concept of god other than a deistic one are completely challenge able by the scientific method.
@TheLogic1010 shut the fuck up science is not always right we have proof that there is a god the bible noahs ark which had been found now shut the fuck up and be a chrsittian
This has been flagged as spam show
Only a REAL FOOL would claim there is no God! Man creates awesome skyscrapers, fake hearts, tunnels, vehicles etc.. If we are very imperfect then what more can God create THE UNIVERSE! You must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior to receive eternal rest in heaven! Simple! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! Repent & accept Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ or HELL?!? Visit cbn. com
tigersforchrist 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
want to learn the Truth about God: human + being(soul), please read thewayhomeorfacethefiredotnet ( not a religious book or book about religions)
asiantown2013 2 weeks ago
This was a fantastic interview (this vid is only a tiny segment). I think the music and video you added, and the editing, were great! :) Much enjoyed.
slugfly 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@slugfly want to learn the Truth about God: human + being(soul), please read thewayhomeorfacethefiredotnet ( not a religious book or book about religions)
asiantown2013 2 weeks ago
Why is this interviewer asking such idiotic questions
AnimeTV100 3 weeks ago
@AnimeTV100 what! Do you not understand anything you watched?
zdunichme 2 weeks ago
@zdunichme I was refering to his god questions.
AnimeTV100 2 weeks ago
@AnimeTV100 ok. yes that was a somewhat stupid question, but it was innocent, and to hear hawkings, answer stupid question with such brilliance is just awesome
zdunichme 2 weeks ago
@zdunichme I agree.
AnimeTV100 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AnimeTV100 want to learn the Truth about God: human + being(soul), please read thewayhomeorfacethefiredotnet ( not a religious book or book about religions)
asiantown2013 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God = That which IS. "I am that I am" - Genesis 3-14
Consciousness = That which DOES.
Expecting God's interventions is like asking the milky way to change your diapers.
DrMadolite 1 month ago
Comment removed
DrMadolite 1 month ago
Religion will always be speculation, at least within a time frame i can comprehend, i think it is fair to say we know so little about the world around that if there was a god it would be beyond any we can imagine, an entity so complex that there would have to be an explanation for the creation of himself independent of the laws the govern us. i think this seems far fetched, i take the view, the universe has been and will walways exist.maybe thats because i can't comprehend a god that fits.
XepicmeauX 1 month ago
@XepicmeauX Without doubt, one of the factors in the emergence of anti-religious ideas and a phalanx of deniers of God, has been the false teachings, the inadequacies and the intellectual perversions of the followers of some religions. The peculiarities and separate characteristics of each religion must, therefore, be individually examined when studying the reasons that have led men to adhere to that religion.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh I think all religions tend to promise enlightment and exclusive acess to some unknown truths or superstitious abilities. At the end of the day nothing can be proved, not even the existence of our own materialistic reality, so that is why i think Religion is nothing more than speculation on what we do not know yet. Organised religion tends to demand faith and the suspend critical thinking, what was once probably centres of philosophy have turned into thought dicatorships.
XepicmeauX 1 month ago
@Xepi...superstitious
___
Scholars are agreed that religious beliefs have always been intertwined with human life. However, their opinions differ concerning the fundamental roots of religion and the factors that have played a primary role in its establishment and development. Their judgments, in this respect, are generally based on studies of *superstitious* religions and primitive beliefs, with the result that their conclusions are, in the final analysis, defective and illogical.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh so what's your point? don't we agree?
XepicmeauX 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@XepicmeauX Western intellectuals were aware only of the superstitious aspect of false religion and how the established dogmas of religion lacked all logical basis, so they had no hesitation in condemning religion as such to be baseless. Their judgment was based on their discouraging experiences with their own religion, and it could not fail, then, to be hasty, unrealistic, irrational and illogical.
1tabligh 1 month ago
Scientists are the true heroes of our species, soccer players or singers aren't.
Typhzorz 2 months ago 33
@Typhzorz soccer players arent, but SOME singer certainly are.
zdunichme 2 weeks ago
@zdunichme i disagree but hey
trinikagekavir 19 hours ago
Way to pervert the message
Snarkonymous 2 months ago
@Snarkonymous "The" message? There is only one?
repfreedomforce 2 months ago 2
SCIENCE IS GOD.
Hiinnatta 2 months ago
Science is god
TheOverfiendDj 2 months ago
I have a theory, so don't flame me yet, but is it possible that, for example, he was only the spark on your lighter, but you are the oxygen that supplies it with fuel to hold the flae alive? IMHO, thats what i think, he is watching, and doesn't interfere since then he would ruin everything he built, like when you build a skyskraper(?) by those woody things and you simple nudge it and it falls down again. He would have to rebuild it again. And he is nothing but mass, he is not shaped, he is E.T.!
airsoftlove1 3 months ago
o my gosh,sorry for saying this,but that crippled mother fucker is so stupid,God is God,he is the alpha and omega
bdrake196 4 months ago
@bdrake196 Hawkings is more than you and your god combined ever will be.
Jerkanos 4 months ago 31
@Jerkanos uh no,God is God,there is no one like him,he is just God,god could touch haw kings and he could walk and talk
bdrake196 4 months ago
@bdrake196 then why is he getting his hypothetical ass kicked by a cripple who can't walk and can only talk through a machine that uses his eye movements to create language?
therealfriday13th 4 months ago
@therealfriday13th a machine that HE (the cripple) designed, by the way.
therealfriday13th 4 months ago
@therealfriday13th thats just what hawking thinks,look up near death experiences and they always meet,all of them
bdrake196 3 months ago
@bdrake196 That doesn't convince, when you consider what happens to a shutting down (commonly via oxygen deprivation (to the brain, not the body itself)) brain.
therealfriday13th 3 months ago
@therealfriday13th oh my gosh, ur pirit is apart of ur brain and notice the "near" part in near death experience
bdrake196 3 months ago
@bdrake196 No evidence of anything even remotely LIKE a spirit, and I never mentioned anyone actually dying: it IS possible to be revived while the brain is shut(ting) down.
therealfriday13th 3 months ago
@therealfriday13th ok think of it this way,y don't yo see these so called "Allāh" or "Buddha",no,u see God,and they see just God nothing "else"
bdrake196 3 months ago
@bdrake196 Actually, there ARE those that do. We live in a predominately christian area of the world, and the media usually only shows what they think will sell, so it's really no surprise that you haven't heard of them.
Do some research next time:
near-death(dot)com/experiences/buddhism02.html
near-death(dot)com/hindu.html
I'm too lazy to find you more, but I'm sure you could.
therealfriday13th 3 months ago
@therealfriday13th well lets talk bout something else,do u have a religion or no,cause I'm planing FTL travel 1 day but what is ur religion
bdrake196 3 months ago
@bdrake196 Irriligious, and I have the feeling we'll both be long dead before FTL speeds are reached.
therealfriday13th 3 months ago
@therealfriday13th no we won't, i have a theory that will probably work,and I'm 13 so I'm pretty smart
bdrake196 3 months ago
@bdrake196 "I'm 13 so I'm pretty smart"
I'll walk you through this.
Your sentence can be written thus:
I am 13 years old
13 year-olds are smart
Therefore, I am smart
I will not debate your age, but I will debate the "13 year-olds are smart" bit, having been there before, and considering your calling of one of the smartest people of our time "stupid", when he supplied proof of the no-hair theorem of black holes.
13 year-old are, for instance, just getting started on physics.
therealfriday13th 3 months ago
@therealfriday13th and yes, that is an appropriate use of "your", and you called him stupid, and you own what you say; it is "your" speech, not "you are" speech.
therealfriday13th 3 months ago
@therealfriday13th hes very smart,but it says in the bible that u r a fool in the mind if u do not belive in
God but what ever,and i checked out ir channle bro,u play xbox or ps3,casue i got mw3 now
bdrake196 3 months ago
@bdrake196 360, but I don't have live or mw3. Which reminds me to find something other than fraps for recording Skyrim...Xfire's saying "fark you" and fraps breaks up the recording into minute segments that skip.
therealfriday13th 3 months ago
@bdrake196 God is fake. Checkmate.
ParadigmShift22 3 months ago
@ParadigmShift22
Lmao, that is one hell of a checkmate.
NeutralExistence 3 months ago
@Jerkanos keep opinions to yourself please we don't need a Flame war.
darkarm3rocks 3 months ago
@darkarm3rocks
Its not an opinion.
NeutralExistence 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jerkanos want to learn the Truth about God: human + being(soul), please read thewayhomeorfacethefiredotnet ( not a religious book or book about religions)
asiantown2013 2 weeks ago
@bdrake196 So if an alien comes along,touches hawkings and he stands up will you bow down before him and worship him as your god? If a human doctor manadges to cure him will he be your god?
Just because a being has superior knowladge and understanding doesn't make it a god.Even if there is a creator he still wouldn't be divine.Simply put,he'd be smarter/viser.
I ask you this.If one day our decendents were to create a universe would that make them divine?
I think the answer is obvious.
TheBlackIdentety 1 month ago
@TheBlackIdentety no,i wouldn't,because he says himself he is the messiah,but whatever,and ur late for commenting on this a month or more after i post it
bdrake196 1 month ago
@bdrake196 I can tell my oppinion of the bullshit you're talking any day and you didn't answer my question eather.You just came back with more bullshit.
TheBlackIdentety 1 month ago
@TheBlackIdentety thats my fucking awnsner dumbass
bdrake196 1 month ago
@bdrake196 So basicly you answered me with bullshit. Funny lol
TheBlackIdentety 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheBlackIdentety dude,back off,its what i got,not bull shit,and heres a little proof of
The big bang created only light... We are made of light waves...
Einstein's theory of relativity means that time is relative to (and therefore dependent on) light, so time cannot exist without light.
Book of Genesis... the FIRST thing God speaks into existence is LIGHT, hence the beginning of TIME.
Not the universe, not the earth, but light...
Sounds to me like the 'big bang' was God's booming voice...
bdrake196 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheBlackIdentety dude,back off,its what i got,not bull shit,and heres a little proof of
The big bang created only light... We are made of light waves...
Einstein's theory of relativity means that time is relative to (and therefore dependent on) light, so time cannot exist without light.
Book of Genesis... the FIRST thing God speaks into existence is LIGHT, hence the beginning of TIME.
Not the universe, not the earth, but light...
Sounds to me like the 'big bang' was God's booming voice
bdrake196 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheBlackIdentety heres a little proof of god
The big bang created only light... We are made of light waves...
Einstein's theory of relativity means that time is relative to (and therefore dependent on) light, so time cannot exist without light.
Book of Genesis... the FIRST thing God speaks into existence is LIGHT, sence the beginning of TIME.
Not the universe, not the earth, but light...
Sounds to me like the 'big bang' was God's booming voice
bdrake196 1 month ago
Took me several pauses to absorb all this info....but what Carl Sagan says about God and religion is so damn correct. If the laws of the universe are considered 'god' then yes, god exists...but lets be honest, no religious person will admit his god is only scientific and created by studying science...for them the notion that God is an all governing spirit with human qualities will live on, sadly...the good news is, Carl Sagan's teachings will always live on..
searats20 4 months ago
in india ,tamilnadu ,human souls are taken under earth ,under rocks ,even to several thousnds kilometers under rocks,taking old revenges ,vengenes ,conspirancies ,polatics and given different shapes .in sevrages and made like aliens .taking under earth and beating and burning .please save to every one,every molecules and request to bring all the souls ,creatures from under earth to on earth .and requests to request not to spoil souls and humans.please save from pains sufferings .please save
bgupta2001 4 months ago
I believe that man kind is at its beginning not that we r not advanced but that there is a thousand more questions to solve and that to answer them we need to be more advanced that we already r
tatuma842 5 months ago
Can I gi through one science video without it mentioned albert einstein? Sheesh!
KevBoy3D 5 months ago
science without religion is lame
religion without science is blind
lol its true
PiromancerFreak 5 months ago
@PiromancerFreak Science can live on without religion. Religion can live on without science. But only one improves our lives.
daemonowner 5 months ago
@daemonowner idk about you but both science and religion improves my life
PiromancerFreak 5 months ago
@PiromancerFreak there are a lot of science in religion without science there will be no religion but without religion there still be science
atomhtwoo 4 months ago
@atomhtwoo no,without religion,it would be confusing
bdrake196 4 months ago
mind = blown
AntDX316 5 months ago
ABsence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. SImply the fact is that there is no known evidence that any scientificly literate person could accept in either the existance or the lack of existance of a deity or deities.
GreatSirZachary 5 months ago
there is nothing that is NOT god
tiediegoddess 5 months ago
Politics and Religion are redundant, it is time for Science and Spirituality. Being an avid lover of both of the latter, I totally agree. What I can't understand is this... if you believe that God created the world, and then created us in HIS image, why can't you then understand, that creation now lies in our own hands. GOD lies in our own hands... and every day, we create - either in his name - ie love, peace and joy, or not - ie war, hatred and pain. Science is just us, learning the recipe.
Wordsmith65 5 months ago 8
@Wordsmith65 I think you should lay off that Hufflepuff
thaer12345 2 months ago
I don't know if God exists or not, but I also don't know if the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists or not.
InsertYourBeliefHere 6 months ago
The message people seem to be taking from this video (including the uploader) is not congruent with the message Hawking and Sagan were expressing.
They were clearly stating thus far no evidence for the personal gods people claim....unless you chose to define god as "the laws of the universe".
Hawking's latest book states quite openly that no god concept we know of is needed for this universe to arise.
stiimuli 6 months ago
A beautiful video, thank you for sharing.
TheIdealisticRealist 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God is the ultimate scientist, and we are just learning from his creations. Until now there are things in this world that we don't know, and we keep ourselves knowing it even though it's beyond our limit.
alainisgeek 6 months ago
God is the Ultimate Scientist, and we are just learning from His creations, and until now, there are still things in world that we don't know, and we are keeping ourselves to know them even though it's beyond our limit.
alainisgeek 6 months ago
Hmmm, are you saying that unicorns and fairies does not exsist in this world?
How awfull, next thing you'll be claming that Santa and his raindeers can't fly???
gorillaguerilla762 6 months ago
israelsocratus 6 months ago
I am not a "creationist" but a scientist who uses the empirical methods of science. If something is speculation then I do not treat it as fact. Why would Hawking or any other scientist think there was a beginning? If you extrapolate backwards mathematically to some sort of beginning it is all speculation. Where did the energy/matter come from? Where did the laws of the Universe come from? Just saying there was a "beginning" because it makes you feel good is not science. It is a creation myth.
MrDrFallopian 6 months ago
correct me if i'm wrong but emptiness has been explained by antimatter....you must try to understand the facts.... and you don't need to be direspectfull.
enkiziteur 6 months ago
We cannot touch, see, hear and smell God
and therefore God is Nothingness, Emptiness
The law number one:
Physics cannot live without Emptiness
The law number two:
The Emptiness isn’t emptiness The law number three:
The fool wont understand,
The ignorant wont recognize
=.
socratus1 6 months ago
Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein — considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. Who denys the existence of physical laws?
1billion1deaths1 7 months ago
The Laws of Science where layed down by The Source, God. She planted the seed. and now we are it's children.
truthseeker010101 7 months ago
carl sagan's words are always beautiful and poetic. RIP...
FeNsTa 8 months ago
The God of Science = Carl Sagan
MysticalVentus 8 months ago
@ulisesroche Good one!
TheLogic1010 8 months ago
Just because Gamers make games, doesn't mean they don't like to play them, thats why there called gamers, the rules are the artwork of the game that frame it just sooooo=) Once a law is found the object of the game is to use the laws of spirit, nature and science to break the laws of reality. Sometimes ya make a game and ya gotta ya know....make a couple friends...>.<
piperatdan 8 months ago
@ulisesroche you seem to not understand when a person is speaking in allegory, or metaphor. I put words in qoutes for a reason; I was speaking in parable, and I don't believe in a literal god any more then scientists do. The god I make reference to is nothing more then the natural laws and order of the universe, anthropomorphized. Of course there's not an actual god, of course I don't believe in him. BUT - These kinds of concepts need to be taught in order for science to accessible to more.
Xeletoph 8 months ago
you see I've never understood this uneccessary struggle between science and religion. It's possible that science covers the how and religion covers the way. I think that science is a way of exploring what a supposed creator left behind by using the tools given to discover the world. It's impossible to make a thing without putting yourself into it, so it stands to reason that science is the way a believer of any religion can grow closer to their deity. We can gleam 'god' by knowing his 'creation'
Xeletoph 8 months ago
My issue with god is that there exists no empirical evidence in support of the idea, and that no mortal can argue the idea entirely sanely or logically in a scientific way. And if there exists no hard evidence, then no empirical study can be performed and no concepts of logic or rationalism can comprehend god therefor no human can or ever has comprehended god rationally.
Inbetweennumbers 8 months ago
Rejoice in a fortunate accident!
shackupyourstruly 8 months ago
Comment removed
ToastDoode95 9 months ago
@ToastDoode95 Did you watch the video?
repfreedomforce 9 months ago 6
@ToastDoode95 We collectively facepalm at you, good sir.
KarlfMjolnir 6 months ago
I don't know if god or a god exists. But I'm not stupid enough or closed - minded to rule him or her or it out of the equation of the workings of this universe, time or space. For a scientist to blindly believe in no god is just as bad as acceptance without giving the question true thought. Yes, science doesn't want a god involved. This is logical, but to say there is no god without a scientific framework that scientists use is unlogical. Science should stick to what it's good at.
TheLogic1010 9 months ago 15
@TheLogic1010 insightful words. Thank you!
repfreedomforce 9 months ago
@TheLogic1010 Yep, and faith leads to 4,300 religions animal worship etc. The metaphysical claims of religion are obviously false
iliveon 8 months ago
I was hoping this would be a symphony of science type of song :(
iliveon 8 months ago
"Science should stick to what it's good at." S.Hawking agrees: "I don't think that physics tell us how to behave to our neighbors."
shackupyourstruly 8 months ago
@TheLogic1010 Yes, science doesn't want a god involved. This is logical, but to say there is no god without a scientific framework that scientists use is unlogical.... Your claim about science is ridiculous. Science doesn`t care about god. He is out of i`ts scope. No atheist, with an ounce of gray matter ever claims... there is no god .. Because you can`t prove that. Atheists state,.. the existence of a god, given the absence of evidence is very, very unlikely. That`s a reasonable position
tallliza 8 months ago
@tallliza I never said science was ridiculous, show me where! No scientist can claim there is no god because then it would require evidence and no scientist would dare go down that road. If there is no evidence either for or against the existance of god. Why does science get involved? That was the point of my original comment that seems lost on yourself.
TheLogic1010 8 months ago
@TheLogic1010 Read, my friend. I never said.. you claim science is ridiculous... I said your claim about science is ridiculous. As I said one can never prove the non-existence of anything. It `s up to those who make a positive claim to provide evidence
. Why does science get involved? Because religion gets involved in science. They should stay out of it.
tallliza 8 months ago
@tallliza My only claim against science is that science doesn't do science but entertains bias, personal opinions. So my claim science is ridiculous is true but on the merit that science is pretending to do science when infact it this is false. True science is wonderful, but bogus science of bias, opinion, belief is of no good to anyone. Have I made myself clear?
TheLogic1010 8 months ago
@TheLogic1010 Well, this FALSE science made your computer and your toilet paper. Without this FALSE science you would not be wandering this earth. Science cannot be bogus. It can be wrong(science is not perfect). But bogus( fake) science is a contradiction in itself.
tallliza 8 months ago
@tallliza What on earth are you going on about?? False science?? Get a grip of yourself, your not making any sense whatsoever! You obviously didn't read or understand my comment. What are you doing here if you have no intelligence?
TheLogic1010 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheLogic1010 . What are you doing here if you have no intelligence? I am trying to understand your nonsense.
tallliza 8 months ago
@TheLogic1010 I agree I believe in God but I am open minded till there not being one.
gigaboy47 8 months ago
@gigaboy47 When the term god is used it obviously means different things to believers or non - believers. Or as Carl Jung said, when asked does he believe in god? He replied"I know." It would be nice if science just said, what we do is purely alongs the lines of any outside influence, e.g. God. We don't believe or disbelieve in god. This would be the ideal answer, unfortuately we have an arrogant, know it all stance. What is definite, science cannot answer every question.
TheLogic1010 8 months ago
@TheLogic1010 exactly my point. But what do you mean science doesn't want a God involved.
gigaboy47 8 months ago
@gigaboy47 The science of yesteryear was more in keeping to the original message of what science should be. As science moves further away from its roots it's having to take a look at the world and universe in a different light. Unfortuately, science might have to consider the unthinkable. But science doesn't want to do that. Quantum Mechanics is the start. Where it might end will surprise many!
TheLogic1010 8 months ago
@TheLogic1010 what do you mean a different light and what science should be?
gigaboy47 8 months ago
@TheLogic1010 well some scientists do give a good thought.
jandkas 7 months ago
@TheLogic1010 its not blindly not believing in god, they understand a lot more about how the universe ACTUALLY functions, and not like the majority of idiots who say "god is the reason for everything"
sXePwnageDan 7 months ago
@sXePwnageDan The Material scientists don't actually know how the universe works, it's mostly guessing! I wouldn't call anyone who states god is the answer for everything. Knowledge has limitations, imagination doesn't.
TheLogic1010 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sXePwnageDan The atheist Delusion!
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 7 months ago
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can you, the atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh your poetic statement has a nice ring to it, but unfortunately I don't think you, who believe in a fictional overlord, are the right one to judge.
nexicon 5 months ago
@nexicon your poetic statement
____
The atheist Delusion!
In his equation, Einstein says that energy is equal to the mass of muter times the velocity of light squared (E = mc2 where E is energy, m mass, and c velocity of light). The velocity of light is equal to 186,282 miles per second. Also, the mass is equal to the energy divided by the velocity of light squared (m= E/c2).
1tabligh 5 months ago
With this, it became established that the atom with its protons and electrons is nothing in reality but concentrated energy that can be analyzed and reduced to its primordial state. Thus, according to the modern analysis, energy is the substratum of the world. It is manifested in various shapes and in numerous forms, whether sonic, magnetic, electrical, chemical or mechanical.
In light of this, the duality between matter and radiation, between particles and waves, and between the appearance
1tabligh 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
With this, it became established that the atom with its protons and electrons is nothing in reality but concentrated energy that can be analyzed and reduced to its primordial state. Thus, according to the modern analysis, energy is the substratum of the world. It is manifested in various shapes and in numerous forms, whether sonic, magnetic, electrical, chemical or mechanical.
In light of this, the duality between matter and radiation, between particles and waves, and between the appearance
1tabligh 5 months ago
of electrons sometimes as matter and some other times as light was no longer strange. Rather, it became somewhat understood; since all these phenomena are [but] forms of one reality, namely, energy.
Then how can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
of electrons sometimes as matter and some other times as light was no longer strange. Rather, it became somewhat understood; since all these phenomena are [but] forms of one reality, namely, energy.
Then how can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 5 months ago
How is that for YOUR "poetic statement " and answer the question instead?!
I repeat again!
How can you delude yourself and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 5 months ago
@1tabligh We are still very young as a specie, but maybe we could have been a bit closer to finding answers, if times like the dark ages had not happened. Maybe we could be exploring/colonizing planets in other galaxies now if it weren't for setbacks like that. that is what I "believe".
However discussions like our never sees an end and we could probably keep this going for decades, but I don't feel like doing that. I'm gonna go watch some "fail compilations" instead.
Thanks for the chat.
nexicon 5 months ago
@nexicon Is your denial of God, then is, because, you have not felt Him with the senses given to us for knowing objects?
1tabligh 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh Do you feel god? Are you on LSD?
eilier 5 months ago
Hur skulle de tillåta sig att göra ett påstående som skulle kräva kunskap lika omfattande som det system av universum, när deras kunskap om den totala systemet av att vara nära noll?
En del ser frågan som självständiga och föreställa sig att den själv har fått denna frihet och utarbetade lagar som styr över det.
1tabligh 5 months ago
Men hur kan de tro att väte och syre, elektroner och protoner, första bör själva producerar, då källan för alla andra varelser, och slutligen dekret de lagar som reglerar sig själva och resten av den materiella världen?
Du ute och cykla!
1tabligh 5 months ago
@1tabligh still why would the idea of self produced protons, electrons etc. be a more deluded thought, than the actual belief of an Entity so powerful that he/she could create an entire universe. There are tons of questions humans cant answer and there will be tons of more questions to arise in the future that we wont have the answer for either. That doesn't mean that a god must be the reason for our creation simply because we don't have answers for everything.
nexicon 5 months ago
@TheLogic1010 ? Science didn't say there are no god, Science says don't know if there is a god.
DoNotLaughAtMe 7 months ago
@DoNotLaughAtMe I don't think it knows itself!
TheLogic1010 7 months ago
@TheLogic1010 Hi. I agree, we cannot extinguish the question without any thought. But scientists have considered this for a long time, and the conclusion, until now, is that God is a human delusion. Considering the circumstances in which the name of this entity called God is used, better discharge it of our work and search for the answers we have condition and need to search right now, and not speculate endlessly about it, what foment even more some superstitions minds.
Rogerfon2010 6 months ago
@Rogerfon2010 Science has made a lot of money out of there being no god. For well over 100 years the same story about god doesn't exist has been published. I think this is a grave disrespect to science. Science has supposed to have nailed the god question. Why does it keep revisting god. Richard Dawkins is one of the main culprits to visit the god question. God could well be a human delusion. Isn't it time that science moved on and practised science.
TheLogic1010 6 months ago
@TheLogic1010 Ok, you have a point. But remember that is a scientist work’s to fight against any kind of dogmatism! The god idea is the dogma prototype and often used by charlatans to take advantage from poor, sad and desperate people.
Rogerfon2010 6 months ago
@TheLogic1010 From what i read (excuse me if i misinterperate) you sort of ignore the pratical part of it. I am an atheist, and yes, i do not believe there to be a god for both pratical and theoretical reasons, wheres why: God is the construct of man, made to fit in where we did not have any other alternative, and to unite humans who lived in larger societies (in some cases). God´s reason to exist is about as farfetched to me as to say the toothfairy, santa and whatnot exists. Cont...
Ourfragileminds 6 months ago
@Ourfragileminds The atheist Delusion!
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 6 months ago
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 6 months ago
@1tabligh What im about to write will probably not make you change your mind a bit, but i am however going to answer to the best of my ability. Oxygen, Hydrogen electrons ect ect Did not create itself. There is a process known as quantum fluctuations which does that, and it arises from the fundamental uncertainty with regards to energy/time/position/velocity as stated by Heisenberg´s Uncertainty principle. Cont..
Deliwio 6 months ago
@1tabligh That FUNDAMENTAL uncertainty permits the arise of those quantum fluctuations, which created soemthing out of "nothing". I cant help but being stunned by your take on reality, it is as if YOUR definitions are the guidelines for our universe, which it is not. All the talk about a need for a creation is absolutly delusion, stuff pop in and out of existance ALL THE TIME. In fact, most of the mass contained within the protons are quantum fluctuations or virtual partciles as it is called.
Deliwio 6 months ago
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
1tabligh 6 months ago
@1tabligh No, science is a mindset, a prosess and a evolving medium which tries to fit the actual evidence. Your worldview comes from a crazy profet who claimed, without evidence, that some sort of almighty father (who fits well within our narrow view of the cosmos of that time) gave him a bunch of lectures which contains some falsified perspectives of a humancentered reality. Humans are not significant within this vast universe, we are merely a spec of dust.
Deliwio 6 months ago
@Deliwio If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.
1tabligh 6 months ago
@1tabligh And your point is that Allah is the "lord of the universe" because its not disproved? The point your probably reffering to was more directed towards the view of us humans as being somehow centered in the universe, which is quite obviously not the case. We cant disprove unicorns and fairies either, any sensible person still doesnt believe in it.
Deliwio 6 months ago
@Deliwio We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing.
1tabligh 6 months ago
@TheLogic1010 As you stated first in your comment, you admited to not know if god existed or not, which is perfectly right. But be aware that absolute certainty about something can never be claimed, thus the meaning of "I dont believe there is a god" means about the same as any other claim with unproven enteties. It doesnt claim absolute certainty, it just claims that by any messures of certainty we have available, god does highly probably not exist. If we were to keep god in mind all the time..
Ourfragileminds 6 months ago
@Ourfragileminds ...while probing nature for truths, we would end up like any other example of where great minds give up their work simply because they believed there to be a greater intellectual shaping their field (Newton for example). Newton stopped working on the "several bodies" problem because he believed there to be a god who finetuned/intervened to make the solarsystem so elegant. Point is: It is both absurd and unpractical to put god in the "equations".
Ourfragileminds 6 months ago
@Ourfragileminds I like your comment, it's a good argument! I don't get many of that standard.
TheLogic1010 6 months ago
@TheLogic1010 This isn't how science works. The default stance on any subject is "negative", until sufficient undeniable evidence is accrued to make the "positive" apparent. Science won't and can't propose the existence of god until it can reasonably infer that god is likely, in a way that doesn't also make Russel's Teapot or any number of parody arguments equally likely. It's not the business of science to prove the nonexistence of god, nor can it prove his existence as god cannot be tested.
BarrakDraconis 6 months ago
@BarrakDraconis I have looked hard at how science works and I think your in for a bit of a surprise. I have never stated that science had to prove the non existance of god. The point I make is why does science keep on revisiting the god question when it has supposed to have already dealy with the matter!
TheLogic1010 6 months ago
@TheLogic1010
So you are also agnostic towards anything else that hasn't been disproved, correct? The teapot orbiting Saturn and the gnomes living in my back yard? Also, I know of no atheists who say, "God doesn't exist, I dismiss that notion." I and nearly all other atheists I know are agnostic atheists, or "I'm not 100% certain that god isn't real, but based on lack of any evidence, I support the null hypothesis that he is not."
PipingMike 6 months ago in playlist sos
@PipingMike Your teapot comment is so funny! Why do you comment, when you obviously have not read my comment properly?? Go back to your teapot fantasy and believe that the uniiverse is purely mechanical, that's what you want to believe in! Stephen Hawking said, something like because we have gravity, god probably doesn't exist? For a so called clever bloke, his logic is pretty stupid!
TheLogic1010 6 months ago
@TheLogic1010 Well you didn't actually address his points you just went off on an incoherent rant......he pointed out the problems in your comment that you made the false claims that most people say some definition of God CANNOT exist when even the "Arch-Atheist" as he has become, Richard Dawkins, admits he is still an Agnostic Atheist.
ARecordMachine 6 months ago
@TheLogic1010 But to point your claim "but to say there is no god without a scientific framework that scientists use is unlogical" well they do use the scientific framework, if we have a hypothesis there is no evidence for it is not accepted in the scientific body and that is exactly what the hypothesis of God has, no evidence and not a single logical necessary reason to believe that there is a God. So when dealing with Philosophical certainty we have to of course say "We don't know"...
ARecordMachine 6 months ago
@TheLogic1010 (CONT) But in practical terms most people who hold that position call themselves Atheist as they do not believe in a God and that is all the term means. To further address your point I believe what you are saying when Hawking said "we have gravity, god probably doesn't exist" a dire misreading or misunderstanding of Hawking, if I am correct I believe he says that the naturally occurring laws were enough to 'start' the universe without the need for the intervention of a creator.
ARecordMachine 6 months ago
@TheLogic1010 (CONT) And please do not try and shrug of peoples points by merely trying to reduce their arguments of positions to absurdity by saying the usual rubbish such as "that's what you want to believe!" I am sure any truly 'logical' people would with hold judgement on the nature of the whole universe until we have a more acute understanding, yet even though we cannot have absolute certainty all we have experienced or had any reason to believe in is the physical
ARecordMachine 6 months ago
@TheLogic1010 (CONT) There could be an immaterial world is a gather from your comment, but to bring this full circle to what PipingMIke said, there could also be Russells Teapot....we have no reason to disbelieve that there is aside from the fact we have had no evidence either way.
ARecordMachine 6 months ago
@ARecordMachine There is no immaterial world to gather from my comment. My original comment consisted of keeping an open mind to what we can see and what we can't see. I did say science should stick to what it's good at. Science and god do not go together. Science trying to have an opinion about god is nonsensical.
TheLogic1010 6 months ago
@TheLogic1010 Thank-you for not providing any proper rebuttal and just claiming my response to be "funny". That further proves my point and discredits your own words. You say, "Science should stick to what it's good at." Even in approaching the case of god, it is. In any situation other than a deist god, god takes an active role in the universe, producing measurable affects. If the, Judeo-Christian god, let's say, did exist, I should be able to conduct an experiment where 1000 sick people..
PipingMike 5 months ago
Comment removed
PipingMike 5 months ago
@TheLogic1010 are prayed for and 1000 sick people aren't. With all variables eliminated, the people who are prayed for should get better at a faster rate than those who aren't prayed for. This just illustrates the fact that any concept of god other than a deistic one are completely challenge able by the scientific method.
PipingMike 5 months ago
@TheLogic1010 shut the fuck up science is not always right we have proof that there is a god the bible noahs ark which had been found now shut the fuck up and be a chrsittian
Imtre1 5 months ago
@Imtre1 You're likely trolling, but... actually I don't even care lol
DuncanMcNeil 5 months ago