I hope you're not expecting a reply to that question from a religious person... because the odds are you won't get one.

Why? Well its all fine and nice for a religious person to ask "Well, how did the universe form from nothing smarty pants? It MUST have been created by god!"... yet when you ask the question "Well how did god get there?" they will suddenly dodge the question and conversation because there is no rational answer to that question that a religious person will accept. If they do attempt to answer it, the answer will be an irrational attempt to explain how god was always there and that its wrong to question god (when the question makes you uncomfortable, make the question go away... thats how religion survives).

Sorry Steve Hawking fans, but I am afraid this guy isn't all he is cracked up to be. He has been placed on a pedestal and I really don't see why.

He says...."Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing,"

Oh really.... well then where did the law of gravity come from? Nothing I suppose. I don't think so. The law itself represents something and like all of natures laws, there is a lot of intelligence behind them its not all that difficult to see.....including the laws of nature that just happened to create life and all of wonders herein.

I have "faith" that ProAmerica is going to answer that question MCC. Come on Pro, we're rooting for you. Be the first religious person in the world to answer that question coherently.

Gravity is the curvature of Space Time. Curvature is a mathematical concept, like zero or infinity, or the number two for that matter. Who created mathematics? The human mind(s). The creation of God by human minds is a solution to a problem, just like the calculation of the orbit of the moon is a solution to a problem, if your goal is to get to the moon. I wouldn't be suprised if there have been attempts for a mathematical proof of God, but I don't know of any successful ones.

Stephen Hawking's faith in his ideas appears to be much greater than the faith many have in God. “Because there is a law such as gravity... Spontaneous creation”!

The highest proof of evolution is found in the evolution of Science “facts”. “We have to work our way back from the present” over merely several decades of discarded science text books as proof positive. Scientific “facts” die off and are replaced more “advanced facts” which we very well may observe to evolve again in the near future.

MCC, here is your response from a religious person. Any reasonably intelligent religious person doesn't ask, "What was here before the Big Bang?" It is also foolish to ask "Where did God come from?" or "Who made God?" I know the concept of eternity is one that our minds do not easily wrap around, but that is exactly how long God has been around. You must realize that God would not be God if he were created. But being God means that he has always been and always will be. Does this defy science? Sure it does. But you obviously cannot expect God to confine himself to the laws or the realm of the universe. Anyways... That is another conversation

Yes, all theories demand that something simply exists in and of itiself, gravity, quantum foam, God, etc.

People don't beleive in God "because" they need an explanation of "why" the universe was created. Beleievers beleive in god because what I call their "faith faculty" leads them to beleif. (And cognitive psychologist have determined that thes drives are ahrd-wired.) Other people's fauclty elads them to non-belief. It's an assertion,a personal position which by its very nature isn't subject to empirical proof, either for belief or unbelief.

Nothing "exploded." The term "big bang" was invented by Fred Hoyle as a derisive commentary on a theory with which he didn't agree. Hoyle favored a steady-state theory in which matter and energy were spontaneously generated as the Universe expanded. Unfortunately the media of the day decided they liked "big bang" as a term and so we're stuck with it.

As for what expanded--well, the Universe expanded. It was in a particular state, very, very small, and then due to--something--it stopped being in that state and started being in this one. Cosmologists and religionists both strive to find out the reason for the state change. That "something" could be God, or a quantum fluctuation in a physics we haven't learned to describe yet, or something completely beyond our speculations up to this point.

No doubt before the expansion of the Universe it existed in that prior state for a long time (if "time" has any meaning in that context), and prior to that state there may have been an infinite number of prior states. No doubt there are state changes in our future which we will not be privileged to observe, simply because human beings won't be here a billion or trillion years from now. We can't address the deep past and deep future states with any accuracy because we'll never be able to see them--and that's a question of physics, not a question of time. They simply exist outside any relativistic light cone one could generate for us.

Asking "how did the Universe get here" is almost meaningless, because there was never a time when it wasn't "here." It simply looks different depending on when in its history one cares to take a look.

One writer above fairly challenges Hawking to "find nothing and create something". I challenge him to explain that if there was nothing before God, then where did God originate? Humans are bound by the limitations of time. That makes all of this an exercise in argument. In a pragmatic sense though, the clearest distinction between science and religion is that in the science world we celebrate when we prove a previous theory wrong (i.e. Hooray!!! I just proved that the atom is not the smallest mass!!!!), whereas religion is afraid of one of their tenets being disproven (ie.."he says the earth revolves around the sun,...off with his head!!!). In science, skepticism is embraced. In religion it is feared. Science seeks to understand the specifics our origin and evolution, while religion seeks to explain it through their respective pre-existing narratives. Science embraces curiosity, religion demands acceptance. We will likely never have the full answer regarding our earliest origins. But for now, science comes much closer than fairy tales about woman springing from the rib of man, eating apples from talking snakes, immaculate conceptions, rising from the dead, human sacrifice, etc....

All we need to know is that, historically, every explanation regarding nature which invoked the supernatural has been wrong. Always. Without exception and without fail. The "God" explanation has a 100% failure rate. It was wrong with disease, earthquakes, planetary motion, mental illnesses, etc. etc. When the God believers show me a SINGLE success in history that's testable, then they'll have an argument.

thank you

Nothing exists without an end, cause and effect. God is the First End, the spiritual world is the cause and the material world the effect. All three have existed without time (there is only the appearence of time in the material world). So the big bang was just an event in our local horizon - the beginning of our neighborhood. Come on folks - stretch your minds out of the material into the great beyond. If you are so smart, you should be able to do this rather easily.

No matter what you come up with regarding what came first the question can always be asked, "where did that come from?" This is true whether it is the big bang, God, this version of "sponteneous creation". Walk down this path of "what came before that and what came before that?" Regardless of whether that path is a "God" path or a big bang path, see how far you get without your brain seizing. This one question that has been considered since the beginning of time of "how did things begin?" is proof that we are not all knowing and that we currently lack the ability to comprehend a state of no beginning and no end. This, together with the grandeaur and order of our world and universe, leads me to put my faith in a greater power and plan, something else that is hard to comprehend, rather than some lame attempt of another simple human mind that can't function unless it has an explanation to everything.

Infinity is imposible to explain to our finite minds. It can be approached only through analogies. So it's not possible to discuss where God came from if Life has always existed. We can beat our heads on this one all day and not get anywhere.

I once wrote a creation story: http://clayhound.us/creation.htm It was fun to do and ended up answering some of my questions. Try it sometime, you might be suprised what's in your head.

Why talk about the creation of the universe. Hawkins nor anyone else can tell you what dark matter is composed of or it's nature and characteristics, yet they will assure you half if not more of the universe is composed of it.

My point, a human being isn't qualified to even have an opinion as to whether or not a god exist.

O come on science as the end all answer is just asinine. The problem with science its never a definitive answer what we accept as fact from science one day is disproven the next, and that theory is now fact. Science is ever evolving and can only be taken with a grain of salt, or as the "answer of the day".

As far as Hawking is concerned his book is only his theories, so there for they can only be taken as just that "Hawking's theories", because some day they will be disproven by another scientist.

I agree with Timling, and I dont mean it in a religious way, because just like everything else we experience in this world religion has been created by man. There is no way man will be able to explain how everything was created because we humans in this wolrd cannot comprehend enternity. We man have the need to see to believe to so speak to believe. I dont concider myself a big religious person but I do agree that eternity means what it means and only a supreme being can be eternal otherwise it wouldnt be call eternal. No one alive will be able to answer this questions.

Just like somebody said above, God or Eternity wouldnt be eternal if something existed before nor the made up laws of man will apply to God. Ones we are dead we will only understand.

Jim Hawk III

Nice Argument. So the universe is infinite. If it is infinite then could you not assume the existence of "god"(a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc...)? Does not probability theory state that nothing is impossible and that given enough time anything, no matter how improbable, can and will occur? Can you not also argue that sometime in the future or the past something has/will cause/d the universe to exist?

Seems to me that Dr. Hawkins' faith in gravity has replaced his faith in God. Can the beginning of the universe, the ultimate action/cause that caused its creation be explained? Is it even possible, with absolute certainty to eliminate the question of what existed before? Or is it possible that time as we know it did not exist until that precise event occurred?

@Proamerica Your asking the right questions. Matter does spontaneously create itself in a vacuum. According to quantum mechanics, particles of matter spontaneously appear with an anti-particle, separate and then converge, cancelling each other and in the process give off energy. Henk Casimir in 1948 provided proof of this in his experiment where two metal plates placed close to each other in a vacuum chamber attract each other. This is caused by 'pressure' exerted from these cancelling particles being greater on the outside of the plates than the gap between the plates. This is called the 'Casimir Effect' and may explain why the rate the universe is expanding is increasing.

The BIG question is where did all this energy to generate the Big Bang came from in the first place. According to E=mc*2, all matter can be converted to energy, or if one was to expand that, matter is energy that has coalesced into a palpable form. We know the equation works; Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Nevada desert felt it. But without what sparked where all this energy came from, it is in my opinion that invoking God into the grand equation is valid, for at least now. I await Hawking's and Mladinow's findings. At the very least it would leave more think about.

I dunno, I think saying the human mind invented Math is like saying Columbus discovered America. They were both here before humans, a human just had to exist to translate its form into a "something" we could understand. Perhaps God works in the same way?

And the answer to your question: "what exploded if nothing existed before the big bang" was gone over in the blurb about Hawking's book: nothing. There was no "before" the big bang, since the big bang created time. Divide by zero. Error. What's north of the north pole?!?

I'm not saying that I buy into the theory - but you should at least read the article and make some effort to understand it before you try to tear it down. It still sounds like an interesting theory, and I may just have to pick up the book ... at the library. You know ... a big building full of books?

I hope you're not expecting a reply to that question from a religious person... because the odds are you won't get one.

Why? Well its all fine and nice for a religious person to ask "Well, how did the universe form from nothing smarty pants? It MUST have been created by god!"... yet when you ask the question "Well how did god get there?" they will suddenly dodge the question and conversation because there is no rational answer to that question that a religious person will accept. If they do attempt to answer it, the answer will be an irrational attempt to explain how god was always there and that its wrong to question god (when the question makes you uncomfortable, make the question go away... thats how religion survives).

Were God a fourth-dimensional being, he would not need to "exist" as far as our definition would extend. He could manipulate space-time without the need to occupy a physical space, therefore he would not need a three dimensional, physical universe in order to affect a change.

@jatmn There are very few "facts" as you believe them, in science, there are mostly theories. Gravity, Evolution, relativity, fission, fusion, are all theories. There are very few proofs in science, hence very few facts.

And Stephen Hawking is talking about Quantum Physics here, most of you guys probably won't understand most of what Hawking is saying.

@teryakwind god would have to exist in a much higher plane than space/time (fourth dimension) in order to affect the supposed changes.

SH may be able to do math very well, other than that, he's showing his true ignorance of the truth. God has always been here and always shall be here. Even if some don't believe it, it doesn't make it any less true.

It amazes me how the Intelictual can explain the biggest question of all time and give their "Proof Positive" by refering to Darwin and his interpretation of the world.Darwin was a man writting his personal revelations just as the men of the Bible were writting down their personal revelations.Its a matter of which man or men are you going to follow and stake your belief of what happens when we die. They are answering 'Proof Positive" about the Universe and cant even find a cure for the common cold, remove cancer, AIDS how to end hate in our hearts and why some kill and others live pretty decent lives but he has answred how this world began.

Jim Hawk III, Your argument is excellent and it brings up a point that until science can prove either the existence of the universe before the expansion, or what caused the expansion, these theories must be accepted as beliefs (faith, if you will allow me). Just as the Christian has not proven the existence of an eternal God and creator of all, it too is accepted by belief (faith alone). My problem with Stephan Hawking's latest proclamation is that by stating that "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he is making a statement that is pure cop-out rather than offering any proof (either mathematical or even purely hypothetical) that can substantiate his statement. His statement is very Descartes "Cogito ergo sum".

3 questions for Hawking:

1) Where did the matter come from? Something from nothing? Sorry, not valid

2) What caused the big bang? Still cannot answer that one, can you?

3) How did life spontaneously begin? Why can't you recreate this phenomenon in your lab?

As smart as we think he is, Mr. Hawking is touting unproven theories. It takes more faith to believe Mr. Hawking's theories than it does to believe in God.

I drop a book on the floor, that's gravity. Nothing gets created when I drop a book.

God created matter, God created the universe. We are God's creation. Creation is a living, breathing process that is still ongoing. We don't know how it happened and will never know, until the day we meet him face to face. Are there beings living on other planets? Maybe. There is nothing in the Bible that denies this. There is but one true God. There may be many versions of humans running around the universe.

I find it curious that those that think Believers are ignorant, have never taken the time and intellectual effort to truly study and understand scripture. Scripture and science are not mutually exclusive things. It does take some intellect to see how they fit together. Too bad someone as bright as Hawking cannot grasp this.

"So who created god? How bout you find nothing, then create a god out of it."

This is an illogical question. It is like asking, when did that which never came into existence come into existence? Hawking is arguing that the universe came into existence, and all things that come into existence need a cause. Religious people do not argue that God came into existence, and therefore do not need to provide a cause. Asking for a cause of that which did not come into existence nor is an event is actually absurd. It is not that something exists therefore a cause is required; it is that something came into existence and event occur that logically require an initial (and subsequent) causes.

It is another thing to question the plausibility of the existence of God, but asking "Who created God?" is simply nonsensical. If you wish to get around an initial cause of the universe, then you must argue for an eternal universe (which has been mentioned as the steady-state theory). Arguing for spontaneous creation out of nothing seems quite illogical to me. It treats "nothing" as an actual entity (something). One philosopher addressed this point by saying that it would be like someone saying that nothing stopped the German advance, and another responding that it was great that the Germans were stopped. Nothing is a non-entity and as such has no causal powers. It is absurd to say that the universe was caused by nothing. Some scientists claim that we cannot let a divine foot in the door, because then we would have to consider all things possible. Even though this is not true and the existence of God permits the logical advancement of science, spontaneous creation from nothing would truly make nearly anything possible.

A steady-state theory may get you around the burden of explaining why matter exists rather than nothing, but even granting this theory it is evident that this universe did not remain static. It cannot account for an active universe that contains events. Therefore, an initial cause allowing for events is still required. We cannot get around the need of a first cause; therefore, we must discern what the necessary characteristics of this first cause are. It must have causal power, which of course rules out nothing as nothing literally has nothing, including no properties (it's odd that one would have to emphasis the nature, or better yet lack of nature, of nothing, but some don't always grasp that nothing means NOTHING - not a kind of something).

Does matter have causal power over itself? If you believe so then I'd like to hear an example. Material effects are the result of prior material causes (Man throws ball, bat hits ball, gravity pulls ball to earth). An infinite regress of causes is logically absurd; therefore a material first cause of the universe appears quite implausible. We need to look for a first cause that is not bound by this necessary regression of prior causes. What fits this bill? A first cause with the capacity of spontaneous choice.

You can argue on the issue of the plausibility of the existence of God and the nature of the first cause, but it is absurd to inquire of the cause of the first cause. I have argued for the incapability of the (non-theistic) steady-state theory to adequately account for the nature of the universe. If you feel that a different description of a first-cause better explains reality, then present it, but asking illogical questions gets you nowhere (and by nowhere I don't mean somewhere =P).

The Big Bang happened because two (or more) adjacent 11th dimensional "branes" collided. The expansion we theorize seems to me to be simply the same collision being at more than a single point, like two sheets in the wind.

***To clarify, I meant to say that material causes have prior causes, not that material causes necessarily have prior material causes, though this would be required within a naturalistic worldview. As I am not a naturalist, I hold that material causes/effects can have immaterial causes.

@ killerdryn: higher than the fourth dimension then! Current ten-dimensional theory supports the idea of God as a denizen of one of those dimensions above ours.

The latest theories involve infinite multi-verses. When that concept is compared to God then I have to ask, so you are expecting me to believe that some being, that I cannot see and have no proof of, has existed forever over the concept that what I can see and touch has existed forever? No.

Also, why do people keep insisting that the Universe is expanding into nothing? Have you seen outside the universe? No. One theory I have is that the old battle between matter v anti-matter took place a long time ago and antimatter won but pockets of matter continue to pop into existence. Regardless, I am not convinced there is 'nothing' anywhere.

Or another viewpoint. Assuming something created all we see, why oh why do people think it is one, single being? To me, that is the single most ludricous concept, theory, belief out of all of them. That is proof of man's simple-mindedness and nothing less. IF something created all this (and I stress IF) then it is far more likely it is a race of beings that exists outside of all we know, not a single presence.

Bottom line, I think, on a public level that no assumptions should be made in, say, regards to laws, based on some being we cannot prove exists. I don't think anyone should be telling me or anyone else what can and cannot be done based on some 'faith'. That should remain solely personal until proven otherwise. They have no right and I will not accept it. Period.

"It is also foolish to ask "Where did God come from?" or "Who made God?""

NO it is not. It is foolish NOT to ask those questions.

i came up with something that mirrors this 20 years ago but q1. who ordained the 'LAW' or was it, the concept, platos 'form' just there prior to creation? it just continues on. it's easy to accept this if you are trying to get away from a God concept except it will still haunt you much like the response to plato. my idea was creation from nothing following an idea akin to hawkings gravity. that is; a primal thought from an all pwerful source can in the process of going also return to the source and in so creates a reverberation or lump which is the essence of time and therfore matter with whatever secondary principals accompany purpose or definition. think about it before responding.

It gives you the same magical feeling as saying, when in trouble, everything will be okay. Believing gives sense to our existence, compensates for our lack of knowledge, education or intelligence -- especially vis-a-vis of anything more complex than the Holy Book of our choice. Even if it's a poor man's answer, it is legitimate, and believing is important variant of human experience.

Oooo!!! I couldn't wait to jump into the fray on this one! LOL!

First of all, while I respect Mr. Hawking for his astrophysical theories and contributions to science, I am appalled that he would overtly come out to denounce religion based upon this particular theory of origin. The magnitude of science is limited by the simple understanding of human experience. We can only know as much as we humans can ascertain through study of our physical environment.

So, I find it mildly amusing that there is always so much debate between Creationists and Science. One should not forsake the other because there is no uniform comparison between the physical, tangible universe, and the spiritual. There can never be any comparison because it is, to mention an overused adage, the difference between "apples and oranges". Two people debating science vs. religion are never truly debating the same thing. Kinda like:

Person 1: "The grass is green."

Person 2: "No, it's beautiful."

Person 1: "No! It's green because of the photosynthetic properties of the plant."

Person 2: "You're wrong. It's green because that's the way I perceive it to be. And it's beautiful."

Person 1: "No way! It's green because the green color portion of the spectrum captures the energy of the sun's rays best."

Person 2: "No, it's green because my mind perceives it to be green, and it gives life."

On...and on.......and on..........

So it's a ridiculous argument at best. Besides, while I identify as a Christian because I was born into a Christian family and community, I find much of the argumentative support from so-called Christians to be sophomoric and full of folly. I get irritated when people use Scripture to support their cause, when throughout history people have used the rigid, hard-interpretation of their religion to support virtually any conceivable position.

While I respect the Bible, I do not take it for face value. The Bible was not written by God, it was written by man....over many centuries, by many people, in many different languages...and then subject to translation since. While the big picture the Bible represents is noble and insightful, it is still full of contradictions and falsehoods. Therefore, do not quote Scripture to support your argument, you must rationalize your arguement in more broad, abstract terms.

The best explanation I have heard on this thread is that science explains the "how", and God explains the "why". I am a spiritual person, I believe in God as the Creator of all, the alpha and the omega. I believe God created our physical universe to allow humans the chance to experience life in the absence of absolute spirituality, to encourage the development of our own souls within the confines of space, time, and human fallacy. God does not care what religion you are, He only cares WHO you are as a person designed to love.

If you study near-death experiences, one quickly realizes that religion and science are relatively incompatible with one another. That is because neither religion nor science can explain the true meaning of spirituality. Religion is the cultural expression of spirituality, not spirituality itself. That is where we fight and argue over useless issues in life.

Maybe, just maybe, God created the physical world, complete with its physics and mathmatics, so as to allow humans to better understand the goings-on, to be able to interpret and influence our environment (the universe) for the betterment of us all. As we understand the universe, we slowly come back to God to answer the true questions of why we are here in the first place.

MCC here's my take on who created God. God was created by non-scientific "scholors" as a way to explain how the universe came into existance and to exhert control over other people.

Personally I think some of Stephen Hawkings theories are a little strange but the Big Bang makes so much more sense than a being with no physical form creating planets, animals, humans, etc.

Apostle Rick, I dont' think there has ever been hard proof that "God" ever restored anybody. I don't mean some passage from the bible either. I don't take anything on faith.

@ Debbie-1144654:

Ten-dimensional theory supports the idea that there are beings in dimensions above ours that could exert a signifigant change in our dimensions of space-time without the need to be seen. Such a being would be invisible to us and its form beyond our comprehension to understand. If you have an issue with this explanation hingeing on ten-dimensional theory, please remember that ten dimensions of space is the only variable that allows a unified field theory such as scientists are trying to solve to be possible.

"God does not care what religion you are, He only cares WHO you are as a person designed to love."

So says a human who has never met, spoken with, or in any way shared two-way communication with said entity.

The term "big bang" was introduced about 60 years ago to differentiate the modern view from an earlier "steady state" view of the the universe.

The term big bang does not mean there was an explosion.

The claim is that the known laws of physics can explain how we got here w/o introducing events, such as virgin birth, or other magical occurrences, which violate known laws of physics or biology.

If one wants to pick apart an idea it's best to understand it first.

@Jeff, yes it's true that there are very few "facts" as the previous poster was stating about what is presented in textbooks. Most things in science are actually hardened theories. It is not a "fact" in science until it is proven in every scenario or proven arithmetically. As such, theories are subjected to change when new evidence is introduced into the field. This is how the scientific process works.

So from the previous posters example of how textbooks change every year as an example of why he/she believed that science was bunk. And I countered that what the poster was believing as fact as the bible presents them, did not apply in the same way.

@teryakywind

Ok if you do believe god as a being somewhere in the 10th dimension, why does it have to be your god? or even one of the monotheistic kinds? If one can exist so can many, heck it may even be Zeus, Ares, Hades, Poseidon, Seth, Ra, Horus, Loki, Thor, Odin, Izanagi, Amaterasu, Susanoo, Wandjina, Altjira, Baiame, etc....

@Fred - would you care to explain why the question "Where did the thing that never came come from?" It is illogical to ask. The question is whether God exists, and if He does then He never came into being, but always was. If He doesn't exist, then He also came from nowhere because He never existed.

It seems as though you don't understand much about cosmology. An infinite regress is logically absurd; therefore, whatever one proposes as the entity out of which came the first cause, it must have never come into existence. Anything that comes into existence requires a prior cause.

If there really is a God who is ontologically 'big enough' to explain the Universe then there could not have been anything we could call 'before' such a God. If there really is such a God, then he must be 'above and beneath and beyond' us in the true ontological sense, in that he had no beginning, has no end, in fact possesses the power of self-existence. This alone places him beyond our reckoning, when it comes to questions about his existence or 'origins' - as it places him as the very 'ground' of existence itself. 'Existence' and all that exists, rests upon the ground/platform/ontological base of the self-existent one. Without this self-existent one as a base, the Universe would collapse something like a painting without a canvas. (Even beings within the Universe who don't believe in a self-existent god would collapse without his support - Richard Dawkins, Steven Hawking) This is not easy to wrap our minds around, since our experience of 'existence' is from the perspective of temporary and contingent beings. We don't directly perceive Being and Nothingness (could we even?). The self-existent god does perceive these things directly. He is capable of willing things into existence at the base quantem level, the next level up from himself, whatever that is. The self-existent god is non-contingent - he depends on nothing and requires nothing outside of himself. A self-existent being would fill or negate 'nothingness' with himself but that does not require a 'beginning' to his existence as we think of it. He simply is because he is (I Am that I Am) - that is what self-existence is - and he negates the nothingness that would have been had he not existed.

We really don't know what nothingness is - we've never seen it or encountered it, except perhaps in our experience of the absence of a loved one or the absence of furniture in a vacant house. But that is a poor example of what raw nothingness would be like to encounter. A self-existent god however would know what nothingness is, since he is the negation of nothingness, he would be life/existence itself. (Perhaps the best way to describe 'nothingness' from God's perspective would be 'outer darkness')

So now convice me that this is the God we've created in our image...

God can't be explained by man no matter how hard we try. the same way we will never be able to fully explain the universe & all of its mysteries. to me they are one & the same. some make it seem as though we created God instead of the other way around.

I was blind, but now I see. I used to think like Mr. Hawkings until my spirit was invaded by God. Now I see and understand that the God of the Bible is the God of creation. You, Mr. Hawkings are still blind, dead by spiritual standards. Without having an understanding of what lies beyond the physical realm by being attached to it, there is no point in making suppositions about anything.

mcc-

I can't answer the question about where God comes from, but there is something I would like to say. A lot of the time people say they won't believe in God until certain (or all) questions they have are answered for them. The problem with that is that God is so much superior to us and so much more complex it is really foolish for us to think that we can understand everything about Him. It is like an ant trying to understand how to build a computer or do brain surgery. Or even to understand WHY we do it. If an ant can't ever hope to understand us, how much more will we not understand God? Our brains don't function anywhere close to the way the mind of God does, so you can't expect to understand why or how God does many things. Although He does allow us enough understanding that we can answer many questions, there will always be things we don't understand. But there is far more evidence for the existence of God and salvation through Jesus Christ than there is that He is not real. If you are all do the research and are honest with yourselves, you will see. But God leaves it up to you to decide if you care enough to find out. I pray that you all do!

If you are interested in this, check out some of the books by Lee Strobel, like "The Case for Christ." Or read "Letters from a Skeptic" or "The Problem of Evil" by Greg Boyd. Or "Darwin on Trial" by Phillip Johnson. Those are some books I read as a new Christian that really strengthened my faith. There are tons more excellent books out there that can give you the evidence you need to prove that Christ is for real. I hope you'll all check them out, since your eternal life depends on it!

Did I miss a big headline here or is it NEWS that a scientist says there isn't a God? Of COURSE there isn't a God, Scientists can't admit to a more intelligent entity than themselves, after all we humans know everything, just ask a scientist. Oh! By the way, how's that cure for the common cold coming along guys? Get real people, there are things out there that we cannot conceive in our wildest imaginations, including the combined intellectual assets of every so called scientist on this puny little planet we inhabit.

Man created God in his own image and likeness. A constantly fluctuating perception to explain mortality, or as a means of defining the "perfect" parent solution for future reference.

The occurence of a supposed "big bang" is deduced from an examination of the movements of galaxies. All galaxies everywhere we look are expanding away from each other. This is not theory, it is observed and confirmed fact. Additionally, the farther away you look, the faster the galaxies are receding. All of this evidence, if rewound in reverse, indicates that at one time in the past all galaxies were much closer together and extending this idea to it's logical conclusion, all galaxies were supposedly once all in exactly the same infinitesimally small, dense, hot, place, known as a singularity, from which they all burst forth in a great wave of expansion and cooling which brings us eventually to where we are now.

So goes one theoretical explanation for the data we observe. The difficulty with this is that it seems to imply, as others have debated above, that the universe sprang into being from nothingness, which as Proskutes has eloquently pointed out, is nonsense.

There is also the idea which has been mentioned that the universe exists in a "steady state" without expanding, but that does not match observed data, so that idea has been mostly abandoned.

There is another way. The universe may exist in an oscillating cycle of expansion, slowing due to gravity and then contraction into a "big crunch" from whence the next universe explodes in an eternal cycle of destruction and rebirth. (Hello, Kali? Brahma? Vishnu? are you there?).

The only trouble with this theory is that currently it seems that the observed movements of the galaxies are actually accelerating rather than slowing due to gravity. If true, then this cylical model doesn't hold. The explanation for the supposed acceleration is unknown and it is credited to vaguely defined notions such as "dark energy". Humbug.

It is my personal opinion that possibly when more accurate measurements are made, which account for as yet unseen and unknown quantities of nothing more mysterious than interstellar dust, which will then be understood as the missing mass or "dark matter" of the observed rapidly swirling galaxies, and also will be understood as the root cause of the miscalibration of expansion measurements, then at last, in a quick Poof, many mysteries will be solved. Therefore, the universe will indeed eventually collapse back in upon itself, and all is doomed. Until the next time.

Oh, and one more thing, don't bother praying to save it all. There's no one listening.

So who created god? How bout you find nothing, then create a god out of it.

Considering the millions of "Gods" that have been created, it must be quite simple. Hey, just in this thread alone I've spotted several new variations of "god" that were apparently made up on the spot!

That makes a nifty intellectual challenge - try counting the various versions of "gods" that have been mentioned here.

Each religion is a product of the interpretation of it's followers. Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, Islam, etc, they all worship the same God . . . just with a different interpretation. So is one religion correct above all others? No. They are all subject to ancient interpretation. Does this mean that a creator does not exist? Not necessarily. Science and evolution may explain the workings of a creator.

Accepting the fact that time, as we know it, represents the passage of life. And time does not exist in the realm of the creator, because it has always been. Given these two concepts, we can toss out the notion that the world was created in 7 days. If time does not exist for the creator, then the "7 days" is an interpretation by man. In addition, these "7 days" can actually represent millions of years of creation and evolution. God creating Adam from dust may be a simplified explanation of God causing evolution to take place . . . from the evolution of cells (a concept translated to "dust" in ancient times) to the eventual human result.

Religion and science do not have to be competing concepts. In the realm of possibilities, science may be the work of God. And each religion will interpret this work in their own way. People constantly say that God works in mysterious ways, so why would they think it was any different in the beginning?

It is a shame that religious institutions would rather wage a never-ending war against science, instead of accepting the fact that science may be God at work.

God? What do we really know about anything? What do we know as fact or infallible? So? How can you say his existence is or isn't?

Scientists often suffer from pre ejaculation and go with the latest venue that is subscribing to their self perception of existence.

They're has to be and is way more to the story. Not everything adds up! Everyone has had things happen in their lives that is simply unexplainable, Well I have.

Math is my cup of tea however there is way more to this than MATH? We don't understand why Stephen is still alive is this due to math or just his ability to see hope and future. Personally i would put more into the laws of perception than I would into Math. Math is the tool in which the container we exist in speaks. Can we see outside our container? Can we see what is in our container? Can you tell me that we are not in a container?

As always people will give me the poker face.

Stephen if you got it all figured out please enlighten me into the the mathematics behind gravity now not the constant attraction but the fundamental building blocks of this so called gravity. So since you cannot than it is my assumption that your gravity doesn't exist.

Religion being in mans hands for so long hasn't got a grip on me, yet I still believe in God maybe not as others do but believe do to experiences in life. My ideas as I like to say are open but they exist. Remember that you have to believe in god to say you don't believe in him. Otherwise you simply would walk away with no comment about the subject. Are you trying to convince me or yourself?

We are on the verge of the molecular computer yet you can say that the pressence of a god isn't possible. Scientists that sound just like the ones who sit across the isle and laugh at your theories. Whats possible or impossible is subject to vision no vision would mean its impossible.

I kind of find it hard to believe that "The Universe" came out of no where. It doesn't just appear, but then again, I kind of find it hard to believe that the almighty "God" comes out of nowhere either.

Spontaneous Creation?? Why didn`t he just say "It was magic" Genius? How absurd. Isn`t it much easier to believe in a wonderful God?

Why is it so inconceivable that God could not have done His works and science is finding out the means by sifting through the rubble? And I offer this, taken from "King of the Earth" by Erich Sauer, that great German apologist;

"The German mathematician Professor Hans Rohrbach tells of the following conversation between Cardinal Faulhaber, Archbishop of Munich, and Professor Albert Einstein; 'I respect religion, but believe in Mathematics;' said Einstein, 'doubtless for your Eminence the reverse is true.' 'You are mistaken,' replied Faulhaber, 'religion and mathematics are for me only different ways of expressing the same Divine exactness.' Einstein was astonished. 'But what if one day mathematical research should show that certain verdicts of science contradict those of religion?' 'I have such high regard for mathematics, ' replied Faulhaber, 'that in such a case, you, Professor, would be under obligation never to stop looking for the error in calculation.'" (pg32)

Some things just are, no matter how bad you want them to not be, and some things just are not, not matter how badly you want the to be. The natural man does not seek the things of God, and indeed he cannot, because sin brings a separation from God, so that he is unable to draw near to God. But when faith is found in a man, God draws him, and faith when it is complete, brings forth salvation and newness of life. Then does a man have eyes to see, and ears to hear.

Something was there just in a different time which make it impossible for us to find.

What if there was another big bang after the big bang we are keeping time with. Would it still be impossible to find?

Crazy because I just wrote a blog about how the universe began according to the Quran and how the Quran talks about (in detail) the expansion of gases in a way quite similar to the big bang theory. Check it out at singlecreed.blogspot.com

Is gravity nothing? This universe needed only gravity to create itself....So was gravity just always there? I really can't see gravity...yet you need only look around you to know it's there.

Hmmmm....gravity must be imaginary...like Santa Clause

the problem is still there is no such thing as nothing and no such thing as a beginning of time the human mind can not comprehend infinity so we always have to come up with a beginning. Something always was and stating that science can eliminate God is just putting a limit to God because they hate to admit there was something always. Just because Darwin proved evolution does not mean he took God out of the picture God created the laws like gravity to put the whole evolution and creation in motion. I've felt that God just created man but I doubt we came from monkey there never will be a missing link. God created the laws that got it in motion and then let it's laws do there thing. Everything that is, was, will always be is God we are not a separate creation by God we are a creation from God since God is all the infinite engulfing beyond what the human mind can understand.

The answer to if God was before the Big Bang then how did He get there is simple. He is based outside of both time and space, its one of the concepts that a human can't fully get a grasp on, even the most touted Christians. Everything a human understands has limits, period. God being omnipotent means that he can't have limits, including time and space. If God was limited by time and space, he couldn't be omnipresent. Also, it would be possible to get to Heaven without believing in Jesus, you'd simply build a spaceship to get there (stupid idea, I know....that's the point). I challenge anyone to point out something that they can FULLY understand WITHOUT ANY LIMITATIONS.

I suppose that this really boils down to the old argument of: The Big bang? Where did the particles come from? And: If God was there before the universe, where did he come from?

This is simply called the theory of "Infinite Regression".

The main issue here is that in the world of science (i.e. where there must be empirical verification; reproducible phenomena), the law of Physics which says "From nothing Nothing comes" is an inescapable prison. All of Mr. Hawking's comments aside, Science is trapped by it's own law until it can PROVE that it does not apply, which Mr. Hawking cannot do, nor can anyone.

On the other hand, for the argument of "Well, where did God come from?", that is not so binding. If one wanted to grant the possibility that God did "come from somewhere" (theoretically only, of course), then the question would then be, "What does that prove?". Answer: We are not responsible to God's (supposed) creator, we are responsible to ours. The argument of who created God is rendered completely moot at that point.

So, in the end, Science is still stuck having to try to prove that something can come from nothing and being unable to do so, whereas those who answer to God have no such problem.

You know, if you do not accept faith then fine, I do not begrudge you that; let science be your guide. However, at the same time there is pervasive tendency to not only disagree with and ridicule those who hold onto and love their God, but also to vilify those people of faith. There are indeed religions in this world at this time with factions of people who deserve to be vilified, Islam being the leading culprit. That being said, with the exception of maybe a few isolated crazies (on a global scale) including the Westboro Baptist church crowd, Christianity doesn’t seek to destroy or castigate nonbelievers. So what motivates the bigots of this thread who do everything they can to belittle the faith of those claiming to believe in God?

I found one particular post very interesting. The post basically stated that people of faith do not welcome skepticism while people who rely solely on science do embrace skepticism. Really? …Really? If you doubt the validity of theory of evolution (which I believe in btw) you are now someone to be looked down upon and made fun of. Let’s take this global warming debate… wait there is no global warming debate, it’s settled science and any hereti… um, I mean skeptic is akin to a holocaust denier. Those that embrace the theory of global warming are calm rational scientifically-minded people who just want what is best for everyone… except Ted Kaczynski and James Lee… but they’re anomalies.

The truth is there are irrational zealots in every religion, including global warmingism, but you people need to keep your hatred in check.

Gary420

I drop a book on the floor, that's gravity. Nothing gets created when I drop a book.

What about a sound? ;-)

The *thud* created by the book hitting the floor didn't happen until gravity pulled them together.

I used to think I was something.

But now I realize I'm nothing.

It's all possible because gravity exists.

Heavy stuff, man.

I think I'm gonna light up another joint and ponder this.

Loo, I believe the post you referenced was insinuating that no material entity is created from "dropping a book on the floor".

Sound is simply the release of energy from motion that is carried through a medium by concussive forces. True, a sound is "created" by such an impact as a dropped book, but that is only because the approximation (or movement) of two physical objects creates a vibrational energy release that our ears re-arrange into nerve impulses to be interpreted by our brains as a sound.

So the "thud" really isn't a created element, just a transitory change in energy, that cannot be created nor destroyed.

But since this thread is largely a religious/spiritual conversation.....May God bless you all.

Indy,

Just curious - What about a fart? Is that a transitory change in energy, or is something created? I could buy off on it if it just made a sound, but what about the odor?

Not saying I'm God or anything, but I can be pretty creative after a trip to Taco Bell. :)

LOL, LostFlorida, you make me laugh.......

At first I wasn't sure if you were serious, but I'm assuming you're just being comical.

Then again, if you are serious......I can answer your post.........

if there is a god, lets burn him at the stake for creating this hell we live in, :) we have proof already life has been wiped off this planet many times over already .... why does it even matter if there is a god, life is short, we need to just live it to the fullest everyday, and find better ways to survive ... no matter how we got here

John S,

God exists.. He doesn't need us to believe.. He want's us to believe for our own benefit.. not His. It's amazing how Christians are asked so many questions people believe they are supposed to know. Truth is.. alot about God is a mystery.. The fact that we can't possibly imagine what the length of eternity is doesn't mean God hasn't always been here. Our minds just can't grasp every concept. But the truth is all around us.. and science doesn't negate any of the truths.. in fact it only serves to help form more concrete evidence that there is a Creator.. we have our ideas.. and our theories.. but the truth is we don't know half of what we think we do. Belief in the Lord isn't about blind faith.. it's about calculated, concrete faith in truth.

Why is the higgs boson called the god particle? Einsteins and Newtons are born about every 2 hundred years. They formulate theory without super colliders and super computers.

So something can come from nothing...because of gravity? Where did gravity come from? Your theory is interesting but you have no more proof than we who believe in God. I do understand the universe and our planet are lots older than 5,000 years. Just because people can't understand how God does things doesn't make him real. I do not think he controls everythingng we think or do, I do not think he sends earthquakes or storms or any other natural disasters. I believe he gave us life and tried to guide us through our infancy and childhood then as we grew he gave us a handbook and left us to grow into what we are today. It is no more unreasonable a theory than yours...and unlike yours it is free!

Actually, Mr. Hawkin is quite right. If you think about it GOD could not have existed before man. In a sense man created the entity we call GOD. Before that, nothing to our knowledge, existed. There is no information that was transferred saying GOD existed before we did. At the instant we were created GOD came in to being. The entity everybody actually calls GOD is also called nature. GOD and nature are the same entity. A combination of forces that allow for the creation of life when the conditions are just right. Humans knew thousands of years ago that nature ran the show. In some cultures it would have meant death to challenge the existence of a supreme entity. There is no profit and control in having an unintelligent entity running the show. Phrases in the Bible like I am the beginning and the end meant nature is the beginning of things and it will be the end of things. The Alpha and the Omega. Created in its own image. Natures goal is only to perpetuate life where ever it can in a form that will mimic itself in the perpetuation of life. In its image. Our original purpose is to be born, multiply and die as everything before us has done. We added all the rules to the game. Natures rules still exist at the animal level.

Why is the higgs boson called the god particle?

Because many physicists, like Hawking, understand that gravity is indeed the most influential force in the universe. It shapes the planets, stars and galaxies and determines the interactions among them. Those who do not understand these processes naively claim that "god made it that way". The interesting thing for the physicist is just exactly how and why gravity works the way it does. The theoretically predicted Higgs-boson particle may prove to be the mediator of gravity's effects, so at some point some guy said something like, "Hey, if we do find this thing, it would be kind of like finding god, wouldn't it?" and the media took it from there.

Even if they do manage to isolate and verify the existence of the Higgs particle, it will neither prove nor disprove anything about the supposed existence of any god. From Apollo to Zeus, Allah to Yahweh, they're all imaginary.

Oh, and one more thing... to Lost in Florida: Why did god make farts smell? So deaf people can enjoy them too! (Thank you, Redd Foxx)

Full disclosure disclaimer: Just because I joke about god creating farts should not be taken in any way to indicate that I think he actually exists or actually has created anything. It's a joke, fer christ's sake!

Are you implying that the Higgs boson is the graviton particle? They are not the same, the Higgs boson and the Higgs field are thought to give mass to some particles, not electromagnetic. The key feature is the Higgs has a spin of 0 and it interacts with the weak force bosons, W and Z, and it strongly interacts with gauge symmetries of the weak force. The graviton is a particle of spin 2 and is a quantum definition of gravity. The goal of the graviton and quantum gravity is to merge quantum theory with the theory of relativity. It is my opinion that the Higgs boson will be found before the graviton due to weakness of a gravity force at the quantum levels.

@daylight2000

No evolution is not a religion, it's just that you don't have a firm grasp on the concept. You're expecting a plant to evolve into a frog in the time frame of a day. What the theory states is gradual changes over millions of years will eventually turn a dinosaur into a bird. And no Science does not state that the first life form came from nothing, what it states is the interaction and conditions of the early earth was the right conditions for atoms to form bond together, and eventually self replicate.

And we can observe evolution in action with simple life forms such as bacteria and viruses, even fruit fly life spans are short enough to observe changes to populations in the right conditions. We can see bacteria mutate to become antibiotic resistant, and it does become repeatable if we keep presenting them the same conditions. One reason why doctors and health officials stress the need to not use antibiotics when it's unnecessary.

I like the post about having a joint and pondering it all.

@daylight, You know I don't know why I even attempt to have a debate with someone that obviously has had some sort of traumatic brain injury. I think you really need to read many other books, and heck even other religions, other than the bible. I'm not going to write a dissertation explaining the slow pace of evolution and how whatever evidence I put forth, even if it was a time machine that fast forwarded the evolution of a species, you'll still fall back to saying it's not in the bible so it can't be true.

I've read the through most of the bible and most of the stories are completely impossible and outside the realm of any physical reality.

Hmmm.... And then.... who created the nothing in the first place?

Hmmm splain that one to me Lucy!

Until you read Hawking's book or comprehend what he does you cannot say he is wrong, likewise, you cannot say he is right.

God the Universe

I was in the womb. The womb was in my mother. My mother was on the earth. The earth is in the solar system. The solar system is in the Milky Way. The Milky Way is in the universe. Well, now where is the universe? What happens to logic? Some say it fails, some say it ends, and some say physics is complete. Stephen Hawking perhaps presumes that universe created itself from nothing. Nothing? I am sure when Dr Hawkings said god he means the entity in which the god's men have faith based on belief. So says he that the universe is not created by the so called god. If God is not an entity then Hawkings can be right for assuming the universe or the creation itself as god and so he has faith based on physics that universe created itself. First please debate whether god is an entity or a non entity.

One comment on this controversy asks Dr Hawkings what was before the Big Bang. Well, it was the collapsing universe into the largest singularity, having the total energy, both the energy that manifests and the energy that does not manifest fused together. This singularity further collapses to trigger the Big Bang. The birth of the universe gives out two energies one that manifests into matter and the other which does not manifest remains as energy and expands along with the matter to hold them. Since this expansion and collapse occurs once in 100 years (NOT TERRESTRIAL YEAR) he must have said the universe creates itself from nothing.

Religions live in the past. Scientists live in the future. God's men think god made man in his own image for ever. Science tells us about evolution and man is not the final form of evolution. He can take mutation and get higher level of intelligence and find the answers and the Truth one day. It's unfair to expect science to unfold all the secrets in our lifetime. After all we humans even after thousands of years are not sure about god.

More than Dr Hawkings' declaration, I am amused by the reactions from godmen. Why not ask a couple of questions.

Where was god the entity before his creation? Did he create the universe around him or outside? Why did he choose that particular time to create? What was he doing before the creation? Why is god addresed as He and not She. When god said let there be light and there was light...how did sound come into being? God created the universe in an order (the order of evolution). Why cant he create in the reverse?

A comment said seeing is not believing. Is hearing believing? For ages now we believe that Mosses came down from the hill top and said that he spoke with god. Fortunately for some and unfortunately for others Erich von Daniken was not there, if he was he wouldn’t have believed it.
Margo K Sam India

In regards to MCC's question...First of all, the Bible says that God is a Spirit, and here we are talking about the creation of the physical universe.

That being said, just because abstract ideas - such as an eternal existence - are hard for most of us to comprehend, we do deal with challenging concepts -such as the endless counting of positive and negative numbers.

First of all, the Bible says that God is a Spirit

The bible also says that your burnt offerings should be well salted.

Who said nothing existed? If nothing existed then there could not have been a big bang. All the comets and rocks that are whirling around in the universe came from somewhere. Look at Half Dome it was Dome at one time and suddenly haolf of it slopped away because of gravity. Hawkings is not saying God does not exist he is saying he was not needed to complete what we know as the universe. I have for a long time thought that people who are so into God or whatever entity you think started all of this are so quick to jump on people who are non believers or at least offer a different opinion on how the process works or worked. Who is not to say that when God created the universe he did so in the manner Hawkings is talking about. One individual I know says the universe is the left over matter from a fireworks show in a giant universe we are only a small fraction of. Open your minds and think.

All of those that believe Creationist are religious fanatics need not look too far to criticize. If you call us religious because we beleive in a God we cannot see then what makes you hawkins' fanboys any different. Hawkins can't prove his THEORIES...that makes you religious.

DCFAN : Can you specify what or which of Hawkin's theories cannot be proven?

This is exactly what the bible talks about in the book of Daniel where it states, "in the end days, knowledge shall increase." You can try to explain the creation of the universe all you want, using fancy words, talking about time-space, black holes and quantom physics. But the fact of the matter is that you cannot use science to try to prove creation. Scientists have been arguing creation for years and havent found any solid evidence where we have come from or where we evolved from. Monkeys and Apes? Dont be ridiculous. There are many missing links in that theory and every other theory. I have actually heard alot of scientists coming out and saying "there is more of a possibility in there being a God that created us, then that we all came from a Big Bang." Lets face the facts, our earth has sustained life for billions of years and is the only that we have and ever will find of its kind. Bangs(or explosions) dont create a perfection of life as we have on our planet. Bangs create disorder, not perfection. And to say that this is an evolutionary purpose that has continued for billions of years that finally resulted in us going from slime, to ape, to a human being that has the ability to obtain, retain and put out the knowledge that we learn is craziness. There is no way a ning bang happened that linked to the earth in a proportionate distance from the sun to sustain life and molecules started forming, then slime, then amphibians then monkeys, then us turning into humans that have this great knowledge that we have. Im sorry Mr. Hawkins but that to me sounds like a fairy tale. For someone as intelligent as you are, you sure say alot of dumb things. Sorry. But to me, people that believe that we came from nothing are trying to find an excuse to not serve the God that created them. Or maybe they have a problem with a supreme ruler ruling over them. Either way, there is a God of creation that created the heavens and the earth, that always was, always is and always will be present. You cannot explain how we have this miricle of life that we have and say there is no creation. The stars in the sky declare the creation of God. You cannot explain to me how people at my church have had cancer and the doctor has told them that they have 6 months to live and they get prayed for, go back to the doctor weeks later and the doctor say, "I dont know what to tell you or how to explain it, but you dont have a singe cell of cancer in your body." You cant convince me in any power of positive thinking book that that is our own selves being confident and believing in ourselves to make that happen. That is called God working miracles....someone being told they wont live longer than 6 months, praying hard and 2 weeks later not having a single cancer cell in their body. We were created by an all-powerful God and heaven and hell is real folks. One day Jesus Christ will return and every knee will bow and tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father(Phillipians 2:9-11). Dont try to figure the universe out because you will fail. God didnt create the universe for us to figure it all out. He created it so we can be in awe of Him, His love and His power. We have a God that created us and loves us more than you can possibly imagine. We really need to stop being to smart for our own good and pick up our bibles. Thanks for listening and God Bless you all.

There are only two possibilities for life: Spontaneous Generation (evolution) or Bio-Genesis (creation). Louis Pastour, the father of modern biology, is recognized for his Basic Law of Biology which is "Life only arises from life". Then there is the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Entropy which in a nutshell is Organization to Chaos. Everything runs out of energy. Everything moves from order to disorder. Both these scientific laws are contrary to the Theory of Evolution which is life from nothing and chaos to order. This would cause one to have great faith to believe in evolution over Creation. Mathematically speaking, the odds of evolution are so high that no creditable person would believe in it. Without evolution, this leaves the atheist with only one fact, that the universe (which is finite and has been proven as such by science) was created. They choose not to accept this fact because they do not want to believe in a Creator.

"It is exactly these kind of lies, haunting humanity ever since the so-called 'enlightment,' that have created communism,"

This is the truth (quoted from a link above.)

And it explains why Stephen Hawking is every bit as guilty of the torture and murder of millions of Christians by such men as Stalin, Mao, and Fidel Castro and other godless totalitarian tyrants.

This is why those who do not believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ are damned to hell. It is not because they are "being punished for their 'love' or because they 'never hurt anybody'," both of which views are corrupt and violent lies. It is because they are guilty of murder: the murder of Jesus Christ and his followers.

Like Einstein said, Once you can accept that the universe is something expanding into nothing, wearing plaid with stripes is easy.

I believe that gravity would have had to exist to hold together 'the singularity before the Big Bang'. BTW, there was no 'nothingness of the space where the universe is', since space-time only exists 'within' the universe.

confusing LOL--space- time only exists within the universe, if the universe is expanding into nothingness then its also creating space-time? I'll read his book though I may not agree with the idea of no creator. i dont think there is a "god particle" god to me is not that simple. Maybe he leaves us clues?

Apostle Rick, post #2: If you have a relationship with Jesus Christ, then you may want to add religion to that relationship. It's plain as day light in Acts 26:5. There are other places, look at James 1:27. If you take this serious (as it is), you may want to drop that title you gave your self. I think that is mocking God.

That's just it: You have faith that God exists. So do I. However, scientists have evidence, that has been reproduced by colleagues, that protons exist. Truth in science is reproduceable results. The levels of knowing are different.

Brenda - yes, I can prove protons exist (well, I can't, but humanity can) - Science, being the explanation of God's creation, is a wonderful discipline. Being able to make sense of the physical world around us is the wonder of science. God never wanted us to be stupid.

However, as much as I hae Faith that God exists, you have Faith (assuming you are agnostic based on your comment) that God doesn't exist, and you also have Faith that the method of creation of the world you live in is the correct one - presumably, you have Faith that the Big Bang happened?

There is a such thing called reasonable faith that is based upon objective evidence.

You know (or at least it is known), that at a certain point, science becomes faith-based. As it happens to be, we are not omniscient, and that simple fact means that at its root, once you get past observation and easily supported theories, our science is guesswork and finger-crossing.

guest40- the god particule is a nick name for the god-damn particle. Its not a "god" almight thing, rather a theory that this particule exists. Its really called the Higgs Boson, nicked name God damn particle... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

Because we don't know the answer to something then god must have done it. This answer has never sat right with me. We have only been following the scientific method for a couple hundred years and look where it's gotten us in such a short time. Obviously we don't have the answers to everthing but those answers are out there waiting for us to discover them. To say that God did it is stifling human curiosity and the expansion of knowledge. How many people understand the fact that Stephen Hawking has to do all of the math that applies to his thoeries in his head. He can't write anything down so he has to understand it before he can try to explain it to others. And thanks to science he has lived for about 40 years longer than he was expected to when he was diagnosed with Lou Gherigs Disease.

He says God is not needed. But, more important, God surely doesn't need this guy either, as a matter of fact, God doesn't need any of us. SO, don't believe, that's your choice, I choose to Believe in GOD. The Alpha and Omega, and Jesus is my Savior. And when He returns, whoever denied Him will be denied, short and sweet and to the point. No science fiction, no gravity, no big bang, or what ever else people choose to believe instead of truth. Oh well, Jesus Is Lord ! Love you Jesus.

I pray You share something with the ones who are still lost.

Lucy-- what if you're wrong?

WmRAllen,

Lucy is right, but even if she wasn't, what would it hurt? Her faith is most likely giving her peace and joy and love for others--the same things mine gives me. However, if you are wrong, there are much greater consequences that you should consider. Have you done the research to legitimately say Lucy is wrong? I don't think so, because if you had, you would agree with her. Those who seek the truth will find it. Start by reading a book by Lee Strobel. There are many others out there to check out after that!

That's the thing, isn't it? Neither Lucy nor I can really say whether or not either of us is right or wrong (your evident acceptance of the same ideology aside).

I have seen no compelling evidence that any particular confessional schema is correct-- and I'm not so hypocritical as to make Pascal's wager just to avoid the uncertainty.

WmRAllen, No, the thing is "so what?" This is Lucy's time on here Earth and she chooses to spend it believing in God. So? What's it to you? Does it harm you? No. You have your ideology and that's how you choose to spend your time. That's your choice too. Does it harm Lucy? No.

If she is wrong, then she is wrong. Same if she is right. The same thing applies - So? What's it to you?

Yes, I don't get the general hostility on the subject. There is only one truth. And, as angry as you get and as hard as you try to push your position, nobody knows for sure.

Religion need not be afraid of science. If God does not exist, then all the debate in the world will not bring him into existence. If God exists, science cannot disprove him.

What's it to you?

Absolutely nothing... and I would be very happy if it meant the same to her. Unfortunately, ideologues of all stripes seem to make it their business to disparage other people simply because they happen to disagree.

And when He returns, whoever denied Him will be denied, short and sweet and to the point. No science fiction, no gravity, no big bang, or what ever else people choose to believe instead of truth

That was the sentence that prompted my post. It's a very short step from believing that people who do not agree with you will incur some future punishment, to believing that in the here-and-now it's reasonable and proper to dismiss them, deny them their place in society, or more fundamentally, their perceptual status as fellow human beings. It's also, unfortunately, a frame of reference I've seen far too often in the public sphere lately.

(Also troubling to me are the various anti-science-as-a-method-of-knowledge arguments that are re-articulated in these discussions, but that's another issue...)

So, you ask "what's it to me?"-- what does it matter to many of the folks posting here if Dr. Hawking posits a fully-natural origin to the universe? By your rubric, this entire board is unnecessary...

Tell me, would you ask the same question of Lucy that you did of me? Or is her challenge of others' beliefs reasonable, but mine not for some reason?

Lucy, my dear.....I respect your piety and faith, but your post concerns me greatly as your viewpoint of your religious convictions are in essence......un-Christian.

[Lucy]"He says God is not needed. But, more important, God surely doesn't need this guy either, as a matter of fact, God doesn't need any of us."

Really? You believe God doesn't need us? Then why would He put up with all the sacrilege and destruction we have rendered on this planet? I believe God is Love. Love is the Light, and Light is Love. But love is best recognized when applied to something, such as a person. God created all of us to have 'something to love'...and to love Him in return, as we are all blessed with free will.

[Lucy]"And when He returns, whoever denied Him will be denied, short and sweet and to the point."

Jesus, the Christhead, the One who attained true communion with God because he willingly sacrificed all material things in lieu of unconditional Love to others, will deny no one the opportunity to come to God.

First of all, God is the Creator, the Alpha and the Omega (as you said yourself!), and thus it is God's will that all souls return to Him. Jesus, though great as His glory may be, cannot refute the will of God. Second, the very nature of Jesus contradicts the idea that Jesus is/will be discriminatory and indifferent to the masses of those who have not converted to Christianity. This entire notion that only those who have been "saved" by accepting Jesus as their saviour can be re-united with God is sophomoric at best, and dangerous at worst. This notion is not what the Bible truly teaches us, it is a technique by design that allows the Church to gain power and authority over others of different faiths.

As I related earlier in another post, read the examples of the numerous near-death experiences that people have had....it places religion in a whole new "light", no pun intended.

Go to www.near-death.com or www.iands.org for some very enlightening (here I go again!) reading!

I have no problem with people's faith if that's what the want to believe. My problem is with people who deny science (evolution) when the evidence is staring them right in the face. Whether you are religious or not there are plenty of aspects of the physical world explainable by science that can not be denied (laws of physics, thermodynamics, and gravity) I do understand that there are instances where these laws may not apply (near a black hole) but in everyday life these things are irrefutable.

Lucy doesn't need to be telling anyone they are "lost". What a damned superior lot those Christians are.

Any argument against Christianity can be returned with the classic "well you're an unbeliever, when the time comes you're going to hell so I don't care what you think blah blah blah".

Therefore that response is invalid. Same with the whole God doesn't make sense because he is smarter than you so he makes sense to himself however he doesn't make sense to you.

When the debate turns from physics and religion to spiritual awareness it will be easier to explain the connection of a creator with evolution.

Physics and science in general can offer a rational explanation of most everything but Spirituality, things of an emotional, conscience nature, thoughts and feelings which are not constructed of elements.

The theory of evolution is easy to confirm because each of us is living proof of it. Each one, like every other life form begins as a seed and evolves throughout a life time.

I don't understand what all the shouting is about.

Nice post. People get rubbed the wrong way if they find out that what they believe to be true might not be. This goes for everyone. There are an infinite number of possibilities about the origin of the universe. For all we know, this could be a lab experiment. Who knows.

All I know, is that I know nothing.

- Socrates

Well said Republic. I really admire Stephen, and I pray for his salvation. When all is said and done what will be found, if we can find it, will simply be a "word" spoken by God just as Genesis says. And then bang it happened. I wonder why that is so hard for folks to accept?

The shouting stems from the fact that, at the end of the day, the two theories, in their purest forms, can not co-exist - no matter how hard you try. As premises both theories negate the other and neither side will accept that, so they shout. The truth always lies in the middle, not the extremes. That holds true for religion, politics, sociology, you name it. Until we can meet in the middle there can be no compromise and no consensus.

Actually - then can co-exist. Once we realize and accept that God created the physical, Science becomes a completely legitimate field of study. Science is the study of God's creations. Even the Big Bang may be real - and if that is how God chose to start our known Universe, so be it (after all, we have evidence in Genesis that does align with the very young theory of the Big Bank - nothing and everything) - so Big Bang may be a real physical event, but that would not mean the non-existence of God. Because before the Big Bang, their was something, and that something was God.

"...before the Big Bang, their was something, and that something was God."

prove it.

show your work.

Leon, perhaps it is so hard to accept because there is no evidence to support it. As far back as religion goes it has always hand picked what it chooses to support and what it chooses to ignore, entire gospels left out of the bible, and other, far more ancient religions... The catholic church killed innumerable "pagans" because their beliefs were backwards and out of date.. There is one science, with proofs and hard facts that invite testing and improvement. There are hundreds of religions, ignoring and fighting off questions and changes, each claiming to be the true faith. What makes you so sure yours is that faith? What makes you so sure that science isn't?

To answer Big Thinker when he asks "What makes you so sure yours is that [true] faith," the reason we, as Christians, believe that ours is the true faith is based not only on the revelations of the most popular and bestselling book in the world, the Bible, but on the undisputed fact, not fairy tale, of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. No one in history has ever been able to provide evidence to disprove the resurrection. Even the secular historians of the time of Christ and after have all agreed that Jesus was a historical figure and that the resurrection was an event that happened, and they did not come to this conclusion except through serious examination. So sources other than the Bible address the resurrection. As Josh McDowell proposes in his book of the same title, the resurrection of Christ is "evidence that demands a verdict." No other religious leader or prophet ever rose from the dead. And to believe in God is to believe that he not only has the power to create the universe from nothing, but that he has the power to incarnate himself, the power over life and death, and the power to inspire the minds of the various Bible authors to write the words he wanted written - no big task to Someone who can create the universe. The bottom line is... people were created with free will. Free will leads people to either accept or reject the gospel of Christ and his death to take the punishment for sin. I find it easier to look at the evil vs. good in the world to prove to myself that God and the spiritual realm exist, because evil and good come from the spirit within us and are not based in the physical or bodily aspect of our existence. Hate and love, evil and good, all manifest from the free will which cannot be explained by the molecules and atoms that comprise our physical beings. When we ponder these things, we step into the realm of the spiritual, which is the realm of God. If humanists argue that free will and emotions are based purely in the physical, they must then be able to also scientifically prove that hypothesis. To date, no one has been able to, or it would have been written about in the scientific journals and etched into every classroom textbook. So... does God exist? Did he create the universe? Did the universe create itself? Since their is no tangible evidence available from the past except the effects we now see through such tools as the Hubble telescope, we have to go by Faith to understand the answer, either faith in the scientific theories (and that is what they are - theories), or faith in the Word of God, Jesus, and his spoken and written truth down through the ages that explains creation. Ultimately, the answer will be confirmed to all when they take their last breath in this life and step into eternity.

but on the undisputed fact, not fairy tale, of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Pronounced dead by people who had not yet discovered what the circulatory system was, and had no idea how to take a pulse. Um, HEY! I dispute it. I call it into question.

If science is so great and maintains the answer to all of our questions, then which scientist has "created" even a simple blade of grass - not cloned, but created from nothing. And if a blade of grass is too tough, how about a single cell amoeba. Where has this been done and by whom? All science has proven to me is the intelligent design of God's fabulous creation.

To Graced2551 - If your parents had become Muslims a month before you were born and moved to Saudi Arabia, you'd be making a completely different argument right now - think about that when you are so sure you are right.

@Gray Matter-2290965:

The only reason that the two theories don't coexist is human bias, be it in the sciences or in religion (more so in science though). Scientists have this absurd belief that, because they come up with a flashy new theory that could take a Supreme Being out of the equation means that their new theory does take said Supreme Being out of the equation.

On the flip side, almost every modern church accepts science as Man's way of understanding God. Some of the more extreme churches claim that God simply put fossils and the like in place to make us think that the universe and our earth is very old, e.g. Lutherans, Pastafarians(look 'em up I didn't make this one up XD).

Funnily enough, this same argument came up in a separate news story: 10 Best Inventions, or something of the like. In this article, several people claimed, in posts completely the opposite of the question posed at the end of the article, that religion is the world's worst invention that had done the most damage to our world. I will repeat here what I said there: The people who did the most damage to the world are the ones who use religion as a justification for the atrocities they commit upon their fellow human beings. This is true of the Crusaders of the Middle Ages (where a man, you will note, ordered the slaughter of millions under the pretense that participants were doing God's work). In modern days, it's Islamist extremists who declare a Jihad on the Western world, using their religion's doctrine and twisting it to suit their needs so as to justify their war (if i remember correctly, Muslim beliefs dictate that a holy war may be declared only if a group/nation/society is actively oppressing all believers of the Muslim faith, not just a side group that the faith's mainstream groups publibly denounce).

It's not that what we hold to be true that is incompatible, it's that humans are so biased in one way or another that we are unable to reconcile our own beliefs to mesh with another's.

@ddhartma,

They already did.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/scientists-create-first-self-replicating-synthetic-life/

Killerdrgn,

They still needed a living cell full of the appropriate proteins, tRNA, etc. in order to “boot up” the synthetic genome. And the synthetic genome was very similar to the natural genome it replaced. So they cheated in essence, started out with life and modified it, but they did not "create" life from nothing.

@ Dennis-816242

Pronounced dead by people who had not yet discovered what the circulatory system was, and had no idea how to take a pulse. Um, HEY! I dispute it. I call it into question.

Uh... pronounced dead by professional (Roman) soldiers who dealt death every day and whose job was to be sure the guy on the cross was in fact dead. I think a spear into the side would pretty much do the job...

If science is so great and maintains the answer to all of our questions, then which scientist has "created" even a simple blade of grass...

Science doesn't have "all the answers" and never has made that claim, but religion doesn't have "all the answers" either. But science does have a lot more answers than religion does. Science is the search for answers and testing to find and eliminate errors in those answers.

but on the undisputed fact, not fairy tale, of the Resurrection of Jesus

Pronounced dead by people who had not yet discovered what the circulatory system was, and had no idea how to take a pulse. Um, HEY! I dispute it. I call it into question.

Uh... pronounced dead by professional (Roman) soldiers who dealt death every day and whose job was to be sure the guy on the cross was in fact dead. I think a spear into the side would pretty much do the job...

Crucifixion was a horribly effective method of torture, but not very good as a method of execution. Some victims could survive several days writhing in pain before succumbing to blood loss or infection. It is entirely possible that the "vinegar" mentioned was actually laudanum, a opium infused wine that could have rendered Him unconscous. The soldier jabbed him in the side to see if he might be faking death, when there was no response he assumed Jesus was dead, and allowed His followers to entomb the body, as their religious rules required burial of the dead within a day, but didn't allow "work" to be done on the Sabbath.

But the most damning evidence is that the Romans posted a guard at the tomb. Why guard an entombed dead body? Well, if they suspected that it might not be dead after all...

I agree Joe. I think science is the work of God. I imagine it happened like this . . .

Man: "So, God, tell me something. How did you create the everything?"

God: "Well that was actually a pretty impressive feat. You see, the universe was basically nothing, so I had these particles flying around. I converged them with gravity, to a point of explosion. This sent larger particles flying around, which converged with themselves into even large planets. Pockets of gas erupted in flames, casting light into the darkness . . . (trails off)"

Man: (empty stare) "Soooo you created darkness, light, and earth."

God: "Well ya, if you want to dumb it down. I guess you could just say that."

Man: "And how long did this take?"

God: "That's a hard question to answer, because your time is relative to the full rotation of earth, and the rotation around the sun. Plus you view time according to a certain cadence of 1, 2, 3. But not being on earth, and not sharing the same cadence, time as you know it does not exist in my realm. What could be thousands of years to you may be only 1 day to me. Get it?"

Man: "Uhhhhhhhh . . . ok. 1 day it is."

God: "That's not really what I was saying. I mean this was a lot of work . . ."

Man: "Soooo, let's say, 7 days."

God: (sigh) "Sure fine."

Man: "And how did you create man?"

God: "Oh, now that was tough. So all I had to work with was the primordial ooze. This was composed of really small atoms, which turned into proteins and cells . . ."

Man: "How small? Like a rock?"

God: "No much smaller. Like the smallest thing here. Anyways, so I took that, and slowly evolved it into . . . (trails off)"

Man: (blank stare) "Ok . . . so man came from something really small. Hmmm, lets say dust."

God: "Again, there was a lot more too it. I think you are missing a big part of this. I mean it wasn't that easy but you are making it sound so simple. Give me some credit here."

Man: "Ya ya . . . so listen, I'm gonna go put this in a book and use it to control the populations. I'll catch you later."

God: "Ummm . . . that's not really the reason I told you this. But, ok . . . letting everyone know can't be that bad. It's not like this stuff will eventually lead to wars or anything."

(thousands of years later)

God: "Crap"

Big Thinker I don't argue with folks regarding science vs religion. But all I can tell you is this. My life was unpleasant and I asked Jesus into my heart by Faith and I and my life got much much better. The reason I believe and have Faith is because I got RESULTS just the way the Word of God said I would. The results just keep coming and my Faith keeps on growing. He did what He said He would do and what He said would happen happened. I never argue with results. I am not trying to convince you I am simply relating to you what actually is happening in my relationship with Jesus.

LOL, Cali.......good post.

You exemplify the very reasons I do not take the Bible's verses literally. It is much easier to be spiritual (imho) when one views the Bible metaphorically.

Funny post, too. I'll share it with my acquaintances.

As more questions are answered through science, religion takes a smaller role in Society. Thus, civilization morphs from multi gods to a single Diety. Plus, just because we don't know something, does not support the existence of a Supreme Being.

And given all the wars fought over the Centurys in the name of various religions, ridding ourselves of "God" may be a good thing

I would have to argue your point Ama.

There have been just as many mass murders and suffering against the name of religion too. Stalin killed more people than Hitler. That doesnot change the fact that the both of them were evil/horrible men. Not because if or in spite of religion. The evil is in the heart of mankind, not in "religion". People will use whatever excuse they can to do the crimes they were going to do anyways. If the one excuse is not able to be used, they'll just find another.

"if one excuse is not able to be used, they'll find another" Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld...yada yada yada

I think that if atheists substitute the words "Creative Intelligence" for the word "God" they will have an easier time understanding the concept of God. It is not too difficult for anyone who studies the sciences to see that the universe and everything in it was created and is intelligent. Intelligence does not have to "come" from something else. Intelligent creative thought is what created everything we know to exist in the physical universe. First the thought, then comes the physical manifestation of that thought through physical and natural laws. Science can and one day will prove this. Belief in God and science are perfectly compatible.

The real question is why. Why should the universe exist at all? Science seeks to answer questions on how things function but never does, and cannot, answer the purpose of existence.

I think that if atheists substitute the words "Creative Intelligence" for the word "God" they will have an easier time understanding the concept of God.

Big bearded man in the sky that watches every single thing every man, woman, and child does every second of every day. Got it. Understand it. Read the book more than once. Understand that God wants people stoned to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath. Understand that the Sabbath should remain holy. Understand that Saturday is the Sabbath, but the Roman Emporer Constantine gave people the first day of the seven day week off, to the Sabbath migrated and Christians have mostly forgotten. Understand that shoving an aul through the ear of a servant to bind him to the household is acceptable.

I'm just not BELIEVING it.

To Dennis-816242 - Awesome post lol!

You should listen to George Carlin's riff on the Ten Commandments to put them in (proper?) perspective.

Understand that the Sabbath should remain holy. Understand that Saturday is the Sabbath, but the Roman Emporer Constantine gave people the first day of the seven day week off, to the Sabbath migrated and Christians have mostly forgotten. Understand that shoving an aul through the ear of a servant to bind him to the household is acceptable.

That is the Judaeic interpretation of God's Law. Modern Christian teachings denounce such treatment of people as inhumane and inherently wrong. What is also wrong is to use ancient Jewish beliefs to criticize modern Christian beliefs. Get it straight

exactly EdFL...how much more simple and uncomplicated can it sound?

The real question is why. Why should the universe exist at all? Science seeks to answer questions on how things function but never does, and cannot, answer the purpose of existence

Why not? Perhaps the "purpose" of the universe, if it has one, is simply to exist...

What the arguments all seem to revolve around is not the question of whether or not the universe has a purpose, but whether or not the questioner's life has a purpose. If there is a Creator, then, of course a human life has a meaning and a purpose. But, if there isn't a creator... then of course a human life has a meaning and a purpose. The purpose of a life is to be lived. What more is needed?

That is the Judaeic interpretation of God's Law. Modern Christian teachings denounce such treatment of people as inhumane and inherently wrong. What is also wrong is to use ancient Jewish beliefs to criticize modern Christian beliefs. Get it straight

I got it from READING the bible. It's easy to find. Just start at the "ten" commandments, and keep going after the first ten.

Lee, nothingness, as a state, is highly unstable. This is understood, and can be demonstrated through simple experiments. The reason the universe exists, is because a state of emptiness cannot be maintained. In the absence of matter/energy/space/time, these will self-create. There is no magic needed....just the basic laws of physics.

In other words, Nature abhors a vacuum.

"but we can only see him if we choose to"

If you can only see him if you choose to, does he actually exist?

Nope.

I can also go smoke a little something and see lots of things. Doesn't mean they exist.

Do you know what the colonists called the unexplainable? Witches.

The close minded now calls the unexplainable the mysterious ways of God.

Therefore, God does not exist.

It's 2010, I thought our civilization was better than this.

I don't understand why a man who knows how everything was created, even though he cannot see it, or hear it or feel it, be so sure?

He can know that because he has evidence. As to your god (probably the judeao-christian variety), you have no evidence other than the writings of men who were not contemporaries of the fella they call jesus. If someone wrote that stuff today, they'd be in a looney bin or on a terrorism watch list. My guess is that you are not mormon. why aren't you? b/c you probably don't want to believe that a known and convicted con man named joe smith said he found some gold plates in the ground and translated them with special stones into the book of mormon and the pearl of great price. why is that con job any less legitimate than the bizarre tales of rape, pillage, and murder in the name of a "loving" god that we find in the old and new testaments. It's all nuts and the only people who seem to be better off for it are the pink-haired televangelists and the politicians. religion is only a foundation of earthly power and you let yourself be chained down by it - even as it makes you giddy with the idea of rapture.

I'll stick with Santa Claus and the tooth fairy - they never hurt anyone.

First you need to check your facts before you talk about things. 90% of What you are spewing here is false. You must not do much research before you post things. After reading your post I have to say you are an idiot and in our country it is ok if you want to be an idiot. Just like it is ok if people want to follow God or not. When it is all done for us all we will know then who was right. Enjoy your life of self fulfillment and selfishness.

soldier1986

Okie-dokie.

ditto!!!!

Tripjack says - "

"but we can only see him if we choose to"

If you can only see him if you choose to, does he actually exist?

Nope."

Actually Tripjack science has already proven you and your statement wrong. Using the highest power microscopes while recording the evidence, scientists recently found subatomic particles that only blinked into existence when they were looking for them or "thinking about them"! When they weren't, the recorded images showed nothing. Only when they turned their attention again to look for them or again "chose to see them", did the recorded images see and record them again. So since they could only see them when they chose to, does that mean that they actually existed? An absolute and verifiable YES! They recorded scientific evidence of the creative power of thought. Amazing how wrong you can be sometimes, isn't it? Belief in God and science are perfectly compatible.

Actually Tripjack science has already proven you and your statement wrong. Using the highest power microscopes while recording the evidence, scientists recently found subatomic particles that only blinked into existence when they were looking for them or "thinking about them"!

Care to share that "evidence" with us?

@ EdFL:

There is no logical reason to believe in ancient myths of gods and angels and leprechauns. The universe is natural, not supernatural. It arises from natural, not supernatural processes. We may not understand everything yet...but there is no evidence at all of any supernatural forces. None.

Define 'natural' and define 'supernatural', eh? How do you explain the well-documented phenomenon of premonitions? ('The Science of Premonitions' by Larry Dossey, MD) I've had many, including the Oklahoma City bombing (exactly 24 hrs. before) and 9/11 (one week before - I moved my 401K to safe-harbor funds on the 10th), Princess Diana's death (10 days beforehand). I've also experienced an instantaneous physical healing, as well as at least one 'loaves and fishes' type miracle in the physical realm. That's only some of my 'evidence.' Are these 'natural' events or supernatural events? If 'natural,' then according to what known physical laws? The best evidence is personal, and that is exactly how God reveals himself to us, personally.

But who defines God... Man. The Bible, the Quaran, all religious documents were written, and re-written...by men. Your argument is hollow.

No, only if they say things like "Stephen Hawking is probably a bitter man because of his physical condition and God never restored him." That's pretty evil.

No, Zen, it's his personal observation and opinion, the same as your negative reply is your opinion of his statement.....evil would say something like: "and God will make you suffer because you don't believe He created the Universe"

Making cruel assumptions and comments about disabled people is evil.

Or perhaps it's simply sour grapes as the gentleman in question will never be able to comprehend the amazing facts of science that Mr. Hawking does. (And of course I'm in no way claiming I will either, but I don't feel the need to make spiteful remarks based on the fact that the man is in a wheelchair.)

If he had said "Mr. Obama is probably a bitter man because he is black and God did not make him white," would you find that offensive to the point of evil? I would. And this is no different.

Zen - interesting that you chose to state "amazing facts of science that Mr. Hawkings does." - this new book is not fact at all. It is pure hypothesis and theory. Hypothesis and theory does not make a scientific fact.

That is the problem I have with the new science of no God. Because science explains so much of what we can all see and touch, people have begun to trust in science (almost as how they trusted religion) and science is now moving beyond the reality and back into the realm of ideas. That is great, one can not make great discoveries if one does not dream of what hasn't been discovered. The problem is that when people come up with an idea, they immediatley sell it as reality. Since we have learned to trust science so much, so many people just except it.

And science, now being an influence in the world, rather than an educator, is no longer happy with new discoveries, they have to, without facts or basis, destroy any theory that could compromise their own theory. It is not just Science vs. God - you see it all the time Science vs. Science. "Your theory is wrong, sir, mine is correct" - "No Sir, your theory is wrong, mine is correct" - How can either be correct? They are both theories? The Big Bang is a theory. It can not be proven. Cosmic Background Radiation is not proof - it is merely a discovery of a physical reality that people have hypothesized could exist because of a uniform explosion. Maybe, maybe not - not proven because we can't prove their is a big bang.

And Stephen Hawkins, stating that gravity exists so the universe naturally would happen no matter what? Well, that almost throws the Big Bang Theory on its head.

So, I don't think we easily say that someone is not able to "comprehend the amazing facts" - because Hawkins is not offering much fact - he is offering theory (and very entertaining at that).

if you think that someone isnt evil because they disagree with you then you havent watched fox news. they demonize anyone that doesnt march in lock step with them.

my most profound religous moment came at the beginning of a "religions of the world class" at a christian college taught by a catholic priest. "even if there wasnt a god man would have created one in his own image". common sense has trumped religion in all cases for me since then. is there a God? i hope there is so the truly evil and greedy will have to spend an eternity in hell for their actions.

"Whether God exists or not - good men will do good things and evil men will do evil things - but to get good men to do evil things, that takes religion."

How about there are so many things coming out of new science that are not testable (string theory, big bang etc. ) that it is becoming a new faith in itself. You need some kind of faith to believe that we all started as some cosmic coincidence. The difference is that science is based on provable facts and there is little leeway to question the validity of results. The vast sum of knowledge gained by the scientific process has been invaluable to the proliferation of human kind. Alot of the new thoeries though are not directly observable (yet). Even though I will take science over religion any day of the week, you have to agree that some things have to be taken on faith. The faith that science will someday be able to answer the questions we have, and I think that religious people need to understand that it is now our faith vs. their faith. You say God did it, I say Science can explain it without god, You say you have faith in God, I have faith in science. In that sense, it makes faith in science no more or less accurate that faith in God, Allah, Buddah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

But if you agree to disagree, doesn't that mean you agree?

Bill, the fact that you would actually wish an eternity of conscious burning in fire for people you consider "evil" or "greedy" is overwhelmingly sick. Jesus taught "love your enemy", "bless those who curse you". No wonder people don't take Christianity seriously- how many Christians or church leaders have considered how the very words of Jesus stab a giant hole in their ridiculous views of hell?

I wouldn't wish such a thing as eternal torment on my very worst enemy. But I can't fault you- you are only able to make such a ridiculous comment because you have clearly not even thought about what "eternity" means. Either way, eternal punishment for finite sins is grossly unjust and absurdly out of proportion. And it's a huge reason people simply do not accept this interpretation of Christianity.

If God is Love, and Love keeps no record of wrongs, then eternal hellfire makes no sense.

Actually, Hell is technically not a punishment. Sure, it is horrible, it's painful and it sucks. It will for all eternity. But it would be worse to be 'cover in sin' and in God's presence. God is perfect. To clarify, sin means 'to miss the mark' (used in Archery), in other words, imperfect. Anything that is imperfect in God's sight burns worse than the fiery pits of Hell, meaning that Hell is a 'reprieve' from the torture and pain that is caused by Hell (which although labeled as a fiery lake the true torture is being separate from God). In the end, God IS being merciful because although you are being punished (as is just), He is allowing you to be somewhere that is infinitely less painful than being around Him.

Religion is a choice everyone gets to make. You can choose to believe or not believe. As for the opinion of Hawkings...it is like a**holes, everybody has one.

Nobody is going to hell, because some Western Europeans ritualistically cannibalized Jesus.

Prophesy is easy. Finding someone to listen is hard. What of unwritten prophesy?

Have you ever heard of 'History repeats itself'?

Or what about that quack John Edwards spouting off general questions to make you believe that he is talking to your dead relative?

Take the batteries out of your mechanical clock, stare closely for 24 hours. If you pay attention and don't blink you'll notice it's correct twice within every 24 hour period. Most things come to pass given enough time waiting for them to occur.

Write a "prophecy" about the founding of a nation based on some group of people and wait a couple of thousand years. If you pay attention and don't blink.....

Or, here's a truly bizarre idea. Maybe the people who founded the nation of Israel had read the bible and got the idea from there? If someone has written about an idea and published it to the whole world why wouldn't someone try to do it at some point to fulfill the prophecy?

Weak minds, simple thoughts, and circular logic, the whole lot of you....

What prophesy? Those written in the bible after the fact? Some prophecy!!

Right on!

There are several ways to make accurate predictions without having any actual "prophetic" powers.

One could simply "predict" something that has already been planned. I predict there will be a Presidential Election in November of 2012!

Or one could use predictable natural patterns to make predictions. I predict there will be snowstorms in November in Colorado.

Or one could put forth effort to make a prediction happen. I predict that my yard will have beautiful blossoms next summer. (and then I plant the seeds next spring)

Or the easiest way of all - Retroprediction, or claiming to have predicted the event after it happened! I predicted that George Bush would be re-elected in 2004! (well, not really, but you see how easy it is?)

If all that fails, then make hundreds of predictions in the hopes that one or two are close enough to stick, and hope your followers conveniently forget all the failed predictions.

ROFL.

Get yourself to a mental institution.

No, my friend, it is God who determines everything that has happened and what will occur in this Universe.

What happened to the christian notion of free will? if there is no free will, how can someone be condemned to eternal hellfire for something that he had no control over? what about a psychopath who is mentally disturbed? Did god will that person to do evil things to other people and then will send that unwitting sap to hell for something he had no control over? that's sick and if that was my own biological father, i would reject him and have nothing to do with him. if my own dad told me to kill my daughter to show my love for him and then say, "just testing!" - what kind of lunacy is that?

To be clear, I have no issue with people who want to believe in a higher power. That's your business (free will?). But when your religion starts to encroach in my own affairs, be they politics or anything else, well that's where I say, "NO! The lunacy stops here."

If it were up to God, Stephen Hawking would have died 40 years ago due to his condition. Science has helped him live far beyond his initail diagnosis. Or is it God's will that he continue living in perpetual pain for his heretical ways? Or If God is all powerful then He is the one that is giving Dr Hawking the inspiration for the thoeries he has come up with. So which is it? Is God punishing him or controlling him. Do Hawkings theories come from divine inspiration or from a deep seated understanding of the laws of physics?

Let's say I impregnate my girlfriend. Science determines the amount of time it takes for a zygote to mature into a newborn baby. The average amount of time it takes is nine months and and perhaps three weeks after if the baby arrives late. I don't know about you but i'm sixteen years old and I can find all the contradictions in the bible that go against science.

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." (Genesis 1: 3-5)

"And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth." (Genesis 1:16-17)

God creates day and night on the first day and then makes the stars and the two great lights (sun and moon) on the fourth day (Genesis 1:19). How can you have day and night on the first day without a star? This describes a dramatic contradiction to the way the actual universe works. To have a day you must have a rotating planet and a sun. Genesis proves that God (or more accurately, the authors of Genesis) could not have known about the structure of the universe, or even the difference between stars and planets.

"And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that is was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..." (Genesis 1:25-26)

"And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air..." (Genesis 2:18-19)

In the first account, man gets created after the beasts, the second account has man created before the beasts . Only a person who exercised warped logic or blind faith could believe this outright contradiction. Yet to the fundamentalist reader, the many hundreds of contradictions and discrepancies in the Bible go by unseen, regardless of how many honest scholars and theologians have discovered otherwise.

In fact there occurs two stories of Genesis, the second story starts at Genesis 2:4. The first story uses Elohim (God in the plural form) and the second story uses the LORD God (Yahweh Elohim, sometimes incorrectly termed Jehovah). Both stories appear markedly different, yet somehow in history the stories got annexed together. This shows the allegorical intent of Genesis rather than a factual account.

Even the belief among non-fundamentalists, that the Bible has kept its original form despite minor changes, has led many theologians to think otherwise. One of the most highly respected theologians, Bruce Metzger, has written extensively on the errors in the Bible. For example, in his book "The text of the New Testament- Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration," Metzger asserts errors due to:

• Errors arising from faulty eyesight
• Errors arising from faulty hearing
• Errors of the mind
• Errors of judgment
• Difficulties historical and geographical
• Alterations from doctrinal considerations
• Addition of miscellaneous details.

Many times whole belief systems and vast changes to a society can change from a simple mistranslation of a single word. (For example "virgin" got confused in Isaiah 7:14 for young woman "almah")

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." (Genesis 1:27)

"And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man." (Genesis 2:21-22)

Comment

In the first account, God created a man and female simultaneously, in God's image. In the second account Adam gets created from the dust (Genesis 2:7), and then later, a woman came from one of Adam's ribs. Again, this shows another difference between the two Genesis story accounts, each contradicting the other.

There occurs a plethora of contradictions in the Bible, far too many for the scope of the Dark Bible. For those who wish further edification, consult "The Bible Handbook for Free-Thinkers and Inquiring Christians," edited by G. W. Foote and W. P. Ball (Pioneer Press, London)

Good post. Just because God's existence has never been proven by scientific methods does not mean that there is no god, or that God's existence will not be proven in the future. To illustrate, ask yourself this: What did we breathe before oxygen was "discovered" by science?

flbikerchick - that is probably the most ignorant post I've ever seen on a forum board - and I've seen plenty (many of them today on this board). Get off your bike and go take a basic science class.

The very God Mr. Hawking says we don't need will be the God that judges him after he dies., because when he saw the universe he did not see the wonder of the Almighty God, he saw his own reflection. Believing he was God.

Learn to read before you comment.

The one problem I have with scientist and those who esteem them is that they can only believe in what they can prove. They can't prove the spirit world so they feel it does not exist.

They can't prove 11 dimenions exist either, but they believe they do because if they do then maybe there's not a god. Or even that maybe they haven't yet found a solution that fits a 4-dimension universe and that they'll have to think about it differently and come up with a different solution.

You believe in things you can't prove?

I have a bridge in Manhattan I want to sell you. Really, I do. I can't prove it, but I do.

Yes, I believe in things I can't prove when there is evidence of its existence. Evidence is not proof. Scientist will only accept evidence that fits into their view of the world...one that is devoid of a spirit world. I believe that there is an amazing body of evidence that a spirit world does exist...but it is rejected by scientist and their supporters because it presents a conflict with their view of the universe.

I don't hate them for that or anything...I just wish they could experience the universe and life in its fullness (not foolishness which unfortunately is their view).

You know (maybe not), there are many scientists who have faith in the divine and attend worship. But they know the difference between an objective understanding of the universe (i.e. an objective examination of God's creation) and a faith-based understanding of the universe. In particular, they understand what constitutes scientific evidence, which as such does not depend on someone's world view to exist (yes, I take the liberty of speaking for those scientists).

They know the difference between what can be scientifically demonstrated and what relies upon an assumption of the existence of God. Do you know the difference? Given that difference, is it fair for people to insist that others accept an argument that relies on the existence of God, which is tantamount to forcing others to have a particular belief?

This makes me sad. Our education system has really not done a good job of teaching science.

Science explains nature through observation. "I see it, I test it, from the evidence of my testing I form a point of view. I explain that point of view and other people test it. The community discusses the evidence and debates what it means. Eventually a consensus is reached on what the evidence means. Sometimes other evidence is found that contradicts aspects of the point of view we had. The process repeats itself and we adjust the consensus point of view to fit the new evidence."

Carl Sagan: "Science delivers the goods."

Things that we have a lot of evidence for and, therefore, accept as reliable aspects of nature (true).

-Gravity

-Quantum Mechanics

-Germ theory (microbes cause disease)

-EVOLUTION

-The Sun is the center of the solar system

Reigion explains naturre through indoctrination and authoritarianism: "Someone in authority (parents, preacher, politician) told me this is how it is and I will either dismiss or persecute anyone who tells me different."

Is this really the 21st century?

You're confusing religious faith with scientific fact. Scientists don't believe as fact anything that can't be proven (especially if it has no evidence) because it can't be proven. They may be religious, but religion and science are rightly two very separate things. When you try to forcibly apply the moral guidelines and theological philosophy of religion to the real world, the physical world, it makes as much sense as saying that you have faith that 2+2=5, so 2+2=5.

Scientist will only accept evidence that fits into their view of the world...one that is devoid of a spirit world

Phil You do not understand science. Science will only accept a view of the world that is consistent with the evidence.

Big difference.

Your claim is in fact a biased claim that is promoted mostly by those for political or some other reasons need to denigrate science, while using their computers......funny actually.

Spirit world! Ghosts and faeries! Ogres and gods! Vampires and werewolves! Sea monsters and devils! Omnipotence! Creation! Religion!

Yet science has not been able to prove yours or anyone elses theory. For any human to disprove God we must understand completely the workings of everything around us. Until then it is just speculation. Man kind is thousands of years from understanding the workings of the universe. Do you really think we could have begun to scratch the surface of knowledge over a few hundred years when the universe has taken billions to create? Who says there was a big bang? It has never been proven. Very little science is proven on fact. When a man can create the power of a vastly superior human being then I will review and replicate your theory. Until then, it remains your opinion versus mine. Nothing more and nothing less. Remember, we set the standard for what we believe to be fact. We have nothing to base this on except for opinion. Since none of these questions will be answered in mine or your life time, better hope that whatever side you choose is correct. Morality as we know it would have never made it this far without the belief in a higher power. Those who think so are as ignorant as anyone else. No one on this planet can prove or disprove God or science for that matter. One thing I can assure you of, if we ever find a higher life form out there, everything we have believed to be fact will not stand on a childs thought.

jabba, your an idiot and there is no other explanation. If science only spoke of facts then they would not have much to talk about. Again, we set the standard. How do you know it is right?

Apparently the answer to "what would Jesus do" is "hurl childish insults"

I can see debate with you would be as fruitful as the fig tree in Mark 11:13.

Tripjack Stated: "You believe in things you can't prove?

I have a bridge in Manhattan I want to sell you. Really, I do. I can't prove it, but I do."

I find this funny as it could be written to those on the side of science or those on the side of theology, as neither has the ability to "prove" their beliefs at this time.

For any human to disprove God we must understand completely the workings of everything around us.

collapseofamerica ... it is not necessary to "disprove" God. Instead, it is necessary to "prove" the existence of God.

Exactly ! The burden of proof lies with those making the claim!

I suspect Hawking prefers nonfiction books.

I also suspect Josh McDowell discovered there was a lot more money in fleecing the unquestioning faithful than in being an agnostic. Smart guy, he was right about that much at least.

jabbausaf,

You speak as if you believe that Hawking has written a book based on facts, but he really has done nothing more than posed a hypothetical proposition and provides no proof of it being more than a theory. Is this of greater truth than "fiction".

The bible was written by men, in the bronze age... a time when man knew almost nothing about the way the Universe worked. That goes a long way towards explaining why the bible is so scientifically inacurate its not even funny.

If you honestly open a bible and expect to find "facts" about... well, anything really you are an irrational person incapable of intelligent thought. Its not an attack on religious belife, but an attack on fundamentalist beliefe that the bible has some great significance other then a collection of stories from the mind of early men trying to explain how things worked without and knowledge.

As an example: The people who wrote the bible also believed witch craft was real, that god told them to hunt down the witchs, that keeping slaves was good (its even in the bible if you actually read it), that sea monsters were an actual threat, and that the earth was the center of the universe.... and the bible goes along with all of these things which we now know to be false, or morally wrong. Yet you claim it had the answers before modern science? Try actually reading the bible.

Yes, and once upon a time we thought ill humors and evil spirits caused disease. Today we know about bacteria and viruses.

john s----you can't possibly be that uneducated with the bible that when you make reference to the lack of "facts" by the bronze age men that you should also acknowledge all the "facts" that were known thousands of years BEFORE the bronze age ie., exact mathematical formulas developed by men using sticks and dirt to promulgate the Pythagoran theory, Archimides and the radius of the circle, etc. More ancient cities and artifacts have recently been located EXACTLY where the bible said they were to be. the same could be said for the prophecies that have come true also-------why isn't science and mr. hawking explaining that it was really gravity that put these findings in these locations after the big bang happened because the gravity knew that the bible would be written thousands of years later and people needed a way to prove that the bible was factual.

I'm sure in a few thousand years, when they find that New York City is exactly where Marvel said it was that Spiderman will be held as a factual story of heroism. Even better will be the hunt to locate Gotham City once comic books are considered gospel.

i think the bible makes reference to the world being flat like a circle instead of a ball. the defenders state that circle means spherical, but that is a really big stretch.

I thought God said the world would end in 2000? I had lots of people on the street telling me so.... Glad he's got his "facts" straight.... I guess 2012 is the new big apocalypse date... I'm not holding my breath

@inthegrae

I can just see it, 10,000 years from now:
"Unlike other contemporary books, these were often kept preserved in protective plastic coverings. As early man had only just recently discovered plastic, these works must have had great importance, like an ancient king buried in a coffin of gold. Clearly they were important religious works documenting the acts of the heroic prophets. Using these works as a guide, we have discovered the holy City of New York!"

"We located a hill with a cave in it, near the ancient ruins of a mansion, and despite what the secular nonheroicists would want you to believe, we think the evidence points to this being the Bat Cave spoken of in the Book of Batman, and the nearby metropolitan area would then have been Gotham. This was further verified by the discovery in the metropolitan area of a decks of 'playing cards' with a 'Joker' in them, and a number of ancient video recording discs chronicling the life of the Holy Batman."

John, you need to read. Everything you stated is inaccurate. The idiots speaking with false authority. Glad you don`t speak for me. You have yet to make any common sense.

jabba, still an idiot. Become engaged in the coversation. Your a poor example of what any human being should ascribe to be.

Very funny! Only a true nerd comic book collector can appreciate this! We have written some of our own comics depicting scenarios very similar to this. As chronicled in the 'zine FKA and the comic, The Universe of Mr Phoosy. (And I'm an old retired grandma, but I love a good comic book.)

collapse:

Proverbs 12:18 - There is one whose rash words are like sword thrusts, but the tongue of the wise brings healing.

Colossians 3:8 - But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips.

Ephesians 4:31-32 - Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.

I'd put more weight behind the credibility of Christianity if more purported Christians read their Bibles and lived by it. Your hypocrisy puts the lie to your proclaimed beliefs.

We need to heed the good words of Theodoric of York!

Theodoric of York: Well, I'll do everything humanly possible. Unfortunately, we barbers aren't gods. You know, medicine is not an exact science, but we are learning all the time. Why, just fifty years ago, they thought a disease like your daughter's was caused by demonic possession or witchcraft. But nowadays we know that Isabelle is suffering from an imbalance of bodily humors, perhaps caused by a toad or a small dwarf living in her stomach.

Theodoric of York: Yes. The Caladrius Bird is placed beside a patient. If the bird looks at a patient's face, she will live; but if it looks at her feet, she will die. Okay, now, Freddy, come on out. [ unleashes bird from cage, but it just flies off ] I don't know how to interpret that.

Theodoric of York: Wait a minute. Perhaps she's right. Perhaps I've been wrong to blindly follow the medical traditions and superstitions of past centuries. Maybe we barbers should test these assumptions analytically, through experimentation and a "scientific method". Maybe this scientific method could be extended to other fields of learning: the natural sciences, art, architecture, navigation. Perhaps I could lead the way to a new age, an age of rebirth, a Renaissance! [ thinks for a minute ] Naaaaaahhh!

Announcer: Tune in next week for another episode of "Theodoric of York: Medieval Barber", when you'll hear Theodoric say:

Theodoric of York: A little bloodletting and some boar's vomit, and he'll be fine!

More ancient cities and artifacts have recently been located EXACTLY where the bible said they were to be.

My favorite author of detective stories sets her books in real places. One of her books, set in Louisville, had the major landmarks and roads all in the right location, for instance. Yet, none of that means that the events and people chronicled in her books are real.

There is nothing wrong with pondering about God's role in our lives, we all do it.

I stopped pondering about God's role in my life at age 7 when it was obvious he was as fake as the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.

Blissful ignorance indeed. How's all that faith BS working out for ya?

sharma- umm..the universe is made up of matter, like us and everything else around us (with the exception of anti-matter-the opposite-without which matter would not exist) and as a matter of fact we don't all ponder god and existence. Glancing at these comments those of us not pondering god seem to be outweighing those that do, so please don't speak for us all. And on the topic of quick judgement..well I wouldn't even know where to begin, there are just too many examples of a church or religion passing judgement, crucifying and/or terrorizing.

trip will be the first one crying the loudest. Idiot, go tongue punch your buddies fart box and leave the conversation to people who have a valid opinion.

Sean would be the smartest of us all. Better listen to the wisdom. regardless of the fact he can prove none of it. Must have been that professor he had a crush on. Whisper sweet wisdom in his ear.

green lion wrote:-

..the universe is made up of matter, like us and everything else around us (with the exception of anti-matter-the opposite-without which matter would not exist) and as a matter of fact we don't all ponder god and existence. Glancing at these comments those of us not pondering god seem to be outweighing those that do, so please don't speak for us all.

Glancing at these comments on this forum to decide whether people pondering over God outweigh that don't is not the right sampling, in my opinion. You need to look at people across all nations/cultures on Earth to find out if the majority believe in a God. I think they do and to each his own.

The universe is made of matter etc, but that doesn't say anything about God. And I doubt physical science can ever prove or disprove the existence of God or intelligent design. Science is based on objective methods and profess "I don't know" when asked about God. Which is why its based on inquiry. Religious people forgo the power of "I don't know" and prefer faith. This debate is never ending.

Bottomline - Humankind is like a baby out of the crib and has a lot to learn. We devise mathematics and crude physical laws to explain this amazingly complex universe and it calls for humility when we cannot explain so much. But Dr Hawking doesn't seem to show such with his sweeping statements.

First of all science cant prove anything, God was the one who created the earth how to do you think we was made. Duh and since all this technology came out people think they can just find resons not to believe in god Well theres a secret group called ILLUMINATI A sercret organization that tricked everyone by saying the words going to end and the illuminati is also undercover named for government and came up with make believe facts that god wasnt real by telling the most important scienctist to say that and come up with a brilliant proof of if so people thats atheis better watch out because where you think you gonna go when the ratpture hit and science also cant prove when the word gonna end have you people ever heard of lies the government lies and chemtrails which try to mis lead you im just saying learn something before you speak the wroung.

Kibz, I'm not on the religious side of things at all, but what you just did was present a theory as infallible fact. Considering we're trying to show the Bible thumpers that they are pushing belief as infallible fact, I'd say this is counterproductive. lol

I just got done telling Apostle Rick that he needs to pray for some humility. I'm starting to think science needs to also. Even with all that we can observe and our best efforts to understand the universe, most of our conclusions are still theories, no matter how widely accepted. Don't make the mistake of falling into scientific dogma. It is much worse than religious dogma because science is the key to our progression, and if we get mired in near truth instead of keeping our minds open to possibilties, we may stunt that progress.

Well put!

Science is a tool we use to understand nature. It is not meant to be an ideaology.

The idea of there not being a god is not a scientific theory, it's atheism.

Science is not a religion. Religion is not a science.

Why all the details? Like many have said, they are all only theories and can never be proven by simple human minds in our lifetime. Why not approach this from a tops down perspective instead. Consider that a Creator exists, by whatever means, and chose to set up the Universe and start it running as an experiment to see what would evolve. Why? Maybe he wants to see if good will naturally evolve. Maybe he's searching for his own origins. It doesn't really matter to us. Such a detached Creator concept explains all the good, bad, and random events in our world, but does in my view require a reward, namely an afterlife of some sort, for our unwilling participation in his experiment. Our feeble attempts to divine any further details will likely fail, but that should not deter us from trying. All forms of inquiry are valid. The only efforts that are invalid are those of organized religion (arguably a sole creation of man) to limit or extinguish the debate. It is inevitable that we should wonder, so have fun with it, but allow that there just might be a reward for what we have been subjected to. Why not?

Worse, it is sometimes like parents making up stuff to convince their children that Santa Claus exists!

And then believing their own tall tales...

As an atheist dad who loves the fun part of xmas but can live without the religious nonsense, I always felt guity lying to my daughter about Santa. So, having exposed her to the Santa story, now I don't try to make any elaborate explanations of how Santa could do all these amazing things. When she asks, I just say " well, then who do YOU think leaves the presents?" She's smart and is about ready to give it up. I just wish all the kids who figure out that Santa isn't real could then make the connection to god not being real.

I'll be it you converted to Pastafarianism it would be a bit easier later in life....

Amen to that!

Stop being scared of death and God suddenly becomes a lot less necessary. Remember what it was like before you were born? That's what Death is like.

fairy tales indeed. As adults we are supposed to outgrow them, yet hollywood is always retelling them to give us that warm fuzzy feeling all over. Kind of like humans making up tales of religion, learning the truth in sceince, but still retelling them over and over.. personally i'm over warm fuzzies, knowing that i'm just a little speck on a tiny planet orbiting an average star is comforting enough.

Is it reasonable to be afraid of death? Of a painful death, yes, but of the nothingness that follows? Why? Why should an adult who has lived a few years fear the approaching cessation of being? I am confused about this.

It's interesting that a scientific argument can be made that time has no beginning and no end, but then it is argued by many that an eternal God could never exist.

Go back to high school and take science again, I think you missed a few years.

So an Picture they had in Discovery mag recently showed direct imaging (in the infrared) of aprox one billion galaxies in one shot. Think about that, a billion seperate galaxies that each have the potential for 100 billion stars. With that much substance out there it is the height of ego to believe that we are the only planet in existance with some kind of life on it. With enough time the near impossible becomes almost guaranteed. If there's only a one in a billion chance that a planet has life on it (in any form) then there should be 100 planets in our galaxy alone that harbor life. Times that by a billion galaxies and you can see where I'm going. And to say that if God made us then he must have made them too is not gonna fly. I think the odds are on ET's side.

And man created religion because it was a good way to scare people and control their lives and resources.

I'd like to be a mouse in the corner when, one day, you stand before the Creator of the Universe and tell Him we created Him.

If your concept of God created the universe, is he really so petty and so vindictive that he would punish one of his perfect creations for using the brain that He gave him? Is your God that insecure that everybody has to pick him for their dodge ball team? Seems to me, if I created the universe, I'd be a little more understanding. Just sayin....

Tuna,,, You can't talk to spirits... Spiritualism is a man made construct created from social needs & the politics of the time --- OMG,,,, Christianity is "Socialism", we are all dooomed

Man created"God". Period.

Oh right! There you go, blame the men! I say it's WOMAN's fault! :P

There is no basis for "God." Too many religions have a supreme "being." Only man communicated these "beings" existence....folklore. These folklores hold forth hope that we will be more in death than we are in life so that life can continue after the finality of death.

Man did not create God (the Supreme Creator)....man (humankind) created religion--and did so as a means to explain a "god" or the "gods" man created in man's image.

Was the Bible written by God or by man? Can't definitively answer that. However, I do believe history has proven that man (humankind) is perfectly capable of using the Bible to exert power over his fellow-man in the attempt to further his own personal agenda. Using a multitude of scripture and an even greater multitude of interpretations man has devised an infinite number of schemes to "prove" or "disprove" his own belief systems in order to gain followers and exert man-created power on the earth. Some have chosen to use that power to ease the pain and suffering of others. Others have used that power to prey on those in pain and suffering. And, therein lies the struggle between good and evil.

This is the truth. God created man. He has been with us since the beginning, the Bible was not simply made by a group of people trying to control another. From Adam, to Noah, to Abraham, to Moses, to David, etc. and eventually and finally, to Jesus. He has always been there, and has never hid his face. There are 66 books in the bible, written by over 40 different authors, all in different times, places, languages, and cultures, yet they all tell the same message. This is not a matter of intellectuality, all though there is evidence in science that lead to God, and the Bible has yet to contradict a single bit of true science... Yet this is a matter of choice, from you to Stephan Hawkings, about what your motives really are for choosing, or not choosing God. He has made himself known to ALL people, with the hope that you may repent and choose LIFE, and not death. Everything that exists has a cause, if you hear a small sound in the forest, and asked what caused that? You would obviously get an answer, and how much more so true of the Big Bang! The only explanation is God, and some people may argue "Then what created God?" but God is uncaused, because the law of cause exists in our Universe, yet God is outside the Universe. So therefore, God cannot be caused, because the law doesn't apply to him. I am not saying I can explain him, but I am explaining that he is unexplainable, to us at this moment. God created man, and although man has created religion many, many times... Christianity remains, as it always has since the days of the old testament, exempt from that claim. Yes The Bible is the inspired word of God, but evidence in SO many areas proves it to be reliable. God has a plan for this earth, and it is his will that all come to repent and seek him. This is no fairy tale, as one might think, but this is very real, and you are held accountable for what you hear, so search your heart, and do your research on evidence. I do not have time to explain all the evidence, but be open minded, and even more so open HEARTED. Research yourself. :)

Just cause YOU say these things don't make it so. Period. You don't and can't speak for god or a god, you sound foolish trying to do so.

Maybe not a fairy tale but for sure a Tall tale.

I agree and I wonder how many people who deride him and his theories will even take the time to read his books.

For the record I have read his Breif history of time, the Universe in a Nutshell, also The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins and I've read the bible.

benign fun, you forgot to capitalize him when you referred to Hawking. Ironic how we tend to deify anything we are enamored with. Yes Stephen is interesting and fun. Seriously though his theory; and it is all theory is no more accurate or prove-able than what we instinctively search for from the cosmos of our minds; our creator/origins. I've personally decided to beleive in the creator as I can't see this all just happening without a progenator. That flies in the face of the almighty "him".

I look up to the heavens and see the stars glinting and glittering above me, and I ponder how glorious an achievement of sheer chance that we came to be. I think how magnificent it is and lucky we are to exist. I am humbled and awed by the span of not 6,000 years but of the billions of years it took in the making. To dumb it down to less only diminishes the scale and grandeur of this massive and beautiful universe.

Then, I hold a fossil up and think to myself how amazing and alien this creature would have been, knowing that it didn't even breathe the same kind of air as we have today. It needs to be pointed out that the fact is that dinosaurs and humans living together would have been impossible on so many levels. It was just another grab by religion to lure in more patrons (aka money) by using yet another popular concept of the times to endear themselves - another man-made religion created vie for control, power, and (most of all) your money.

I want to thank Stephen Hawking from the bottom of my heart for helping those willing to look with open eyes at this Universe and see the truth of how wonderful and possible it all is without the need to resort to magic or religion to explain any of it. It's amazing enough and possible enough all on it's own.

I also want to thank you, keith-423973, for so eloquently explaining in so concise yet precise way the real truth - that man created religion and the concept of God.

It was created for those that didn't know for themselves better then to kill, steal, or hurt others, and they needed to be told what to do by someone big enough to scare them into submission as a control method to stabilize early societies. So easy an answer it is to accept whatever story they tell you and to blame it all on some omnipresent unseen being to alleviate the blame, guilt, and the work of trying to figure it out for yourself.

I do feel there is more to us then we see and perceive stretching though layers and interconnected dimensions of this Universe both in and out of time and space as each of us creates our own cosmic ripple in the grand artwork that is this Universe. But, I also think that some of those effects are often perceived as god or heaven, when it is only part of us. To worship it would be like a dog worshiping it's own tail.

Next time you really look at this world we live in, think of the odds against our ever coming to be, and be thankful and elated at how we as a species won the 'cosmic lottery' and let the awe wash over you.

When scientists put life creating elements together in a "perfect condition" stew and then simulate heat from lightning or fire, why is life never produced? This is proof that only God can create life.

a white guy. what a coincidence.

God is white? First time I've heard that one. Funny how all of mankind is thought to have originated in Africa. Don't think those folks were white. If they were, they were all dying of skin cancer.

I love it... Man made God in his own image. That sort of says it all. I consider myself agnostic. I would never begin to try to put words to something no one can understand. I do not believe that God is a human being in the sky. A force, yes. We have tried to pin all kinds of human attributes on God. I do not believe in the gods of our own making.

Well,Karen,it's true. So you sucked that black John Thomas for nothing. They hate white people.