It's official: God didn't create universe
- Thread starter Kreskin
- Start date
No, I live in the Arrow Lakes - Nakusp (an old Sinixt word) to be exact: the sphincter of the Kootenays.
(Who turned out the lights?)
This does not conform to the "Beautiful British Columbia - You have to be here!" official attitude, Cliffy. 8O :lol:
Just been reading up on the Sinixt people. Typical Ottawa newt brained thinking I gather. In '56 they declare them "extinct" even though there's 250 of 'em in Colville at the time going "Oiy!" plus a few more in the Upper Sinixt area, around your way I think? Sheesh! So they're going after the Feds on a Land Claim suit, excellent! (Ooops! Hope that doesn't include your house?) Anyway, be interesting to see how a judge handles a trial between a bunch of back east suits and a group of non-existent people! Only in BC. LOL
I had some good fishing up your way, not enough time to really explore - the husband would start whinging about being bored - I always caught fish, they avoided his hook every time. I swear once, fishing the Fraser, when he'd actually managed to hook a sturgeon and it was coming up out of the river, it looked at him, rolled its eyes at me and went "yuck, phooey!" and spat the hook right out. Was he ticked! LOL
You get to sit by the Arrows?! C'mon! There's lovely, bach!
This does not end the debate.
While I agree that in front of the mystery of ''what comes before Big Bang'' it is not of much use to add a mystery (God) on top of already mysterious event (Big Bang).
In other words, one mystery is good enough. But the point is that it still remains a mystery. Why are the laws of physics as they are? Why aren't they different?
And by the way, there are many different conceptions of the word ''God''.
Dexter posted a link on a brilliant mathematician, suggesting laws of physics emerge naturally from certain symmetries, but considering most of us don't have the mathematical knowledge to understand what the article is about, he would need to elaborate on that while hopefully vulgarizing it a little.
Until then, I remain skeptical that someone has managed to explain why the laws of physics are as they are.
While I agree that in front of the mystery of ''what comes before Big Bang'' it is not of much use to add a mystery (God) on top of already mysterious event (Big Bang).
In other words, one mystery is good enough. But the point is that it still remains a mystery. Why are the laws of physics as they are? Why aren't they different?
And by the way, there are many different conceptions of the word ''God''.
Dexter posted a link on a brilliant mathematician, suggesting laws of physics emerge naturally from certain symmetries, but considering most of us don't have the mathematical knowledge to understand what the article is about, he would need to elaborate on that while hopefully vulgarizing it a little.
Until then, I remain skeptical that someone has managed to explain why the laws of physics are as they are.
If all the was necessary for the universe to spontaneously create itself was gravity, then what is the origin of gravity?
Stephen Hawking also claimed it was a bad idea to go seeking out alien contact because they'll either enslave us or wipe us out and we should remain a xenophobic species.
Just because someone comes up with one or two brilliant ideas, doesn't mean all their ideas are going to be brilliant and we should believe and follow everything they say from then on.
Not to be too harsh, but if Hawking is so brilliant, why is he still in an automated wheelchair?
Ah, no never mind, I just figured out why...... because he heeded the words of the wise Homer Simpson "And here I am using my legs like a Sucker....."
Probably because his genius is in the field of physics, not medicine. Just a guess.
lol
Q threatened to do that to his son on Star Trek Voyager (Episode Q2)
"Then it's single-cellular city for you my boy!"
"I'm sure you'll do whatever you can to avoid returning to that petri dish."
Maybe he was right when he told Picard he was God
"You're dead, this is the afterlife -- and I'm God"
For starters if he can explain how water populated the earth, I would be willing to listen.
Actually that has been explained years ago..... and it's the main reason why so many people at NASA and around the world are hoping to find water on Mars.
It has not been explained to my knowledge, I would appreciate any information you have to offer.
Do you mean how water ended up on Earth or how life sprung from water here? Water landed here. Same things that delivered water here delivered the little bits that make life here.
When Did Liquid Water Fill The Planets
From what the article states, part of why he feels that way is the existence of other planets which could support life. That doesn't seem like a very 'scientific' or 'genius' reason for deciding that God didn't start it all. It sounds like a very human desire to be special to God, or to walk away if we're not.
So let me get this straight.. From what I understand, his basic premise is that something was created from nothing. Now, while I can personally see the validity of that argument (I have similar views of consciousness) doesn't this create a problem with the law of conservation of mass/energy?
Also, I think this might be sensationalized a bit.. he doesn't appear to state his view as a definitive proof..
The Earth is a "Goldilocks" planet. Not too hot, nor too cold, nor too big or too small...
Here is another planet which appears to be a Goldilocks planet:
Gliese 581 d - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So far astronomers have discovered about 500 extra-solar planets:
Extrasolar planet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That does not imply that the odds of a planet being a Goldilocks planet is 500 to 1. Rocky earth size planets in the habitable zone of another star are difficult to detect. Large extra-solar planets are much easier to detect. Right now there isn't enough data to predict how the number of earth like planets exist in our galaxy. So far, we've found 2, the earth and Gliese_581_d, which implies others likely exist.
Last edited:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," Hawking writes.
That's from the article, and it does sound fairly definitive. But, he follows it up with a slightly softer statement regarding it not being necessary to invoke God in an explanation. *shrugs*