A Matter of Gravity: A Response to Stephen Hawking

[ThinkTank255]

This guy is full of it. (Yes, I know his name.) He doesn't even believe his own lies. Dawkins has cornered him before, and he knows quite well the watchmaker argument and irreducible complexity are wrong and frankly laughable. To him and many religious people, life is stage, and lies are tools for controlling the characters. Is that not sick and perverted?

[piprod01]

Just a matter of curiosity, how'd ya' get hold of this video?

[PrinceWalter]

Modus tollens.

If P, then Q.

Not Q.

Therefore, not P.

If multiverse theory is false (P), then Christ's Kingdom exists finitely in this kosmos. (Q)

"My Kingdom is NOT of this kosmos (Gr.)." John 18:36. (Not Q)

Therefore, multiverse theory is NOT false. (Not P)

[HebrewTiger]

@eevil123 "how do you reason or use understanding of science without using philosophy."  *Corrections*

[HebrewTiger]

@eevil123 Please explain how you even begin to compile a theory without using philosophy, also explain "The science of philosophy" and "The philosophy of science"  are you saying you don't apply philosophy to science? how do you reason or use nderstanding of science with using philosophy.

[Halfstar3]

John Lennox's way of thinking is much more sophisticated than the atheists. He's exactly right - all but for the use of Christianity to prove his statements. Other than that - everything else is right.

[cosmopolite66]

36 dummies to 1

[HebrewTiger]

@cosmopolite66 Nice indirect ad hom, steven hawking stated that the laws of the universe (gravity) existed before the universe came into being, he also said that the universe came from "Nothing" and then he uses philosophy to state that philosophy is dead, and we are the dummies? you sure hawking isnt losing his marbles mate?

[cosmopolite66]

@HebrewTiger I do not believe in gods at all; I don't believe in Steven Hawking either. Did you read what I had to say about the "laws of the universe" - there is no such law the way religious people understand it. Lennox is mathematician and does not know about the science too much. I did not read everything Hawking wrote. If he had said there was gravity before the Big Bang, he implied matter too; Gravity is not a thing it is an attribute of the matter; like - no sharpness without a knife.

[HebrewTiger]

@cosmopolite66 For the record just a FYI, lennox is a mathematician thats correct but he has also studied Quantum Mechanics, check his Curriculumn vitae he was a student of quantum physics also. I myself have no formal QM training im a philosopher and student of theology but I study the sciences in my own free time. I grasp the hypothesis and models you subscribe to.

[cosmopolite66]

@HebrewTiger It sounds funny to me; Lennox talks about god as if they were best friends and exchange information very often so Lennox knows everything. For you it maybe sounds nice instead. He does not offer any profs; he just lecturing to us. You think the universe is logical because many religious apologists try to use logic to prove god exist. And they fail in all attempts despite of declaring the opposite. They rely on the short memory of the society.

[cosmopolite66]

@HebrewTiger For centuries, “God ways are mysterious” was the most popular explanation used by apologists to go around logics logics. For you universe is logical even with the principal of uncertainty of QM, that confirms that blurring is a basic property of the nature – particles’ momentum blurs, is uncertain when we measure the momentum of a particle. Do you see this logical? I do not know If God is out of time and space but we are out of time, because time does not exist for us.

[HebrewTiger]

@cosmopolite66 As we discover new functions of the universe things become logical once we grasp the conditions and laws under which the new findings operate, We keep discovering that things are made up of seemingly smaller building blocks the more we progress, it's not a matter of QM being illogical it is perfectly logical, only we have to adjust our comprehension and understanding upon making new finds, once we fully understand QM and find the cause for each event it will just be another U law.

[cosmopolite66]

@HebrewTiger I am not sure I understand your point; I am afraid you use categories like logic, function, blocks, law quite frivolently, or may be we did not attend same universities. I do not see how logic works for the discovery of bend space (empty ) under the influence of the gravity. What syllogism apply for time slows down for velocities close to the speed of the light in vacuum, or while measuring the momentum of a elemental particle the momentum of neighboring particles blur, i.e. unknown

[HebrewTiger]

@cosmopolite66 Logic is based off of your current understanding of something, once understanding changes logic changes to accommodate for the new known fact, But regardless this doesn't have any bearing on the logic that the universe can just "Pop into existence because of gravity" Like I stated previously Gravity is a "Law of the universe" A law of the universe cannot be the cause of the universes existence, to have such a law in existence you would require a universe that already exists.

[cosmopolite66]

@HebrewTiger, Contrary to what you said, logic is not a function of “current understanding of something.” Logic an abstract system of principles for correct reasoning. Religious apologists believe logic exists objectively and god is the authority; according to former, morals and logics would not exist without god. Assuming you are religious person, I see this as a gap in your religious upbringing. According to the science, logic evolved as an attribute of the human mind.

[HebrewTiger]

@cosmopolite66 I said logic is based on your perception understanding, you haven't addressed the focal point still, you were defending hawkins statement that universal laws such as gravity can exist prior to the universe itself existing. do you stand by this assertion?.

[cosmopolite66]

@HebrewTiger, I think I answered this; here it is again. I do stand by the assertion “gravity can exist prior to the universe itself existing” which means that matter/dark matter/free particles existed as well. This is consistent to the model I subscribe to: there is a Cosmos and in it there are countless universes. About logic: you cannot put in the same sentence “logic” and “perception.” Perception is related to our ability to sense and the logic is related to how we think.

[cosmopolite66]

@HebrewTiger I think I answered this; here it is again. I do stand by the assertion “gravity can exist prior to the universe itself existing” which means that matter/dark matter/free particles existed as well. This is consistent to the model I subscribe to: there is a Cosmos and in it there are countless universes. About logic: you cannot put in the same sentence “logic” and “perception.” Perception is related to our ability to sense and the logic is related to how we think.

[HebrewTiger]

@cosmopolite66 So the laws that govern the Universe existed prior to the Universe existing, So you do not subscribe to the big bang theory then, because you believe time, space and universal laws already existed prior to the big bang. So you basically think the universe is eternal and never had a starting point. This was the common view among non theists hundreds of years ago and they had to abandon this hypothesis once the big bang theory was formed.

[cosmopolite66]

@HebrewTiger; you are the ignorant one. The Big Bang theory is not the only one that exists. See references to Cosmic Inflation theory, Multiverse theory, etc.

Even if the big bang was the truthful one it does not say there was nothing before the expolision. The idea that our universe was created out of nothing at the big bang is a THEOLOGISTS IDEA - not a scientific one.

[HebrewTiger]

@cosmopolite66 No that is incorrect as a "Theologian" I hold the idea of "Something comming from nothing" as a logical fallacy and I do not know any theologian who accepts this as viable. I was asking you if you subscribe to the big bang theory not asserting that you do. If universal laws existed prior to the universe itself then the universe was not created it foes not follow, the 2 are mutually exclusive points. you cannot say the universe itself came into existence via universal laws.

[cosmopolite66]

@HebrewTiger RE: No that is incorrect as a "Theologian"

I did not talk about universal laws but of gravity instead. My model: Matter existed in the Cosmos for ever, where a bubble explodes (big bang), or a black whole, or local inflation occurs (we do not know yet why) and our universe was created. I am not physicist therefore I do not need to adhere to any theory. Any theory firt to my philosophical model.

[cosmopolite66]

@HebrewTiger Read "Any theory firt to my philosophical model" as Any theory FITS to my philosophical model.

[HebrewTiger]

@cosmopolite66 Are you suggesting a book for me to read or telling me anything fits into your model, (Sorry for not understanding your exact meaning) I would like to ask you though, in the fabled words of Napoleon Bonaparte, "does god fit into your model?". hope you get the humour : )

[cosmopolite66]

@HebrewTiger My model is. Matter exists in the space container Cosmos for ever. In the Cosmos countless processes take place. Our universe appears as a result of these processes in Cosmos as explosion (big bang), or as implosion (black whole), or local inflation of energy-matter. We do not know yet why this had happened so our universe was created. Did you see the word god in my explanation? Napoleon was an atheist. Another Napoleon's famous remark is "All religions have been made by men."

[HebrewTiger]

@cosmopolite66 I was reffering to when somebody proposed a hypothesis and model of the universe to napoleon and he said "Your theory leaves little room for God" and the man replied "Well yes my theory works perfectly well without a God involved in the process" (Not word for word but along those lines)

[HebrewTiger]

@cosmopolite66 I personally think a problem occurs when we try to marry classical physics with Quantum mechanics, there might dare I say it come a day when we have to scrap Classical physics upon discovering the deeper workings of Quantum mechanics, it wouldn't mean anything was illogical just our comprehension of the true nature of reality was infact in it's infancy.

[cosmopolite66]

@HebrewTiger When a scientist says the universe came to existence out of nothing, it does not mean it was created by a creator; it means it came to existence with out of some source of matter, i.e. it came into existence through conversion of energy into matter; they have equivalency. Or they had applied principles of quantum mechanics, according to which particles pop up into existence on unexpected location based on the Uncertainty principal, but before that they already existed somewhere.

[HebrewTiger]

@cosmopolite66 This makes no sense though, to imply that laws are already in motion to allow anything to happen implies that the universe and it's laws are already in existence, It's like saying "The universe created itself" it is a paradoxical oxymoron and illogical, If any universal laws exist to effect anything then the universe is already there and in opperation. If they already exist then (obviously) the universe already exists.

[HebrewTiger]

@cosmopolite66 This makes no sense though, to imply that laws are already in motion to allow anything to happen implies that the universe and it's laws are already in existence, It's like saying "The universe created itself" it is a paradoxical oxymoron and illogical, If any universal laws exist to effect anything then the universe is already there and in opperation. If they already exist then (obviously) the universe already exists.

[cosmopolite66]

@HebrewTiger You should not look for common logic here; we are talking about quantum events. This is what some physicists say: The universe created it self. There is no logic but it is scientifically plausible in the frames of Quantum Mechanics. We say "laws of the universe" but they do not exist. What we call "laws of the universe" is actually relationship, invented by scientists, between different physical entities in modelling the universe or part of it. Take my word for it. I'm a scientist.

[HebrewTiger]

@cosmopolite66 So in order for you to explain the origin of the universe you abandon logic reason and cause and effect?. this is ridiculously absurd, science is based on logic and reasoning and the use of that logic and reasoning with observations and predictions, your basically saying in laymans terms "The universe makes no sense so we have to adandon our senses and just take wild stabs in the dark". "Take your word for it your a scientist" im sorry appeal to authority is not a valid argument.

[cosmopolite66]

@HebrewTiger What I wanted to make you take my word for was "as a scientist I knew how the science works" and am not representing myself as authority for a justification of an argument. Actually a am not arguing at all. My arguments are visible in this video set of comments and if you want you can take time to read. Here, I was saying stuff that is a common knowledge for everybody who had dealt with science professionally or as a hobby. Factually, the universe does not make common sense at all.

[HebrewTiger]

@cosmopolite66 I think on the contrary the universe makes perfect common sense, as a Theist the universe is exactly how i expect it to be, as an Atheist I might concur that it does not make logical sense, If God were outside of time and space and everything within the universe were subject to time and space there is no contradiction with science. Just as everything inside a computer is subject to the laws of the coding of the programmer, the programmer himself is not subject to the same coding.

[cosmopolite66]

@HebrewTiger You are right and this is what I am saying: if we can say the gravity existed before the Big Bang, it mean the matter existed as well. The more important thing here is that if any one asserted the gravity existed before BB he was JUST GUESSING; this is so because the contemporary scientific models do not allow to represent what was happening before the Big Bang. Science cannot disprove the existence of god. Philosophy, however, has enough tools to try to solve this issue.

[cosmopolite66]

@HebrewTiger In conclusion, even if the universe has popped up into existence spontaneously by it self, it does not mean god is not existing, neither mean god exist. And Lennox want to say on the contrary; but it is a fact that the existence of god as described by any religion is proven wrong many times. One needs to have right sight to see it and to read these philosophers. Lennox either do not have this sight or does not want to admit he sees it.

[cosmopolite66]

…In aging, religion become ridiculous and people are unwilling to believe therefore religion must enforce itself in order to survive; all these create tragic consequences. Being an ideology, religion belongs to certain society. The priesthood type belongs to tribal and early empires… more next time.

[cosmopolite66]

… People acquire personal system of beliefs through their life, experience. Religion is an ideology. The role of the ideology is to unify the thinking of the masses for easy ruling. In the society where they are based, religions institutionalize ‘Fate’ through a compilation of the most popular personal believes. First known institution of religion is the priesthood, followed by the church. While the society develops itself further, the religion becomes outdated sustaining contradictory dogma.

[cosmopolite66]

… Why there is something instead of nothing is the most ridiculous question ever. Time does not exist; everything is happening now, therefore infinite chain of events does not exist. There are no laws of the nature; those are invented by us theoretical or mathematical models of the reality. The universe did not start at the Big Band and is not fine-tuned; it is perfectly tuned by itself since it exists as a balanced system. Morals are made and enforced on you by the society.

[cosmopolite66]

… There is no immaterial creator. The Universe is a part of the material Cosmos which existed for ever. The Sun is not turning around the Earth. The Earth is more than 4.5 B years old. The Bible is not word of God. Jesus never existed neither was resurrected. There is no specific reason for us to be here. There is no purpose of life if you do not make it for yourself. When you pray, no one listens. After we die, we rotten. Soul does not exist nor the Devil…

[cosmopolite66]

I have been listening John Lenox for while on YouTube. This man is empty talker. He believes his strength is in writing critical analyses on some one else's works. This is easy because you search for some body else's imperfections. What arrogance on the part of religious apologists: you cannot prove god does not exist therefore god exist. If you cannot say why we are here, there is a god. One should be quite gullible to believe this. Put up with those facts! How about these…

[IloveYOUviruses]

John C. Lennox will always be remembered by destroying Dawkins' confidence

[wayitis4real]

mr Lennox as a catholic , I ask , where is your wisdom compassion for your hurting brother Mr. hawkins? First and last God can not be proved or disproved! As a knowing believer in God , science has no place in faith and religion. I look at both of you and see IQ has nothing to do with the wisdom of the real priorities of why we are here!

[911BeganTheEndOfGod]

too bad nobodys gonna known fat ass jesus robot john lennox's name in fifty years but they sure as shit will know of stephen hawking!! suck it baby!!

[M3PanoS]

@911BeganTheEndOfGod Yea, too bad nothing you do in this life matters because you're going to die. Suck it baby!!

[911BeganTheEndOfGod]

@M3PanoS you can suck it cause you're wasting your only life living under a voluntary totaltarian big brother dictatorship

[M3PanoS]

@911BeganTheEndOfGod The only thing I could ever possibly regret about this life is separating myself from God. You think that's enslavement, I think you're enslaved to your sin. And you used an oxy-moron 'voluntary totalitarian big brother dictatorship.' Yea, it is voluntary. ;)

And if your POV, which I'm not even giving you for a second, is true, then it really really REALLY kind of doesn't matter if you 'enjoyed' bits of your life here and there when you're dead.

[M3PanoS]

@911BeganTheEndOfGod But don't think you get off that easy anyways because there is an afterlife.

[911BeganTheEndOfGod]

@M3PanoS prove it

[M3PanoS]

@911BeganTheEndOfGod You prove it.

[911BeganTheEndOfGod]

sorry bout evolution there ya sorry suckers! kinda puts your pathetic bible in its place huh?! YEAH BABY!!!! i fuck the virgin mary's dirty rotten asshole and shit in jesus's spearhole what do you think of that you bunuch of brainless twats?!!! go back to alabama and fuck some pigs and ur sisters and watch some nascar!

[M3PanoS]

@911BeganTheEndOfGod I could prove it to you, but in your close mindedness you'd hold on to your pre-held beliefs regardless. So fuck you, prove it to yourself. It's not my problem asshole.

[911BeganTheEndOfGod]

@M3PanoS no you cant. nobody can. otherwise it would be all over the news and it would be all every living person would be talking about. you havent proven it to urself dont delude urself ur a stupid idiot and you shouldnt talk online

[M3PanoS]

@911BeganTheEndOfGod :P 

[roelran]

0x0 (but gravity exists) = universe?

[yhwhizlife1]

amazing lecture !

[zulfitareen]

god and religion are two different things.

god may or may not exist. we will never find out.

my contention is that god has nothing to do with the superstition of moses splitting red sea.

god has nothing to do with the superstitin of jesus being born to a virgin or coming back to life after death.

god has nothing to do with the superstition of muhammad to riding into sky on a white horse.

[Supernegromagic]

@exposedatheists please disable comments. I enjoy Lennoxs lectures but get disgusted by idiots arguing over youtube. Whether they be Christian or atheists

[EastofForever]

everybody look at "little doper!" him is twying soooo hard to be a big bad ol' atheist!---

isn't him cute!!??

when him's fists get all clenched and he shows him's wittle teefies: "Rrooarr!"...

...him just scares the whole theistic world, him does!!

[Aspartame69]

@EastofForever Christainity, you KNOW its a scam.

[Brian42Own]

@Aspartame69 RIIIIIIIGHHHHTHTTTTT just like the government is out to take away everyone's fun correct? OF COARSE NOT!

[Aspartame69]

@EastofForever Christianity, you KNOW its a scam.

[madamemuslim]

@Aspartame69 -spoken like a true ignoramus .

[Aspartame69]

@madamemuslim Oh, so you post against me for sounding like an ignoramus, but dont say a word to the guy that for days asked me to wipe his arse and fuck my mom?

Thanks for posting and bringing my attention to another disingenuous fuck brained christtard.

And for the record, everyone knows christainity is a scam.

[Brian42Own]

@Aspartame69 then what is it's gain or motif?

[Aspartame69]

@Brian42Own Fear.

[roelran]

@Aspartame69 christianity, YOU know it's a scam.

[gangster3591]

"The bible and science/reason are equally valid "sources of information" "?

"Science/reason has not explained or cannot explain everything, therefore god"?

The first statement is an unsupported assertion. It can be discarded.

The second is an invalid syllogism - the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

Prof Lennox self-destructs by 18 minutes

[EastofForever]

@gangster3591 you wish.

[EastofForever]

scientism: not a nickel's difference between it and voodoo.

[Roper122]

@EastofForever ...John Lennox's religion...not worth a nickel.

Voodoo is probably more insightful

[EastofForever]

@Roper122 spoken like a true idiot.



[Roper122]

@EastofForever ... You'd know!

( you see what happens when you make pointless juvenile comments? Well done you )

: )

[EastofForever]

@Roper122 ... You'd know!

( you see what happens when you make pointless juvenile comments? Well done you )

: )

[Roper122]

@EastofForever .. Yup, as if to illustrate.

Of course let's track back and see who made the first pointless statement..

Bingo!

You belong in the playground with Lennox, he looks all cuddly and lovable, I'm sure you'd have a good time.

And at the very least you present the kind of pointless arguments that he seems to thrive on.

[EastofForever]

@Roper122 . Yup, as if to illustrate.

Of course let's track back and see who made the first pointless statement..

Bingo!

You belong in the playground with Lennox, he looks all cuddly and lovable, I'm sure you'd have a good time.

And at the very least you present the kind of pointless arguments that he seems to thrive on.

yawn....

[Roper122]

@EastofForever .. and another re-post.

You may as well just give my comments the thumbs up.

You're just proliferating them.

.... clever strategy ; )

[Roper122]

@EastofForever .. See typing " son " at the end gives the impression that you're a wise old man.

It's pretty pointless ( another theme of yours )

But make sure you smile when you say it... it doesn't help, but it seems to work for Lennox.

[Roper122]

@EastofForever ..Capitals now? Makes you look even smarter.

You've got all the tricks.. you should be a professional apologist.

[Roper122]

@EastofForever ... it's like you're taking dictation.

You've become a secretary to an atheist.

( I think Lennox and co. have already tried the " just repeat everything back " strategy... it's just as valid as anything else they come up with... but not usually very successful )

[Roper122]

@EastofForever ...Oh I'm happy to

The " son " gambit the best you got?

You're not even trying anymore... god seems to have run out of ideas

Unless the whole " son " thing is divinely inspired.

[Roper122]

@EastofForever ...shhh, got 11 words out of you that time.

Trying to move on from son to daddy now?

The ironic thing ...

When it comes to debating on here - I'm your daddy, and I beat you like a red headed step child

[Roper122]

@EastofForever ... Ahh Captain " Copy and Paste " is back

Still a vacant lot when it comes to actually having anything to say?

No problem....

Lennox is really not a good apologist, although that is faint praise...

Craig at least has the sense to be able to debate well.

[Roper122]

@EastofForever ... In this particular video Lennox has the distinct advantage of simply making a speech with no one to debunk his nonsense. 

Much like his attempt to discredit Dawkins after their second debate... he often becomes much more convincing when his opponents are nowhere to be seen.

Still, he's embarrassingly easy to refute... most of his fans are reduced to simply copy and pasting.

: )

If something's worth saying - it's worth saying twice!

[Roper122]

@EastofForever ... Not only reduced to simple copy and pasting... but random age guesses...

Juvenile... but fun to force 10 words out..

11 is the record.

Anymore than 11 might be in danger of actually making a point... so it's unlikely.

Anyway...Lennox suffers in comparison with someone like Craig because he's a mathematician and lacks the debating nous. You'd think his main thrust would be supporting mathematical proofs of god. and yet it's not... because he knows it doesn't work.

[Roper122]

@EastofForever ... Whoa, what a disintegration.

let's see... comments removed, same old pointless "son", and paranoid assumptions of different screen names.

I have a single screen name, you're certainly not in a position to call me son ( not that you would ever bother to check ), you've never come close to dreaming about kicking my ass, and I'm moving on because there has to be someone who can do better than copying my comments, then realising that's a bad idea, and removing them all : )

[EastofForever]

@Roper122 LADIES AND GENLEMEN!ALLOW ME TO INTRODUCE TO YOU ASSWIPEpertame, my intellectual bitch!

he also goes by, as you can see above, roper122 and 15 other screen names! when he GETS HIS ASS KICKED (as he does 100% of the time) he just GOES TO ANOTHER SCREEN NAME and tries there---(not real one this one--LOL)

Isn't he cute? Yu see,his daddy used to beat him he told me while he masturbated to his momma (who he said reminded him of the virgin mary) so he's mad at 'SKYDADDY" now! lol

[Roper122]

@EastofForever " he also goes by, as you can see above, roper122 "

Wow.. the paranoia has really set in... everyone's out to get you.. and it's all the same person.

Whatever makes you happy...

You're totally wrong of course and it would take a simple bit of research to realise that.

But being wrong seems to be another theme with you.

Get back to the capitals and crazy talk.

Paranoid delusions aren't worth my time.

[EastofForever]

@Roper122 everybody look at "little doper!" him is twying soooo hard to be a big bad ol' atheist!---

isn't him cute!!??

when him's fists get all clenched and he shows him's wittle teefies: "Rrooarr!"...

...him just scares the whole theistic world, him does!

[EastofForever]

@Roper122 yawn....SON.

[EastofForever]

@Roper122 yawn....SON.

[Aspartame69]

@EastofForever silly christain tard.

[EastofForever]

@Aspartame69 LADIES AND GENLEMEN!ALLOW ME TO INTRODUCE TO YOU ASSWIPEpertame, my intellectual bitch!1

he also goes by, as you can see above, roper122 and 15 other screen names! when he GETS HIS ASS KICKED (as he does 100% of the time) he just GOES TO ANOTHER SCREEN NAME and tries there---(not real one this one--LOL)

Isn't he cute? Yu see,his daddy used to beat him he told me while he masturbated to his momma (who he said reminded him of the virgin mary) so he's mad at 'SKYDADDY" now! lol

[Aspartame69]

@EastofForever Your replies are taking longer and longer lol

Anyway,  1/10, your trolling lacks originality and sophistication.

You have been pwnt, doesnt mean you have to accept it :)

Though thats a pwning in and of itself :)

[EastofForever]

@Aspartame69 HOW MANY SCREEN NAMES YOU GOING TO SLIP IN AND OUT OF LIKE THE SNAKE YOU ARE TODAY ASSWIPEpertame?

punk.

[EastofForever]

@Aspartame69 LADIES AND GENLEMEN!ALLOW ME TO INTRODUCE TO YOU ASSWIPEpertame, my intellectual bitch!

he also goes by, as you can see above, roper122 and 15 other screen names! when he GETS HIS ASS KICKED (as he does 100% of the time) he just GOES TO ANOTHER SCREEN NAME and tries there---(not real one this one--LOL)

Isn't he cute? Yu see,his daddy used to beat him he told me while he masturbated to his momma (who he said reminded him of the virgin mary) so he's mad at 'SKYDADDY" now! lol

[EastofForever]

asswipepertame=MY LITTLE ATHEIST BITCH!!!

beaten by his daddy---masturbated to his momma

ISN'T HE CUTE WHEN HE GETS MAD AND STICKS THAT LITTLE LIP OUT???

AAAWWWW! 

[EastofForever]

@Aspartame69 EVERYBODY : LOOK AT THE LITTLE PUNK: BLOCKING ME FROM GETTING TO HIS VIDEOS WHEN HE'S BEEN CHASING ME AROUND LIKE PUSSY....LIKE A PUSSY...LIKE A PUSSY.

BUT HE CAN'T TAKE IT WHEN THE SHOE IS ON THE OTHER FOOT NOW CAN HE?

poor wittle atheist asswiperpertame!!!

he can't get away from his skydaddy!!! muwhahahahahahahaha!

and never will...

NEVER.

[Shazoolo]

Lennox is a legend. Thanks for making this available.

[99percentatheist]

I believe that the motivation of Hawking's book is not scientific, but rather, political or social. That is, the agenda is not to inform the masses, but rather, to push a naturalistic world view.

[AgeOfReasonXXI]

@99percentatheist "to push a naturalistic world view."

the 'scientific world view' you mean to say. well that's right. how else would the religious nuts finally get embarrased for organizing their lives around1st century superstitious nonsense?

[99percentatheist]

@AgeOfReasonXXI Oh yeah, like the universe creating itself and gravity being nothing is very scientific, right? And you call theists nuts? How ironic.

[AgeOfReasonXXI]

@99percentatheist "like the universe creating itself "

Hawking never says that

"gravity being nothing "

if by "nothing" you mean non-being, Hawking doesn't make that statement either. you don't think that one of the most brilliant physicists alive would equate gravity to non-being, do you? surely you know that that'not how they use "nothing".

as for where gravity comes from, one can always maintain that answer is the same as to the question 'where god comes from?'. it's no more speculative

[99percentatheist]

@AgeOfReasonXXI Yes I know how he uses the term "nothing" and it's to describe "something'. But how can "something" be "nothing"!? It's incoherent. As for God, he is a timeless, space-less, necessary being, that is, he does not come into being. All of this is answered by the video above, you should try watching it before you start commenting.

[Prolific85]

@99percentatheist I completely agree with you.

[14dicken]

"The law of gravity is not nothing".

It's so simple.

How can Hawking miss this emlementary contradiction ?