Humans are currently incapable of pondering the existence of God(s), we end up going around in circles e.g. How can anything come into being from absolutely nothing? If there is/are creators, then who or what created the creators.? Are the laws of physics a creation or natural? How, where did the laws come about without a creator? Maybe due to our lack of true perception, the questions are wrong and can not be answered in this form.
The Old Lady’s TORTOISE (Hinduism) and DRAGON (Taoism) are symbols for WAVE (energy), both are analog with MAGEN DAVID (Judaism). "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" is the metaphor, and also similar with allegory of rituals Thawaf circling around the Ka'ba and Sa’i oscillating along “the sinus” Marwah-Shafa during the Hajj pilgrimage (Abraham). YIN-YANG: energy-particle . CROSS (Christian) and SWASTIKA (Buddhism) are symbols for “Balance of Nature.”
There is no proof that god exits or that he doesn't, but i agree with hawking there is no need for him and i don't think god existing is just a myth or a legend like heaven and hell.
High IQ or not, if Mr Hawking had any brains in his head, he would know nothing can come from nothing all by itself for no reason. He's an educated fool with out a drop of common sense to his credit.
His argument is actually ironic. See he argues that phi (the wave-function of the universe) can explain everything and so we don't need a God to do so. However he forgets that the wave-function of the universe is a Mind.
Don't believe me?
1.) The wave-function of the universe is self-collapsing (true by definition)
2.) Self-collapsing wave-functions are minds. (Roger Penrose's Orch-OR model)
Therefore, Stephen Hawking's phi is a mind: watch?v=Kj8UdHuP5l8
You can't say there is a or there is no god. (personally i don't believe there is, i'm a physicist myself so I, like most people watching this, believe in science.) But you cant say a god does/n't exist because you can't prove he does/n't. It is actually unscientific to make that claim because it is untestible, just like how in string theory no matter how much it does or doesn't seem right we cannot claim fact on knowing the answer because we can't actually 100% prove it.
Imagine we had the technology to bio-implant information into a growing foetus, so that when a child is born it can already speak, know how a motor works, how chemical reactions play out etc, then we get to religion, what one do you implant? The parents choice? The goverments choice?
This more than any other reason clearly shows why religion is a man made belief system, all the other knowledge can be tested and verified but religion is a 'choice'.
I find it so odd that they emphasize the question : "CAN THEY PROVE IT?" I wonder if a scientist said "I have faith that it is true!" whether they would be able to get away with that as an answer. "It makes me happy knowing that M Theory is in my life!"
I feel sorry for scientists that have to undergo such scrutiny by the religious. It is not really as if it is fair debate.
@boscoruby Yeah, I am aware of this. I was simply commenting on the journalists emphasis of "CAN THEY PROVE IT?"
It never seems to be the other way around. If a news piece is done on religion, this question is never asked.
Why can the demand for proof be universal, especially in a journalistic context? The media allows religion to have a free pass when it comes to its claims. Science does not have this luxury. It is as if religion is given the default position.
@boscoruby I am aware that good science cannot be based on faith. That we need evidence and to confirm our information. What bothers me is that the journalist in this article is almost reluctant to accept it, but is more than happy to give a god a thumbs up.
It is almost as if there are 2 standards, one for science and one for religion. I simply ask that the media puts religion under the same scrutiny it allocates to science.
Not sure how much of a leap it is. Ex nihilo nihil fit and quantum gravity (or whatever) is not nothing in the usual sense of the term. It is absolutely incredulous that absolutely everything came from absolutely nothing. There is simply no getting around the metaphysical necessity for a supernatural being. We see clearly that there must be such a being, thus making leaps of faith unecessary.
I think we need to be humble and keep an open mind. Until now, nobody tells me who creates God. There are things that we human beings still do not know. And if we don't know, just say we don't know.There's no point arguing what we believe is the truth.
I thought that those who believes in God and go to church are nice...now i know why i quit church and burned the bible infront of the church. These so-called God believers are mean as hell, i thought they "forgive" people, i bet 80% of god believers are not going to hell but to an even worst place...eternal torturing...that is 6 feet under hahahahaha. There are no spirits in this world and there are no proof that ghost exists Thing is...our mind is the GOD because it controls everything we do
there's always room left for faith in a theistic creator, and it's always getting filled in with random, unintelligent, natural processes. by reasons standards, shouldn't that weaken the faith u have in your..faith? WELL, not when it comes to faith. because when faith in a deity is proven unnecessary time and time again, it's only requirement is more, well, FAITH..it's the opposite of reason. it strengthens as observations and data rebuke it.
Being an excellent astrophysicist does NOT allow Hawking the platitude of deciding the origin of the universe and "Intelligent design" from a singularity that "could be" a god or supreme being.
His ego has become quite extreme.I've read many of his submitted papers that held no water and failed! You only hear about his accomplishments.
I respect him but his arrogance is ruled by numbers in math and math would assure the death of the guy who fell 40 floors in NY today and yet "survived".
Math would not rule that a man falling 40 floors would die, if you land just right you can survive, peoples parachutes have faliled and survived.
If you think a man falling 40 fllors and surviving is a miracle and proof of god your standard for evidence is woefully low but explains perfectly why you believe in a skydaddy and why you would reject one of the worlds leading scientists conclusions over your own. Sometimes you have to defer to the experts, its not like Hawking is alone in this..
@1987bugsy Its your woefully inadequate understand of what scientists mean by nothing that is your hurdle, nothing is not what you think it is at the quantum level, absolutely nothing cannot exist when you have quantum flucuations, something "popping" into existence may be troubling to you but go buy any off the shelf book on quantum physics to try to grasp what the scientists all over the world are saying.
@operationMONKEYdoctr There are many books in shops that will explain quantum physiscs to you, lookg for answers in 500 word responses only shows your lack of understanding. Virtual particles and probabilities in the quantum world need to be explained fully and thoroughly.
There is no exact line between non living matter and living matter, the earliest building blocks of life are chemical reactions over long periods of time, from these early building blocks self replicating polymers form ...
@operationMONKEYdoctr cont... and from these polymers you get the DNA chains which then go on to form simple bacteria and then this is where the role of Evolution kicks in to diversify and produce life as we know it today over billions of years.
This IS the only explanation we have on the appearence and diversification of life, until you creationists come up with a little bit more than "god did it" Im going to stick with the scientists who can cure diseases etc and make computers etc.
@1987bugsy The admission that we dont knwo everything is WHY i stick with the scientists on how the universe works etc, why are you against someone saying "we are working on it"
Seems to me you want "god did it" as a blanket answer to questions that actually answer nothing, "god did it" explains everything and NOTHING.
Being humble and honest saying we are working on it is the very reason ill side with the scientific reasoned view of the universe.
@iBackHandHoz Sir there is no need for you to be so arrogant. If God isn't real then explain this to me, how is it that the big bang started. What caused it? Where did the one molecule come from that basically made everything else? Laws of biology state that a living thing CANNOT come from a nonliving thing. So if the big bang happened then how did nonliving matter turn into living matter. Explain that for me please.
@operationMONKEYdoctr You sir are very ignorant of the science you are talking about.
I think its best that you read some books on biology and abiogeneis rather than plug your god into the huge chasms of knowledge you have in the many sciences you are misrepresenting.
@iBackHandHoz what is to explain God is the creator he created everything! It's so simple "every knee shall bow and every tounge confess that Jesus Christ is lord" it's so simple everyone will know the truth! And every single person will bow down to the creator!
@iBackHandHoz Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous explosion of energy and light, which we now call the Big Bang. This was the singular start to everything that exists: the beginning of the universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself. Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic, stated, "The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living crea
@operationMONKEYdoctr - maybe these monkeys can tell us how the inorganic changed to organic. I am also interested in how fish turned into man. evolutionists are retards who are blinded by sin. Jesus said sin is blinding.
@holocaustexpert Its called complex chemical reactions. Try reading a book on chemistry this will explain exactly how inorganic can change to organic.
There is no exact line where non living turns to living, living matter is a very very ling proccess of abiogeneis and evolution.
Saying you dont understand how a fish can turn into a man only shows you up as the idiot you are. Stop misrepresenting biology and evolution and try reading or studying it instead...
@Scanini - It's a long process and no exact cross over point. That is pure BS. You need to come up with a better spin than that. There is absolutely no fossil record that supports such a hypothesis. Your hypothesis by definition, supports the idea matter such as rock, soil, and plants became humans. You just need a few billion years, working behind the curtain to do it, no evidence offered. You just demand faith in rock religion.
@holocaustexpert You are ignorant of the how non organic material becomes organic, i wouldnt call organic matierial alive, i wouldnt call a virus alive but some scientists do.
If you study the field a little rather hold your geocentirc backward views you may begin to understand that the line between life and non life is a long and grey one.
Still with your agenda already set i am under no illusions you will research the science but remain in your incredulity.
@Scanini - Humor me this. The Old Testament book of Daniel spells out the exact time when the Messiah would come. How will someone like you explain that.
@holocaustexpert Self forfilling, if you knwo in advance what the "prophecies" are then its pretty easy to forfill, also the new testement was written about 30-40 years after jesus was reported to have existed, which i doubt very much.
The cult of christianity was pasted together at the council of the nicine, its got all the hallmarks of a manmade religion.
@holocaustexpert I said its self forfilling, if for example i wrtie in a book that a nation called Kuzwikstan will emerge in 3010 and my religion becomes the religion of a state like Rome, then the religion will propergate and spread.
Now if enough people believe it how hard is it to forfill that prophecy?
Your "prophecy" of a messiah is lol tbh, and woefully inadequate to sanction the belief in such an amazing claim, your standard for evidence explains why you believe in magical beings..
@Scanini - A.) Organic- Def = living organism B.) Inorganic Def = not having structure or characteristics of living organism.
Here is what Jesus taught about teaching error:
And whosoever shall cause one of these little ones that believe on me to stumble, it were better for him if a great millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
There you go again, showing yourself up for the ignorant creationist you are.
Organic in the term to describe the matter we are talking about is: matter relating or belonging to the class of chemical compounds having a carbon basis.
Organic molocules have been seen in space (nebula) these are not "alive" as you would define them. Hopefully you can see now its the remedial understanding you have of chemistry and the grey line that seperates life from non life that is the problem?
@Scanini - Atheism got its big push when Heliocentrism became fashionable. Why? The bible explicitly teaches Geocentrism, therefore atheists realize they must debunk geocentrism. It sets up a clear divide between believers and non believers. Once atheists had a foothold on Heliocentrism, they could introduce evolution. Yes billy, your great great grandma was a piece of seaweed a long time ago and then became a frog and finally a human. After evolution came abortion then sodomite unions.
@Scanini - How does someone like yourself explain away the many many documented miracles of Catholic priests and religious. For example. Saint Vincent Ferrer a priest who lived from 1350-1419 is known for raising several people from the dead, and the witness accounts are from atheists. How would someone like you explain the miracle of Fatima which took place in 1917.
The socialist newspaper gave a detailed account of it. It was a miracle predicted 2 weeks before it took place. Explain.it.
Oh come on, you think its reliable evidence from 1350-1419?
This is the core of your problem, your standard for what evidence is, you need to raise your bar, i really dont know why you religious people lower the bar for evidence so low when it concerns your religion yet raise it right up again for competing religions.
All the crap you give me about fatima or dead people coming to life are mirrored exactly by opposing beliefs with equal voracity.
@Scanini - They are not MY miralces. They are miracles witnessed by dozens of atheists who testified to what they witnessed. What would the year have anything to do with it. Why do people like you still assume the Jewish holocaust is true. That was 65 yrs ago. too long ago right. You prove yourself to be a low IQ idiot.
Atheists like you have no answers to real questions. You just pull ideas out of thin air and call it scientific. You have no credibility.
@holocaustexpert You dont believe germans killed jews in WWII now?
Again this does not suprise me.
They are YOUR miracles as i dont believe miracles happen. If we use your "logic" then we have to believe everything a group of people say, regardless of how unbelieveable the claim is.
Raise your bar for evidence, while you at it would you like to enlighten me on the belief you think i have that i dont back up with evidence?
@Scanini In the heat of war there were some war crimes done by German soldiers. The vast majority of war crimes were carried out by Russians, Brits and Americans in that order. What I am 100% certain of is there was no plan to externite Jews, No Jews died in a gas chamber and less than 500,000 died in the entire conflict of World War 2.
@holocaustexpert Its not that you are stupid or an idiot, its religion, religion allows people to believe on masse what only a lunitic or idiot would believe in isolation.
@holocaustexpert Thats the 30% of the population that give our species hope we can survive the future problems that can only be solved by more science and a better understanding of reality.
This just in, Stephen Hawking once again uses his position in science to persuade people that there is no God. Scientists are shocked at this new turn of events and don't know what to make of it. Alan Guth: I've always known Stephen to be a man of God and a defender of the faith. Ed Witten: Who cares what Stephen thinks, I'm the smartest guy in the world. The Pope: I'm astonished, Stephen was just in for confession last week.
More breaking news, Professor Stephen Hawking has now changed his name to Reverend Hawking, scientists are once again confused. Alan Guth: It's about time he changed his title, I just wish he would shut up about God, this new move makes sense. Ed Witten: I'm still smarter than Stephen so people should listen to me because I'm right and I have a higher IQ. The Pope: Well, time to smoke a doobie.
A hot report, Stephen is now leading a crusade against God, claiming himself to be the anti-christ Stephen had this to say... (Computer voice) I'm really angry at God for putting me in this wheelchair, I demand that all people everywhere should disbelieve in any God that would let this happen to me. So what if I'm a bitter old handicapped puppet who's voice is programmed by bankers and politicians to support Satanism, I've dictated multiple useless theoretical bullshit publications.
Personally, as someone who is well educated in higher mathematics and physics I have to beg the question; what is the mathematical term for God and how did you exclude it from the big bang? First of all, the problem with calculating what happened shortly after the big bang and before that is that your probabilities become infinite. This is a world of pure mathematics, so there is no proof to back up his belief. Anyone who knows anything about physics knows Stephen is full of shit.
@budoghost1 The fuck? First of all, SCIENTIFIC theories and facts aren't exclusive. Some theories CAN be facts, but we have no reason to beleive a theory is a fact until SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN. ALL scientists (and most atheists) know this.
And atheists aren't the ones blindly beleiving that unproven, irrational, and extremely improbable fairy tales/"theories" about gods, angles, demons, talking snakes, walking dead, magic and miracles, (basically things impossible in the natural world) are facts
@budoghost1 I think the reason Stephen Hawking and many other physicists don't quantify God is because to have mathematical value, it has to manifest in reality. The mathematical expression of 'c' in E=mc^2 isn't simply a value which was assigned a quantity, it is indeed representative of the speed of light in a vacuum. Gotta prove God exists and demonstrates an objective correlation between himself and mathematical constants before God gets a place in the creation of the universe.
@proprodigySD Yes that was my point, first of all it is impossible to quantify God and secondly therefore mathematically or in any way demonstratably possible to rule God out from the big bang. It is what is called an assumption, that's it.
@budoghost1 There is no mathematical term for something that doesn't exist. It's a variable in an equation that doesn't work until that variable is removed. If it is a variable that doesn't exist, the equation is the same. The burden of proof also rests on those who believe god exists. Theists must show that god has a hand in the big bang, not the other way around.
@budoghost1 Also, physics is a subset of mathematics that is used to describe reality, so eventually when all of the secrets are riddled out, there will be mathematical support.
@budoghost1 Why are you overreacting so foolishly to Prof. Hawking's statement? He was asked a question by an interviewer and he answered it in plain language: No, the Big Bang doesn't require a deity to make it go-- it can be explained in terms of physics that we can understand. This is not a "crusade against God" as you put it.
@eatmylogic I'm just going to say what no one else will, Stephen has been on a crusade against God since he was diagnosed and put in a wheelchair. He has been attacking Christianity since A Brief History of Time where he said that if the God of the Bible were real then we would only need one planet and one sun. This is absurd thinking and his writings are focused on this premise of using science against Christianity. He's not a scientist he's a religious leader.
@budoghost1 Prof. Hawking's statements about the mythological nature of religion and its gods have been few, fainfrequent and expressed with a simplicity and lack of rancor that stands in contrast to your defensive, hysterical, vicious paranoia. You are a gnat attacking an intellectual giant.
@eatmylogic Oh that is such bullshit, his literature is filled with the shit and youtube is flooded with videos and atheists crawling out of the woodwork to feed on his garbage. The only thing giant about Stephen is his ego and making a comment on youtube doesn't qualify as an intellectual showdown, though I must admit arguing with morons like you becomes boring after a short time.
@budoghost1 Stephan Hawking is world-famous and one of the most respected human beings in history, while budoghost is ashamed to make the statements he posts here under his real name, preferring secrecy and anonymity.
@eatmylogic Stephen Hawking is a useless theoretical mathematician that has given nothing of any value to the field of science, none of his theories have ever been proven and none of his exotic bullshit has ever been found. At least I can claim that I haven't filled the scientific community with nonsense and inspired a mass mob mentality among atheists.
@budoghost1 Stay away from science, you won't get anywhere in that feild.. Maybe become a preacher or something..
If a scientists proposes a theory, and it doesn't turn out to be fact, SO WHAT? That's why we call it a "theory" first. The ability to imagine is essential for scientific discoveries. There's nothing wrong with making educated guesses and then testing those guesses. It's when morons make irrational guesses and then claim them to be proven facts (religion) where it becomes a problem.
"while budoghost is ashamed to make the statements he posts here under his real name, preferring secrecy and anonymity."
WOW, I would have never guessed that eatmylogic was your real name...lol! Amazing how reality can sometime be stranger than fiction. I knew a fellow solder in the army who's last name was Toiletwater...no shit! Poor guy, that was his name tag right on the front of his uniform...ouch!
@holocaustexpert There is no essential defference between the organic and the inorganic. The one is a natural part of the other. There is no "magic spark" in living things-- life is a natural extension of non-living chemistry. Chemicals form patterns and new combinations without any divine help, just as lightning and volcanoes and storms at sea happen without supernatural aid, though the ignorant can't imagine how.
@eatmylogic if like you say, "life is a natural extension of non-living chemistry", then just like "lightning and volcanoes and storms at sea happen without supernatural aid", life is also spontaneously happening from non-living chemistry; all around us, all the time--without supernatural aid. WOW...I did not know this! Please, if you would, eatmylogic, direct me to some peer reviewed scientific research//articles that verifies this fact.
I will be eagerly awaiting your response, Thank You!
@operationMONKEYdoctr It is likely that there have been many Big Bangs starting other universes, and that this process is going on even today. Our Big Bang may have started our local universe, but the multiverse has no beginning, as it extends beyond any sense of past, present or future that can be applied to it.
@operationMONKEYdoctr your first mission should be to string together a coherent sentence, full with correct grammar and spelling. Then maybe explain what the hell it was you just wrote.
WOW!!!!!!!!!! Stephen has a time machine and has gone back 4.6 billion years and has seen it with his own eyes!!!!!!!! What are you going to do now Stephen?? Now you have proved there is no creator!! You got me Stephen...i won't bother praying to God anymore!!
@boscoruby You're mad at a man that's trying to figure out how the universe works when Christians are sat on their asses believing what a storybook says and whatever other nonsense they're fed? And yes, he probably DOES have an answer for that question
@boscoruby He might, he might not. I honestly don't know, and to be honest, I don't care. I also don't know where the laws of physics came from or how the universe works. What I DO know is that people seem to be blindly following a group of other people that are worshipping an entity that doesn't have any physical form. Believing or following God isn't the problem, but religion came from a belief in God, which is basically the source of war and strife today. In essence, so is God.
@boscoruby What the fuck? How exactly is Hawking and the millions of other scientists i might add retarding the universe by working out how the fundemental particales of the universe interact? People like you need to die off and let the human race move forward.
Your backward and geocentric "mind" are like shackles to the place mankind needs to get too in order to solve the problems of over population, food shortages, pollution and all the other myriad of present day species threatening issues
@Scanini.......... Asshole: I never said Hawking or "millions of other scientists" were retarding the universe by doing good science.
I implied ( in my response to a previous post that your preumptuous idiot ass didn't read) that Hawking is a presumptuous idiot for saying that the intelligent design of the universe didn't have an intelligent designer.
"Ooops! Here's Creation!" - says nobody. There's your big bang theory.
actually, u are the idiot..u are asserting that intelligent design, implies an intelligent designer..biological organisms mutate, and are under the selective pressure of nature..they also reproduce and pass on their fitness. billions of years of this, can gradually give rise to organisms fit for their environment, decieving the ignorant into thinking that they were specifically constructed that way by something conscious and intelligent.
@itzahazylife I could not have said it better myself, it seems the rational and reasoned amoung us have begun to stand up to these creationist religious ignoramuses.
The fine tuning apologetic is nothing more than the new watchmaker arguement rehashed. Beating back these idiots should be a national pastime, ridicule is our only weapon against stupidity.
@itzahazylife I regard evolution as part of an intelligent design - I'm not a creationist. What neither you nor science can ever explain is why anything should exist at all. Why should your cosmic accident ever have had the chance to occur?
why does there need to be a why?..why are children born, just to starve to death?..why do african siafu ants kill human beings by invading their lungs?..it seems to be that reality just IS..reality is survival. reality is suffering, and occasionally pleasure is experienced when the suffering of reality is subdued..assuming god exists, the better question is: why god and reality, rather than nothing?
@itzahazylife Why does there need to be a why? That's a fucked up question. It sounds to me like you're suggesting that since the "why" can't be answered by science it shouldn't be asked.
Spirituality and science are not mutually exclusive - even Einstein believed in God (said He doesn't play dice with the universe). I think Einstein was right about God, but wrong about the dice.
@boscoruby Einstein was an atheist you clown, whenever he mentioned god it was in the form of an analogy. You bufoons used to claim Hawking was a believer too, until now of course.
On your question of "why does there need to be a why" i dont think it makes ANY difference unless you have evidence for the claim you are posing the why too.
For example if i prove a green space dog comes visits me at night i can then pose the why, if i cant then the why is pointless.
@Scanini Asshole.....Einstein was more a deist than an athiest. He rejected the notion of a personal God, but that's not atheism. I don't really give a fuck with what either he or Hawking thinks about God, except to the extent that I take issue with Hawking's claim that he has made God obsolete.
Science will no sooner disprove God's existence than theists will prove it.
This is a fundemental error theists make. We dont claim one exists, we reject theists claims one does. No Atheist i know will say god does not exists 100%
That would put the burden of proof on the atheist, i believe in god or gods as much as i do fairies and father christmas, i cant say 100% they dont exist but for all intents and purposes they dont.
Enstien was an atheist there is no way he believed in a being outside of time.
@Scanini If you don't rule out God absolutely then you aretn't an athiest, you're an agnostic. You speak for all atheists? What's the name of the atheist organization you lead? You're such an indecisive asswipe that you don't even know what you are, Scaninny.
@boscoruby What a tit you are, Atheists dont believe a god exists, this is NOT knowing a god does not exist, theism relates to belief and gnosticism relates to knowledge.
The term Atheist is in opposition too theism, A(without)theism(a belief in god/s)
Atheists dont claim anything they reject a theists claim, the burden of proof lies with the claiment, if you cannot see this logic then we are completely wasting our time.
Although 9/10 i do waste my time trying to correct theists...
@Scaninny.... Asshole.... I'll explain it one more time. I don't care about the nuance in detail between what agnostics and athiests think. You think what you think, I think what I think. I don't give a fuck what you think.
Hawking asserted that the laws of physics negate God. I assert that Hawking's assertion is bullshit. If you agree with the assertion of the claimant, prove me wrong with your brilliant logic - just for the sake of argument.
The details are in the nuance and in science it is very important, this is possibly a reason why you believe a super skyman exists. The very fact you are replying to my points counters your claim you also dont "give a fuck"
I accept Hawkings claim that a magicman is not needed for the universe to begin as i defer to the expert in this field, religion isnt science and shouldnt be held up as one.
I agree with Hawkings but this places no burden of proof on me, as much as you would like it too
@Scanini You said "the burden of proof lies with the claimant". Hawking made the claim that science negates God, I regard this claim as absurd, since science relates to the observable and proveable whereas faith relates to the unobservable and unproveable.
I believe in science AND in creation by an intelligent designer. I really don't care whether you do or not. If "it's so just because" is a good enough answer for you as to why the laws of physics should exist, then peace be upon you.
You make a fundemental error in your logic, ill happily point this out for you.
Hawkings has evidence for his claim the universe does not require a creator, the physical laws are enough for the universe to come into existence without the need for a god (or flying spaghetti monster, thetans or any supernatural being) the positation of a superbeing is superfluous to the theory, it works perfectly well without the hypothosis a a magicman is behind it or orchestrated it.
@Scanini... Again, bonehead, where did the physical laws come from? The answer is that they're there "just because" or because a creator designed them, and Hawking cannot prove or disprove which.
Furthermore, I don't have to prove dick . My belief in a creator is personal. Unlike your obnoxiious ass, I'm not here to proselytize
@boscoruby Can you not see a pattern here, science beats back your superbeing thing further and further into insignificance yet you cocksnots still find somewhere to plug him in...
It laughable but i i feel compelled to correct your misinformation and misrepresentation of the various sciences.
Hawking is not disproving anything, he is saying a god is NOT needed for the universe to come into existence, the law of gravity is enough, you can plug your god in that gap but ....
@boscoruby You believe a mind is responsible for the universe, you believe there is a creator, i will continue to point out your delusions and confusion.
@boscoruby ... how you then get to a skydaddy that cares about who you sleep with or what bit of your penis to cut off or whether you god cares about little ole you or not is incredible.
Lets wait to see what science tells us about HOW not WHO formed the laws the universe is governed by. If you claim a mind is behind it then you need to prove that mind before you posit it as being real...
I look forward to the proof behind your claim a mind exists lol.
@boscoruby If you claim an intelligence is behind it then you need to prove that claim.
It is not up to me to prove it doesnt before it can be rejected.
This is a simple concept, if you are going to claim a "mind" is behind the universe it behoves you to show the evidence and convince the scientific world of its existence.
If you don't and claim we have to believe until we prove it doent exist then we have to believe anything anyone claims.
@boscoruby The thing is, the current theories on the quantum world and how they interact with reletivism are the best explanations (although they come up short) of how reality is. The predeictions quantum theory makes are the best and most accurate we have, this is not some isolated community of scientists, this is the cummulative opinion of millions of scientists and engineers.
The LHC was built to answer our deepest questions on the universe, "god did it" answers everything and nothing..
@boscoruby Hawking does not assert that the laws of physics "negate God"-- only that we now have enough data to show that no forces outside the universe itself (let alone supernatural ones!) were necessary to create it. Religionists once pointed to lightning and earthquakes as "proof" of God, but when science explained the natural forces behind these phenomena, religionists retreated to the creation of the universe as a final bastion. That claim hasn't held water for over half a century now.
Science has beaten back this kind of creationists view to the very limits of our knowledge, still wanting to plug his skydaddy in somewhere he finds sanctuary in saying his god created gravity.
Its laughable and sad but i feel im with alot of other people that think the same and will continue to correct and straighten out the misrepresentation of science and reason where i see it.
Im under no illusion this boscoruby will change his mind.
@boscoruby I dont have a conviction there is no god, i just reject your claim one exists.
Why is this so hard to understand? As an Atheist i reject a theists claim a god exists this is not mutally exclusive with a claiming a god does not exist. I think a god is as likely as the lock ness monster or fairies or santa claus, so my conclusion is there is no god, but i do NOT rule him out 100%.
This would put the burden of proof on me and im not as stupid as you or any deluded believer to do it
@boscoruby I most certainly will not beg for god or jesus on my death bed, if i am then i will have lost my mind through pain or dementia.
I think christianity is a vulgar and disgustion cult, vicarious redemption being the pinnicle of this sick religion. I think my study of the bible when i was a believer was the very reason i left the church. When i looked for evidnce and proof to back up my claims all i found was scientific answers that eliminated the need for a god.
The world according to the christian belief is a vile and totalitarian system, where we are commanded to love or punished forever, how is this any different to a mafia boss?
You cannot make someone love you, anyone that understands love at all can see that, im responsible for my own actions if i wrong someone its up to me to make it up to them, ill take the punishment for my actions i think it is deplorable that anyone would let someone else (even someone willing) to take the responsibility.
@boscoruby How far so you think you would get in any court of law if when the judge sentenced you to 10 years in prison you said.. "Fair cop guv, i did rape the girl but heres my mate bob, hes gunna do me time for me, its ok dont worry bob wants to take my responsibility, ill be off now"
Religion is the problem here, it allows people to believe on masse what only an idiot or lunatic would believe in isolation.
@luvdomus Even if "M theory" ultimately proves to be correct, then M theory and the physics behind it either constitute a grand design or a cosmic accident. Believe whichever you like.
@boscoruby Like a three-card Monty dealer on the street corner, you present us with a false choice: either "intelligent design" OR "cosmic accident." The universe is not an accident. It forms patterns, and does it spontaneously, without consiousness, desire, will, premeditation or the aid of magical characters.
Your right about it forming patterns without any help, but things like the space shuttle, an F-22 or even something as simple as a mouse-trap require structural and mechanical ingenuity; Intelligent design with implementation. And these items I speak of are nothing but child's-play compared to this very advanced and highly sophisticated nano-technology we call life. NOTHING magic about it!
Stephen Hawking...truly blind, ignorant, and naked.
@55rebels Mousetraps, space shuttles and other machines are not found in nature as are galaxies, planets and organisms. Intelligence can create artifacts but not the kinds of processes found in nature. Life forms of its own accord, like the waves on the ocean-- it needs no "gods" to make it go. Natural patterns are like vibrations, not like mechanisms deliberately made by humans for a purpose. In any case, all Hawking is saying is that the Big Bang doesn't require gods for an explanation.
Only the tip of the iceberg, when it comes to the nanotechnology involved in living organisms. We’re talking: all the parts and systems necessary, that you would find in modern man made systems. Only better built, and with a lot more tricks we haven't even thought of yet.
“Natural patterns are like vibrations, not like mechanisms deliberately made by humans for a purpose.”
You seem to be totally oblivious, as many others are, to the structural and mechanical engineering that went into these living organisms. This stuff we call life screams of intelligent design, with a purpose. “Natural patterns, vibrations”…lol! Public education…sure did a job!
@itzahazylife - The Catholic church teaches answers to the questions. The most revealing book one could ever read is called the life of Anna Catherine Emmerich. She was a nun in Germany who never left her small village. She became sickly and dictated to a few priests the LIFE of Jesus. It is a 4 volume book. the Catholic church has made her a saint. Several theologians traveled to places she described in Palestine and found the area to be exactly as she told them it would be.
@holocaustexpert The catholic church teaches condoms are a sin and subject the world to potential AIDS epidemics.
The catholic church teaches homosexuality is punishable by an eternity of torture, encouraging its flock to alienate and condemn people who cannot "choose" their sexuality.
The catholic church relocate and protect child molestors, keeping pedos from the authorities and perpetuating the misery of children in their care, this is unforgivable.
@Scanini - The Catholic church teaches ALL forms of contraception are sinful.
The Church does teach homosexual ACTS are immoral as well as pre marital sex,so one group is not singled out. here have ALWAYs been sinful members of the clergy going back 2000 yrs. The Jewish media hates the Catholic Church so
they highlight priest failings while ignoring the other assemblies. For example 40 Rabbis in one part of NYC have been charged with child molestation, but that is kept quiet .
@holocaustexpert The very fact you can justify or excuse these positions could not make my point any better.
Im done with you here, as much as i would like to show you up more and let people reading this hear your bigoted and vlinkered view i cannot bring myself to continue this.
You religious people turn my stomach and add to my feeling as a species we are not as intelligent as we think we are.
Humans are currently incapable of pondering the existence of God(s), we end up going around in circles e.g. How can anything come into being from absolutely nothing? If there is/are creators, then who or what created the creators.? Are the laws of physics a creation or natural? How, where did the laws come about without a creator? Maybe due to our lack of true perception, the questions are wrong and can not be answered in this form.
howardsway782 1 month ago
there was also space for God when we didn't know what caused lightening, lol..
itzahazylife 2 months ago 2
but if there is a creater it would be probely be somting like the anoki alian gods
tejjaw 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GOD - Philosophia Perennis and Science.
The Old Lady’s TORTOISE (Hinduism) and DRAGON (Taoism) are symbols for WAVE (energy), both are analog with MAGEN DAVID (Judaism). "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" is the metaphor, and also similar with allegory of rituals Thawaf circling around the Ka'ba and Sa’i oscillating along “the sinus” Marwah-Shafa during the Hajj pilgrimage (Abraham). YIN-YANG: energy-particle . CROSS (Christian) and SWASTIKA (Buddhism) are symbols for “Balance of Nature.”
TatoSugiarto 5 months ago
There is no proof that god exits or that he doesn't, but i agree with hawking there is no need for him and i don't think god existing is just a myth or a legend like heaven and hell.
Makaveli9822 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
High IQ or not, if Mr Hawking had any brains in his head, he would know nothing can come from nothing all by itself for no reason. He's an educated fool with out a drop of common sense to his credit.
mrtadreamer 8 months ago
0 +0 =0 0+0 =0
davetileguy 10 months ago
His argument is actually ironic. See he argues that phi (the wave-function of the universe) can explain everything and so we don't need a God to do so. However he forgets that the wave-function of the universe is a Mind.
Don't believe me?
1.) The wave-function of the universe is self-collapsing (true by definition)
2.) Self-collapsing wave-functions are minds. (Roger Penrose's Orch-OR model)
Therefore, Stephen Hawking's phi is a mind: watch?v=Kj8UdHuP5l8
Well what do you know about that?! ;)
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
You can't say there is a or there is no god. (personally i don't believe there is, i'm a physicist myself so I, like most people watching this, believe in science.) But you cant say a god does/n't exist because you can't prove he does/n't. It is actually unscientific to make that claim because it is untestible, just like how in string theory no matter how much it does or doesn't seem right we cannot claim fact on knowing the answer because we can't actually 100% prove it.
constantine8 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Imagine we had the technology to bio-implant information into a growing foetus, so that when a child is born it can already speak, know how a motor works, how chemical reactions play out etc, then we get to religion, what one do you implant? The parents choice? The goverments choice?
This more than any other reason clearly shows why religion is a man made belief system, all the other knowledge can be tested and verified but religion is a 'choice'.
Scanini 1 year ago
I find it so odd that they emphasize the question : "CAN THEY PROVE IT?" I wonder if a scientist said "I have faith that it is true!" whether they would be able to get away with that as an answer. "It makes me happy knowing that M Theory is in my life!"
I feel sorry for scientists that have to undergo such scrutiny by the religious. It is not really as if it is fair debate.
Scientist: Ok, let's prove our theories.
Priest:I have faith! I don't need to prove it.
S: Can I use faith too?
P: NO!
CrazedCousinDougal 1 year ago
@CrazedCousinDougal Scientists can't use faith for the same reason football players can't use baseball bats - it's a different sport, you idiot.
boscoruby 1 year ago
@boscoruby Yeah, I am aware of this. I was simply commenting on the journalists emphasis of "CAN THEY PROVE IT?"
It never seems to be the other way around. If a news piece is done on religion, this question is never asked.
Why can the demand for proof be universal, especially in a journalistic context? The media allows religion to have a free pass when it comes to its claims. Science does not have this luxury. It is as if religion is given the default position.
CrazedCousinDougal 1 year ago
@boscoruby I am aware that good science cannot be based on faith. That we need evidence and to confirm our information. What bothers me is that the journalist in this article is almost reluctant to accept it, but is more than happy to give a god a thumbs up.
It is almost as if there are 2 standards, one for science and one for religion. I simply ask that the media puts religion under the same scrutiny it allocates to science.
CrazedCousinDougal 1 year ago
@CrazedCousinDougal Awesome :)
Scanini 1 year ago
Not sure how much of a leap it is. Ex nihilo nihil fit and quantum gravity (or whatever) is not nothing in the usual sense of the term. It is absolutely incredulous that absolutely everything came from absolutely nothing. There is simply no getting around the metaphysical necessity for a supernatural being. We see clearly that there must be such a being, thus making leaps of faith unecessary.
evangelical1 1 year ago
The bottom line is there is no god.
kerryfox 1 year ago
was it the girl in the last video you wach hot
theboogeiman713 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think we need to be humble and keep an open mind. Until now, nobody tells me who creates God. There are things that we human beings still do not know. And if we don't know, just say we don't know.There's no point arguing what we believe is the truth.
Emptiness2010 1 year ago
I thought that those who believes in God and go to church are nice...now i know why i quit church and burned the bible infront of the church. These so-called God believers are mean as hell, i thought they "forgive" people, i bet 80% of god believers are not going to hell but to an even worst place...eternal torturing...that is 6 feet under hahahahaha. There are no spirits in this world and there are no proof that ghost exists Thing is...our mind is the GOD because it controls everything we do
lordofstaff 1 year ago
@lordofstaff - Define Nice.
holocaustexpert 1 year ago
"there's still room left for faith"
there's always room left for faith in a theistic creator, and it's always getting filled in with random, unintelligent, natural processes. by reasons standards, shouldn't that weaken the faith u have in your..faith? WELL, not when it comes to faith. because when faith in a deity is proven unnecessary time and time again, it's only requirement is more, well, FAITH..it's the opposite of reason. it strengthens as observations and data rebuke it.
itzahazylife 1 year ago
What scientific proof has Hawkins for Gods nonexistence ? err - none
Has his equations been confirmed ?- err - no
Has Hawkins been wrong before ? err Yes
So what does this mean? Its just another opinion.
Athiesm - so convincing only 2.5 % of the global population belive in it. (Demographics of atheism , Wikipedia)
mymusicfolder1 1 year ago
@mymusicfolder1 You dont have to proof god doesnt exist, that just asinine.
People that claim he exists HAVE the burden of proof.
Scanini 1 year ago
Asking what happened before the big bang is like asking what lies South of the South pole.
sciencedoggy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Go and watch my video about his staments he promised and he failed to deliver
ThePashtunnotpaki 1 year ago
Comment removed
1987bugsy 1 year ago
Comment removed
1987bugsy 1 year ago
a healthy mind is different with and over loaded mind .specially when an over loaded mind exist in an unhealthy body ...
bidarsho1972 1 year ago
Being an excellent astrophysicist does NOT allow Hawking the platitude of deciding the origin of the universe and "Intelligent design" from a singularity that "could be" a god or supreme being.
His ego has become quite extreme.I've read many of his submitted papers that held no water and failed! You only hear about his accomplishments.
I respect him but his arrogance is ruled by numbers in math and math would assure the death of the guy who fell 40 floors in NY today and yet "survived".
BooteyMasta 1 year ago
Math would not rule that a man falling 40 floors would die, if you land just right you can survive, peoples parachutes have faliled and survived.
If you think a man falling 40 fllors and surviving is a miracle and proof of god your standard for evidence is woefully low but explains perfectly why you believe in a skydaddy and why you would reject one of the worlds leading scientists conclusions over your own. Sometimes you have to defer to the experts, its not like Hawking is alone in this..
Scanini 1 year ago
@holocaustexpert thank you for agreeing!
operationMONKEYdoctr 1 year ago
Comment removed
1987bugsy 1 year ago
@1987bugsy Its your woefully inadequate understand of what scientists mean by nothing that is your hurdle, nothing is not what you think it is at the quantum level, absolutely nothing cannot exist when you have quantum flucuations, something "popping" into existence may be troubling to you but go buy any off the shelf book on quantum physics to try to grasp what the scientists all over the world are saying.
Put the bible down...
Scanini 1 year ago
@Christianitylol explain to me what started the big bang and in turn how did it result in living matter from nonliving matter
operationMONKEYdoctr 1 year ago
@operationMONKEYdoctr There are many books in shops that will explain quantum physiscs to you, lookg for answers in 500 word responses only shows your lack of understanding. Virtual particles and probabilities in the quantum world need to be explained fully and thoroughly.
There is no exact line between non living matter and living matter, the earliest building blocks of life are chemical reactions over long periods of time, from these early building blocks self replicating polymers form ...
Scanini 1 year ago
@operationMONKEYdoctr cont... and from these polymers you get the DNA chains which then go on to form simple bacteria and then this is where the role of Evolution kicks in to diversify and produce life as we know it today over billions of years.
This IS the only explanation we have on the appearence and diversification of life, until you creationists come up with a little bit more than "god did it" Im going to stick with the scientists who can cure diseases etc and make computers etc.
Scanini 1 year ago
Comment removed
1987bugsy 1 year ago
@1987bugsy The admission that we dont knwo everything is WHY i stick with the scientists on how the universe works etc, why are you against someone saying "we are working on it"
Seems to me you want "god did it" as a blanket answer to questions that actually answer nothing, "god did it" explains everything and NOTHING.
Being humble and honest saying we are working on it is the very reason ill side with the scientific reasoned view of the universe.
Scanini 1 year ago
@iBackHandHoz Sir there is no need for you to be so arrogant. If God isn't real then explain this to me, how is it that the big bang started. What caused it? Where did the one molecule come from that basically made everything else? Laws of biology state that a living thing CANNOT come from a nonliving thing. So if the big bang happened then how did nonliving matter turn into living matter. Explain that for me please.
operationMONKEYdoctr 1 year ago
@operationMONKEYdoctr You sir are very ignorant of the science you are talking about.
I think its best that you read some books on biology and abiogeneis rather than plug your god into the huge chasms of knowledge you have in the many sciences you are misrepresenting.
Scanini 1 year ago
Comment removed
1987bugsy 1 year ago
@1987bugsy Ad hominen attack, come on bugsy are you not better than that?
Scanini 1 year ago
@iBackHandHoz what is to explain God is the creator he created everything! It's so simple "every knee shall bow and every tounge confess that Jesus Christ is lord" it's so simple everyone will know the truth! And every single person will bow down to the creator!
operationMONKEYdoctr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@operationMONKEYdoctr I wont bow down to anything i do not want to, you are nothing but a willing slave.
The answer "god did it" is simple i agree and so are you.
Scanini 1 year ago
@iBackHandHoz Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous explosion of energy and light, which we now call the Big Bang. This was the singular start to everything that exists: the beginning of the universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself. Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic, stated, "The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living crea
operationMONKEYdoctr 1 year ago
@operationMONKEYdoctr - maybe these monkeys can tell us how the inorganic changed to organic. I am also interested in how fish turned into man. evolutionists are retards who are blinded by sin. Jesus said sin is blinding.
holocaustexpert 1 year ago
@holocaustexpert Its called complex chemical reactions. Try reading a book on chemistry this will explain exactly how inorganic can change to organic.
There is no exact line where non living turns to living, living matter is a very very ling proccess of abiogeneis and evolution.
Saying you dont understand how a fish can turn into a man only shows you up as the idiot you are. Stop misrepresenting biology and evolution and try reading or studying it instead...
Scanini 1 year ago
@Scanini - It's a long process and no exact cross over point. That is pure BS. You need to come up with a better spin than that. There is absolutely no fossil record that supports such a hypothesis. Your hypothesis by definition, supports the idea matter such as rock, soil, and plants became humans. You just need a few billion years, working behind the curtain to do it, no evidence offered. You just demand faith in rock religion.
holocaustexpert 1 year ago
@holocaustexpert You are ignorant of the how non organic material becomes organic, i wouldnt call organic matierial alive, i wouldnt call a virus alive but some scientists do.
If you study the field a little rather hold your geocentirc backward views you may begin to understand that the line between life and non life is a long and grey one.
Still with your agenda already set i am under no illusions you will research the science but remain in your incredulity.
Good luck with that.
Scanini 1 year ago
@Scanini - Humor me this. The Old Testament book of Daniel spells out the exact time when the Messiah would come. How will someone like you explain that.
holocaustexpert 1 year ago
@holocaustexpert Self forfilling, if you knwo in advance what the "prophecies" are then its pretty easy to forfill, also the new testement was written about 30-40 years after jesus was reported to have existed, which i doubt very much.
The cult of christianity was pasted together at the council of the nicine, its got all the hallmarks of a manmade religion.
Scanini 1 year ago
@Scanini - The Book of Daniel is OLD Testament. Written hundreds of yrs before Jesus. Now, what say you.
holocaustexpert 1 year ago
@holocaustexpert I said its self forfilling, if for example i wrtie in a book that a nation called Kuzwikstan will emerge in 3010 and my religion becomes the religion of a state like Rome, then the religion will propergate and spread.
Now if enough people believe it how hard is it to forfill that prophecy?
Your "prophecy" of a messiah is lol tbh, and woefully inadequate to sanction the belief in such an amazing claim, your standard for evidence explains why you believe in magical beings..
Scanini 1 year ago
@Scanini - The Book Of Daniel was written in the 6th century BC.
holocaustexpert 1 year ago
@Scanini - It is not ignorance. Your attachment to a hypothesis
without evidence is another word for propoganda. If there is evidence tell me what it is. Science is not a grey world. Quite the contrary.
holocaustexpert 1 year ago
@holocaustexpert There is evidence, you are ignorant of it.
I doubt you even understand the scientific definition of organic and non organic, you probably think organic matter only is or was living... Wrong...
As i keep saying before you make a bigger fool of yourself go study the science, what will happen is you then WONT misrepresent and misinform.
Scanini 1 year ago
@Scanini - A.) Organic- Def = living organism B.) Inorganic Def = not having structure or characteristics of living organism.
Here is what Jesus taught about teaching error:
And whosoever shall cause one of these little ones that believe on me to stumble, it were better for him if a great millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
holocaustexpert 1 year ago
There you go again, showing yourself up for the ignorant creationist you are.
Organic in the term to describe the matter we are talking about is: matter relating or belonging to the class of chemical compounds having a carbon basis.
Organic molocules have been seen in space (nebula) these are not "alive" as you would define them. Hopefully you can see now its the remedial understanding you have of chemistry and the grey line that seperates life from non life that is the problem?
Scanini 1 year ago 3
@Scanini - Atheism got its big push when Heliocentrism became fashionable. Why? The bible explicitly teaches Geocentrism, therefore atheists realize they must debunk geocentrism. It sets up a clear divide between believers and non believers. Once atheists had a foothold on Heliocentrism, they could introduce evolution. Yes billy, your great great grandma was a piece of seaweed a long time ago and then became a frog and finally a human. After evolution came abortion then sodomite unions.
holocaustexpert 1 year ago
@holocaustexpert I agree completely. Although once again you misrepresent science but hey its a running theme in your replies...
We clearly are insignificant to the universe, anyone that thinks the universe is here soley for us is just deluded.
Scanini 1 year ago
@Scanini - How does someone like yourself explain away the many many documented miracles of Catholic priests and religious. For example. Saint Vincent Ferrer a priest who lived from 1350-1419 is known for raising several people from the dead, and the witness accounts are from atheists. How would someone like you explain the miracle of Fatima which took place in 1917.
The socialist newspaper gave a detailed account of it. It was a miracle predicted 2 weeks before it took place. Explain.it.
holocaustexpert 1 year ago
Oh come on, you think its reliable evidence from 1350-1419?
This is the core of your problem, your standard for what evidence is, you need to raise your bar, i really dont know why you religious people lower the bar for evidence so low when it concerns your religion yet raise it right up again for competing religions.
All the crap you give me about fatima or dead people coming to life are mirrored exactly by opposing beliefs with equal voracity.
I utterly reject your "miracles"
Scanini 1 year ago
@Scanini - They are not MY miralces. They are miracles witnessed by dozens of atheists who testified to what they witnessed. What would the year have anything to do with it. Why do people like you still assume the Jewish holocaust is true. That was 65 yrs ago. too long ago right. You prove yourself to be a low IQ idiot.
Atheists like you have no answers to real questions. You just pull ideas out of thin air and call it scientific. You have no credibility.
holocaustexpert 1 year ago
@holocaustexpert You dont believe germans killed jews in WWII now?
Again this does not suprise me.
They are YOUR miracles as i dont believe miracles happen. If we use your "logic" then we have to believe everything a group of people say, regardless of how unbelieveable the claim is.
Raise your bar for evidence, while you at it would you like to enlighten me on the belief you think i have that i dont back up with evidence?
The religious are deluded.
Scanini 1 year ago
@Scanini In the heat of war there were some war crimes done by German soldiers. The vast majority of war crimes were carried out by Russians, Brits and Americans in that order. What I am 100% certain of is there was no plan to externite Jews, No Jews died in a gas chamber and less than 500,000 died in the entire conflict of World War 2.
holocaustexpert 1 year ago
@holocaustexpert If your a Holocaust denier its no wonder your a god believer too.
Were done here, i wont entertain people like you.
Scanini 1 year ago
@Scanini - You are a moron. Stick with mowing lawns.
holocaustexpert 1 year ago
@holocaustexpert Its not that you are stupid or an idiot, its religion, religion allows people to believe on masse what only a lunitic or idiot would believe in isolation.
Scanini 1 year ago
@Scanini - The world has always been about 30% atheist.
holocaustexpert 1 year ago
@holocaustexpert Thats the 30% of the population that give our species hope we can survive the future problems that can only be solved by more science and a better understanding of reality.
Scanini 1 year ago
@Scanini - I disagree. atheists are perhaps the most self centered people on earth.
holocaustexpert 1 year ago
This just in, Stephen Hawking once again uses his position in science to persuade people that there is no God. Scientists are shocked at this new turn of events and don't know what to make of it. Alan Guth: I've always known Stephen to be a man of God and a defender of the faith. Ed Witten: Who cares what Stephen thinks, I'm the smartest guy in the world. The Pope: I'm astonished, Stephen was just in for confession last week.
budoghost1 7 months ago
More breaking news, Professor Stephen Hawking has now changed his name to Reverend Hawking, scientists are once again confused. Alan Guth: It's about time he changed his title, I just wish he would shut up about God, this new move makes sense. Ed Witten: I'm still smarter than Stephen so people should listen to me because I'm right and I have a higher IQ. The Pope: Well, time to smoke a doobie.
budoghost1 7 months ago
A hot report, Stephen is now leading a crusade against God, claiming himself to be the anti-christ Stephen had this to say... (Computer voice) I'm really angry at God for putting me in this wheelchair, I demand that all people everywhere should disbelieve in any God that would let this happen to me. So what if I'm a bitter old handicapped puppet who's voice is programmed by bankers and politicians to support Satanism, I've dictated multiple useless theoretical bullshit publications.
budoghost1 7 months ago
Personally, as someone who is well educated in higher mathematics and physics I have to beg the question; what is the mathematical term for God and how did you exclude it from the big bang? First of all, the problem with calculating what happened shortly after the big bang and before that is that your probabilities become infinite. This is a world of pure mathematics, so there is no proof to back up his belief. Anyone who knows anything about physics knows Stephen is full of shit.
budoghost1 7 months ago 8
@budoghost1 Proposing theories isn't the same as claiming facts. Don't be a douche bag.
DaFleegsta 4 months ago
@DaFleegsta You're right, theories aren't facts. Now go tell all the atheists.
budoghost1 4 months ago
@budoghost1 The fuck? First of all, SCIENTIFIC theories and facts aren't exclusive. Some theories CAN be facts, but we have no reason to beleive a theory is a fact until SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN. ALL scientists (and most atheists) know this.
And atheists aren't the ones blindly beleiving that unproven, irrational, and extremely improbable fairy tales/"theories" about gods, angles, demons, talking snakes, walking dead, magic and miracles, (basically things impossible in the natural world) are facts
DaFleegsta 4 months ago
@budoghost1 I think the reason Stephen Hawking and many other physicists don't quantify God is because to have mathematical value, it has to manifest in reality. The mathematical expression of 'c' in E=mc^2 isn't simply a value which was assigned a quantity, it is indeed representative of the speed of light in a vacuum. Gotta prove God exists and demonstrates an objective correlation between himself and mathematical constants before God gets a place in the creation of the universe.
proprodigySD 4 months ago
@proprodigySD Yes that was my point, first of all it is impossible to quantify God and secondly therefore mathematically or in any way demonstratably possible to rule God out from the big bang. It is what is called an assumption, that's it.
budoghost1 4 months ago
@budoghost1 There is no mathematical term for something that doesn't exist. It's a variable in an equation that doesn't work until that variable is removed. If it is a variable that doesn't exist, the equation is the same. The burden of proof also rests on those who believe god exists. Theists must show that god has a hand in the big bang, not the other way around.
xfalc0npunchx 1 week ago
@budoghost1 Also, physics is a subset of mathematics that is used to describe reality, so eventually when all of the secrets are riddled out, there will be mathematical support.
xfalc0npunchx 1 week ago
@budoghost1 Why are you overreacting so foolishly to Prof. Hawking's statement? He was asked a question by an interviewer and he answered it in plain language: No, the Big Bang doesn't require a deity to make it go-- it can be explained in terms of physics that we can understand. This is not a "crusade against God" as you put it.
eatmylogic 6 months ago
@eatmylogic I'm just going to say what no one else will, Stephen has been on a crusade against God since he was diagnosed and put in a wheelchair. He has been attacking Christianity since A Brief History of Time where he said that if the God of the Bible were real then we would only need one planet and one sun. This is absurd thinking and his writings are focused on this premise of using science against Christianity. He's not a scientist he's a religious leader.
budoghost1 6 months ago
@budoghost1 Prof. Hawking's statements about the mythological nature of religion and its gods have been few, fainfrequent and expressed with a simplicity and lack of rancor that stands in contrast to your defensive, hysterical, vicious paranoia. You are a gnat attacking an intellectual giant.
eatmylogic 6 months ago
@eatmylogic Oh that is such bullshit, his literature is filled with the shit and youtube is flooded with videos and atheists crawling out of the woodwork to feed on his garbage. The only thing giant about Stephen is his ego and making a comment on youtube doesn't qualify as an intellectual showdown, though I must admit arguing with morons like you becomes boring after a short time.
budoghost1 6 months ago
Comment removed
55rebels 6 months ago
@budoghost1 Stephan Hawking is world-famous and one of the most respected human beings in history, while budoghost is ashamed to make the statements he posts here under his real name, preferring secrecy and anonymity.
eatmylogic 6 months ago
@eatmylogic Stephen Hawking is a useless theoretical mathematician that has given nothing of any value to the field of science, none of his theories have ever been proven and none of his exotic bullshit has ever been found. At least I can claim that I haven't filled the scientific community with nonsense and inspired a mass mob mentality among atheists.
budoghost1 6 months ago
@budoghost1 Stay away from science, you won't get anywhere in that feild.. Maybe become a preacher or something..
If a scientists proposes a theory, and it doesn't turn out to be fact, SO WHAT? That's why we call it a "theory" first. The ability to imagine is essential for scientific discoveries. There's nothing wrong with making educated guesses and then testing those guesses. It's when morons make irrational guesses and then claim them to be proven facts (religion) where it becomes a problem.
DaFleegsta 4 months ago
@DaFleegsta So what? No biggie, as long as you don't have every ignorant atheist on youtube using the latest scientific fad to debase religion.
budoghost1 4 months ago
@DaFleegsta remember that we still call evolution a theory but it's been proven and a fact the word theory just sticks around.
650sFinnest 4 months ago
@650sFinnest Yeah I know. Scientific theories and facts aren't exclusive.
DaFleegsta 4 months ago
Comment removed
55rebels 6 months ago
Comment removed
55rebels 6 months ago
Comment removed
55rebels 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eatmylogic
"while budoghost is ashamed to make the statements he posts here under his real name, preferring secrecy and anonymity."
WOW, I would have never guessed that eatmylogic was your real name...lol! Amazing how reality can sometime be stranger than fiction. I knew a fellow solder in the army who's last name was Toiletwater...no shit! Poor guy, that was his name tag right on the front of his uniform...ouch!
Anyway, cool name! ;)
55rebels 6 months ago
@budoghost1 "Angry against god?" -You've got to be kidding me. Grow the fuck up.
ApatheticOmniscience 1 month ago
@holocaustexpert There is no essential defference between the organic and the inorganic. The one is a natural part of the other. There is no "magic spark" in living things-- life is a natural extension of non-living chemistry. Chemicals form patterns and new combinations without any divine help, just as lightning and volcanoes and storms at sea happen without supernatural aid, though the ignorant can't imagine how.
eatmylogic 6 months ago
Comment removed
55rebels 6 months ago
@eatmylogic if like you say, "life is a natural extension of non-living chemistry", then just like "lightning and volcanoes and storms at sea happen without supernatural aid", life is also spontaneously happening from non-living chemistry; all around us, all the time--without supernatural aid. WOW...I did not know this! Please, if you would, eatmylogic, direct me to some peer reviewed scientific research//articles that verifies this fact.
I will be eagerly awaiting your response, Thank You!
55rebels 6 months ago
@operationMONKEYdoctr It is likely that there have been many Big Bangs starting other universes, and that this process is going on even today. Our Big Bang may have started our local universe, but the multiverse has no beginning, as it extends beyond any sense of past, present or future that can be applied to it.
eatmylogic 3 months ago
Comment removed
1987bugsy 1 year ago
@1987bugsy The problem isnt ur dumb its religion, religion lets people believe on masse what only an idiot or lunatic can believe in isolation...
Scanini 1 year ago
The Parade of Lunacy below from the religious simpletons who have less combined intelligence than Hawking's ballsack is fucking hilarious..
SofaKingLoaded 1 year ago 2
That is a complete joke. PEOPLE GOD IS NOT AFRAID OF PHYSICS OR ANY TYPE OF SCIENCE HE CREATED IT! GOD CREATED EVERYTHING SO EXCEPT IT
operationMONKEYdoctr 1 year ago
@operationMONKEYdoctr Explain your statement.
iBackHandHoz 1 year ago
@operationMONKEYdoctr your first mission should be to string together a coherent sentence, full with correct grammar and spelling. Then maybe explain what the hell it was you just wrote.
Christianitylol 1 year ago
@operationMONKEYdoctr Bold assertion in CAPS will not prove your argument.
Scanini 1 year ago
Gauntlett says that the realization of M-Theory was largely the work of UK Physicists.
That's funny, I didn't know that Edward Witten was British.
MMAtheist 1 year ago
WOW!!!!!!!!!! Stephen has a time machine and has gone back 4.6 billion years and has seen it with his own eyes!!!!!!!! What are you going to do now Stephen?? Now you have proved there is no creator!! You got me Stephen...i won't bother praying to God anymore!!
dolcevita4me 1 year ago
@dolcevita4me You should stop wasting your time with religion all together.
Scanini 1 year ago
God created the universe. This old geezer is just trying to gain attention for himself.
Diaper man is a better name for him.
holocaustexpert 1 year ago
Comment removed
1987bugsy 1 year ago
@1987bugsy - He would be a good spokesperson for the holohoax.
holocaustexpert 1 year ago
Comment removed
1987bugsy 1 year ago
@1987bugsy You cant burn this guy as the stake anymore, as much as you would like too...
Scanini 1 year ago
Comment removed
1987bugsy 1 year ago
string theory has been revamped into m-theory or membrane theory.
freethinker923 1 year ago
wow.....
kilograms2500 1 year ago
If Hawking concludes that the laws of physics render God unnecessary, where did the laws of physics come from?
Maybe the little cretin has an answer for that.
boscoruby 1 year ago
@boscoruby You're mad at a man that's trying to figure out how the universe works when Christians are sat on their asses believing what a storybook says and whatever other nonsense they're fed? And yes, he probably DOES have an answer for that question
iBackHandHoz 1 year ago
@iBackHandHoz You think Hawking has an answer to where the laws of physics came from? Tell me, smart guy, what do YOU think the answer is?
boscoruby 1 year ago
@boscoruby He might, he might not. I honestly don't know, and to be honest, I don't care. I also don't know where the laws of physics came from or how the universe works. What I DO know is that people seem to be blindly following a group of other people that are worshipping an entity that doesn't have any physical form. Believing or following God isn't the problem, but religion came from a belief in God, which is basically the source of war and strife today. In essence, so is God.
iBackHandHoz 1 year ago
@boscoruby You are the cretin. Stop trying to retard our understanding of the universe...
Scanini 1 year ago
@Scanini Stop trying to understand Hawking's retardation of the universe, cretin.
boscoruby 1 year ago
@boscoruby What the fuck? How exactly is Hawking and the millions of other scientists i might add retarding the universe by working out how the fundemental particales of the universe interact? People like you need to die off and let the human race move forward.
Your backward and geocentric "mind" are like shackles to the place mankind needs to get too in order to solve the problems of over population, food shortages, pollution and all the other myriad of present day species threatening issues
Scanini 1 year ago 7
@Scanini.......... Asshole: I never said Hawking or "millions of other scientists" were retarding the universe by doing good science.
I implied ( in my response to a previous post that your preumptuous idiot ass didn't read) that Hawking is a presumptuous idiot for saying that the intelligent design of the universe didn't have an intelligent designer.
"Ooops! Here's Creation!" - says nobody. There's your big bang theory.
boscoruby 1 year ago
@boscoruby
actually, u are the idiot..u are asserting that intelligent design, implies an intelligent designer..biological organisms mutate, and are under the selective pressure of nature..they also reproduce and pass on their fitness. billions of years of this, can gradually give rise to organisms fit for their environment, decieving the ignorant into thinking that they were specifically constructed that way by something conscious and intelligent.
itzahazylife 1 year ago
@itzahazylife I could not have said it better myself, it seems the rational and reasoned amoung us have begun to stand up to these creationist religious ignoramuses.
The fine tuning apologetic is nothing more than the new watchmaker arguement rehashed. Beating back these idiots should be a national pastime, ridicule is our only weapon against stupidity.
Scanini 1 year ago
@itzahazylife I regard evolution as part of an intelligent design - I'm not a creationist. What neither you nor science can ever explain is why anything should exist at all. Why should your cosmic accident ever have had the chance to occur?
boscoruby 1 year ago
@boscoruby
why does there need to be a why?..why are children born, just to starve to death?..why do african siafu ants kill human beings by invading their lungs?..it seems to be that reality just IS..reality is survival. reality is suffering, and occasionally pleasure is experienced when the suffering of reality is subdued..assuming god exists, the better question is: why god and reality, rather than nothing?
itzahazylife 1 year ago
@itzahazylife Why does there need to be a why? That's a fucked up question. It sounds to me like you're suggesting that since the "why" can't be answered by science it shouldn't be asked.
Spirituality and science are not mutually exclusive - even Einstein believed in God (said He doesn't play dice with the universe). I think Einstein was right about God, but wrong about the dice.
boscoruby 1 year ago
@boscoruby Einstein was an atheist you clown, whenever he mentioned god it was in the form of an analogy. You bufoons used to claim Hawking was a believer too, until now of course.
On your question of "why does there need to be a why" i dont think it makes ANY difference unless you have evidence for the claim you are posing the why too.
For example if i prove a green space dog comes visits me at night i can then pose the why, if i cant then the why is pointless.
Scanini 1 year ago
@Scanini Asshole.....Einstein was more a deist than an athiest. He rejected the notion of a personal God, but that's not atheism. I don't really give a fuck with what either he or Hawking thinks about God, except to the extent that I take issue with Hawking's claim that he has made God obsolete.
Science will no sooner disprove God's existence than theists will prove it.
boscoruby 1 year ago
@boscoruby We dont have to disprove it you clown.
This is a fundemental error theists make. We dont claim one exists, we reject theists claims one does. No Atheist i know will say god does not exists 100%
That would put the burden of proof on the atheist, i believe in god or gods as much as i do fairies and father christmas, i cant say 100% they dont exist but for all intents and purposes they dont.
Enstien was an atheist there is no way he believed in a being outside of time.
Scanini 1 year ago
@Scanini If you don't rule out God absolutely then you aretn't an athiest, you're an agnostic. You speak for all atheists? What's the name of the atheist organization you lead? You're such an indecisive asswipe that you don't even know what you are, Scaninny.
boscoruby 1 year ago
@boscoruby What a tit you are, Atheists dont believe a god exists, this is NOT knowing a god does not exist, theism relates to belief and gnosticism relates to knowledge.
The term Atheist is in opposition too theism, A(without)theism(a belief in god/s)
Atheists dont claim anything they reject a theists claim, the burden of proof lies with the claiment, if you cannot see this logic then we are completely wasting our time.
Although 9/10 i do waste my time trying to correct theists...
Scanini 1 year ago
@Scaninny.... Asshole.... I'll explain it one more time. I don't care about the nuance in detail between what agnostics and athiests think. You think what you think, I think what I think. I don't give a fuck what you think.
Hawking asserted that the laws of physics negate God. I assert that Hawking's assertion is bullshit. If you agree with the assertion of the claimant, prove me wrong with your brilliant logic - just for the sake of argument.
boscoruby 1 year ago
The details are in the nuance and in science it is very important, this is possibly a reason why you believe a super skyman exists. The very fact you are replying to my points counters your claim you also dont "give a fuck"
I accept Hawkings claim that a magicman is not needed for the universe to begin as i defer to the expert in this field, religion isnt science and shouldnt be held up as one.
I agree with Hawkings but this places no burden of proof on me, as much as you would like it too
Scanini 1 year ago
@Scanini You said "the burden of proof lies with the claimant". Hawking made the claim that science negates God, I regard this claim as absurd, since science relates to the observable and proveable whereas faith relates to the unobservable and unproveable.
I believe in science AND in creation by an intelligent designer. I really don't care whether you do or not. If "it's so just because" is a good enough answer for you as to why the laws of physics should exist, then peace be upon you.
boscoruby 1 year ago
You make a fundemental error in your logic, ill happily point this out for you.
Hawkings has evidence for his claim the universe does not require a creator, the physical laws are enough for the universe to come into existence without the need for a god (or flying spaghetti monster, thetans or any supernatural being) the positation of a superbeing is superfluous to the theory, it works perfectly well without the hypothosis a a magicman is behind it or orchestrated it.
I hope this helps..
Scanini 1 year ago
@Scanini... Again, bonehead, where did the physical laws come from? The answer is that they're there "just because" or because a creator designed them, and Hawking cannot prove or disprove which.
Furthermore, I don't have to prove dick . My belief in a creator is personal. Unlike your obnoxiious ass, I'm not here to proselytize
boscoruby 1 year ago
@boscoruby Can you not see a pattern here, science beats back your superbeing thing further and further into insignificance yet you cocksnots still find somewhere to plug him in...
It laughable but i i feel compelled to correct your misinformation and misrepresentation of the various sciences.
Hawking is not disproving anything, he is saying a god is NOT needed for the universe to come into existence, the law of gravity is enough, you can plug your god in that gap but ....
Scanini 1 year ago
@Scanitwit ... asshole..... I've told you repeatedly that science is not in conflict with my beliefs. I don't believe in the god of the bible.
Go find some christians to browbeat, I'm tired of reading the same trite cliches and lame sophistry over and over again in your posts.
boscoruby 1 year ago
@boscoruby You believe a mind is responsible for the universe, you believe there is a creator, i will continue to point out your delusions and confusion.
You sir, are the incredulous.
Scanini 1 year ago
@boscoruby ... how you then get to a skydaddy that cares about who you sleep with or what bit of your penis to cut off or whether you god cares about little ole you or not is incredible.
Lets wait to see what science tells us about HOW not WHO formed the laws the universe is governed by. If you claim a mind is behind it then you need to prove that mind before you posit it as being real...
I look forward to the proof behind your claim a mind exists lol.
Scanini 1 year ago
@boscoruby If you claim an intelligence is behind it then you need to prove that claim.
It is not up to me to prove it doesnt before it can be rejected.
This is a simple concept, if you are going to claim a "mind" is behind the universe it behoves you to show the evidence and convince the scientific world of its existence.
If you don't and claim we have to believe until we prove it doent exist then we have to believe anything anyone claims.
I hope the helps you with your confusion.
Scanini 1 year ago
@boscoruby The thing is, the current theories on the quantum world and how they interact with reletivism are the best explanations (although they come up short) of how reality is. The predeictions quantum theory makes are the best and most accurate we have, this is not some isolated community of scientists, this is the cummulative opinion of millions of scientists and engineers.
The LHC was built to answer our deepest questions on the universe, "god did it" answers everything and nothing..
Scanini 1 year ago
@boscoruby Hawking does not assert that the laws of physics "negate God"-- only that we now have enough data to show that no forces outside the universe itself (let alone supernatural ones!) were necessary to create it. Religionists once pointed to lightning and earthquakes as "proof" of God, but when science explained the natural forces behind these phenomena, religionists retreated to the creation of the universe as a final bastion. That claim hasn't held water for over half a century now.
luvdomus 1 year ago
I dont think this guy will listen to reason...
Science has beaten back this kind of creationists view to the very limits of our knowledge, still wanting to plug his skydaddy in somewhere he finds sanctuary in saying his god created gravity.
Its laughable and sad but i feel im with alot of other people that think the same and will continue to correct and straighten out the misrepresentation of science and reason where i see it.
Im under no illusion this boscoruby will change his mind.
Scanini 1 year ago
@Scanini You don't even have the spine to assert with conviction that there is no God.
I'll bet on your deathbed you'll be whimpering for Jesus like a whipped bitch.
boscoruby 1 year ago
@boscoruby I dont have a conviction there is no god, i just reject your claim one exists.
Why is this so hard to understand? As an Atheist i reject a theists claim a god exists this is not mutally exclusive with a claiming a god does not exist. I think a god is as likely as the lock ness monster or fairies or santa claus, so my conclusion is there is no god, but i do NOT rule him out 100%.
This would put the burden of proof on me and im not as stupid as you or any deluded believer to do it
Scanini 1 year ago
@boscoruby I most certainly will not beg for god or jesus on my death bed, if i am then i will have lost my mind through pain or dementia.
I think christianity is a vulgar and disgustion cult, vicarious redemption being the pinnicle of this sick religion. I think my study of the bible when i was a believer was the very reason i left the church. When i looked for evidnce and proof to back up my claims all i found was scientific answers that eliminated the need for a god.
Scanini 1 year ago
The world according to the christian belief is a vile and totalitarian system, where we are commanded to love or punished forever, how is this any different to a mafia boss?
You cannot make someone love you, anyone that understands love at all can see that, im responsible for my own actions if i wrong someone its up to me to make it up to them, ill take the punishment for my actions i think it is deplorable that anyone would let someone else (even someone willing) to take the responsibility.
Scanini 1 year ago
@boscoruby How far so you think you would get in any court of law if when the judge sentenced you to 10 years in prison you said.. "Fair cop guv, i did rape the girl but heres my mate bob, hes gunna do me time for me, its ok dont worry bob wants to take my responsibility, ill be off now"
Religion is the problem here, it allows people to believe on masse what only an idiot or lunatic would believe in isolation.
Scanini 1 year ago
@Scaninny....asshole...you live in the UK, right? Get some sleep.
boscoruby 1 year ago
@luvdomus Even if "M theory" ultimately proves to be correct, then M theory and the physics behind it either constitute a grand design or a cosmic accident. Believe whichever you like.
boscoruby 1 year ago
@boscoruby Like a three-card Monty dealer on the street corner, you present us with a false choice: either "intelligent design" OR "cosmic accident." The universe is not an accident. It forms patterns, and does it spontaneously, without consiousness, desire, will, premeditation or the aid of magical characters.
eatmylogic 1 year ago
@eatmylogic
Your right about it forming patterns without any help, but things like the space shuttle, an F-22 or even something as simple as a mouse-trap require structural and mechanical ingenuity; Intelligent design with implementation. And these items I speak of are nothing but child's-play compared to this very advanced and highly sophisticated nano-technology we call life. NOTHING magic about it!
Stephen Hawking...truly blind, ignorant, and naked.
55rebels 6 months ago
@55rebels Mousetraps, space shuttles and other machines are not found in nature as are galaxies, planets and organisms. Intelligence can create artifacts but not the kinds of processes found in nature. Life forms of its own accord, like the waves on the ocean-- it needs no "gods" to make it go. Natural patterns are like vibrations, not like mechanisms deliberately made by humans for a purpose. In any case, all Hawking is saying is that the Big Bang doesn't require gods for an explanation.
eatmylogic 6 months ago
@eatmylogic
Do a little research into nano-technology, biomemetics and molecular biology.
A good primer…design & function of a biomolecular motor:
wwwDOTyoutubeDOTcom/watch?v=Ey7Emmddf7Y&NR=1&feature=fvwp
Only the tip of the iceberg, when it comes to the nanotechnology involved in living organisms. We’re talking: all the parts and systems necessary, that you would find in modern man made systems. Only better built, and with a lot more tricks we haven't even thought of yet.
55rebels 6 months ago
@eatmylogic
Quote:
“Natural patterns are like vibrations, not like mechanisms deliberately made by humans for a purpose.”
You seem to be totally oblivious, as many others are, to the structural and mechanical engineering that went into these living organisms. This stuff we call life screams of intelligent design, with a purpose. “Natural patterns, vibrations”…lol! Public education…sure did a job!
STOP DRINKING THE SODIUM FLORIDE!!!!!!
....please :/
55rebels 6 months ago
@itzahazylife - The Catholic church teaches answers to the questions. The most revealing book one could ever read is called the life of Anna Catherine Emmerich. She was a nun in Germany who never left her small village. She became sickly and dictated to a few priests the LIFE of Jesus. It is a 4 volume book. the Catholic church has made her a saint. Several theologians traveled to places she described in Palestine and found the area to be exactly as she told them it would be.
holocaustexpert 1 year ago
@holocaustexpert
ok...
itzahazylife 1 year ago
@holocaustexpert The catholic church teaches condoms are a sin and subject the world to potential AIDS epidemics.
The catholic church teaches homosexuality is punishable by an eternity of torture, encouraging its flock to alienate and condemn people who cannot "choose" their sexuality.
The catholic church relocate and protect child molestors, keeping pedos from the authorities and perpetuating the misery of children in their care, this is unforgivable.
Fuck your disgusting organisation.
Scanini 1 year ago
@Scanini - The Catholic church teaches ALL forms of contraception are sinful.
The Church does teach homosexual ACTS are immoral as well as pre marital sex,so one group is not singled out. here have ALWAYs been sinful members of the clergy going back 2000 yrs. The Jewish media hates the Catholic Church so
they highlight priest failings while ignoring the other assemblies. For example 40 Rabbis in one part of NYC have been charged with child molestation, but that is kept quiet .
holocaustexpert 1 year ago
@holocaustexpert The very fact you can justify or excuse these positions could not make my point any better.
Im done with you here, as much as i would like to show you up more and let people reading this hear your bigoted and vlinkered view i cannot bring myself to continue this.
You religious people turn my stomach and add to my feeling as a species we are not as intelligent as we think we are.