Theologians Think Theyâre Smarter Than Stephen Hawking
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
Our resident atheists claim there is no god because they say there is no proof as yet discovered by revered scientists .
Funny how these same scientists also have been incapable of capturing or observing 1, just one graviton particle.
Are they in doubt about the existence of gravity as well?
Not to mention the whole imaginary "dark matter " fiasco.
Perhaps scientist really don't know as much as our rabid form of atheists pretend they do.
Odd for one to propose the universe can be self-creating but deny that God could be as well.
So the only "proof" left for God is within the incomplete, not fully explained aspects of science.
So he might have exploded the big bang or cobbled together the first primitive bacteria. There is no space for him anywhere else. No need for him to make a spiral galaxy or for him to create the evolutionary process which changed that bacteria into man. That's all explained by science.
Poor God had a much larger responsibility back in the old days. He must now feel like the ice man after mechanical refrigeration was invented.
So he might have exploded the big bang or cobbled together the first primitive bacteria. There is no space for him anywhere else. No need for him to make a spiral galaxy or for him to create the evolutionary process which changed that bacteria into man. That's all explained by science.
Poor God had a much larger responsibility back in the old days. He must now feel like the ice man after mechanical refrigeration was invented.
Your take away from this thread is the exact opposite of scientific reality right now. Did you understand the quote from Hawking.
In a sense you are praying for science to find a Theory of Everything and/or for science to find proof of almost infinite other universes to counter the evidence we have of fine tuning.
Fine Tuning, so fine, a spiral galaxy could form instead of ripping apart or crunching up.
Your current choices are 1. Creator or 2. eternal inflation / multiverse with a top down approach to cosmology.
Out of those choices the only choice with evidence to support it is.... Creator.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf
".... In fact if one does adopt a bottom-up approach to cosmology, one is immediately
led to an essentially classical framework, in which one loses all ability to explain cosmologyâs central question - why our universe is the way it is. In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully fine-tuned [10] - as if prescribed by an outside agency or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation [11], which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see.
---
In a sense you are praying for science to find a Theory of Everything or almost infinite other universes to counter the evidence we have of fine tuning and therefore a tuner.
Quote from stu:
LOL.
A choice between science or woo .
Not a very intelligent argument but then what to expectâ¦you are a religious wing nut Jem.
Your are a drive by troll. Hawking wrote that not me.
didn't you say evolving universes "signify" the values?
Why are these values so tuned for life? Do you have the answer?
Hawking's book is nothing more than speculation and anyone who's read it and has any background at all in science will immediately recognize it as such.
Too stupid and ignorant to grasp this? Then don't take my word for it, take Roger Penrose's word for it.
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Dg_95wZZFr4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Too stupid and ignorant to grasp this? Then don't take my word for it, take Roger Penrose's word for it.
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Dg_95wZZFr4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>