Question for God believers

[Gonuclear]

No he hasn't, which simply invalidates your next statement.  It doesn't matter that something doesn't make sense to somebody, if there is evidence validating the theory, that is all that is needed.  If I say that I can't make sense of why 2+2=4, doesn't make the equation and it's answer invalid.  All it means is that I can't make sense of it.

The Beginning of Time - This lecture is the intellectual property of Professor S.W.Hawking.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

You are wrong.  Did you even read it?

Here is the relevant part:

"Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside."

From an operational point of view, he now says "events before the Big Bang are simply not defined because there's no way one could measure what happened at them."  That's very different than saying that time actually began at the Big Bang, which was his position twenty years ago.

As to your second point, of course it's true that it is scientific evidence that counts.  As Hawking says in the very lecture you cite, there is no way to know scientifically what, if anything, existed before the Big Bang.  There is no evidence in this case.

[Radical Plato]

Your questions are based on the assumption that God is a man. He is unlike you and me.

Why would he have to be created or have an origin? If He did, he would be just like any other human.

He is GOD. The Great I AM. Too powerful and too mysterious for our inferior human minds to comprehend while we are in this carnal body.

His assumption is based on the scientific principle of cause and effect.  Meaning something cannot come into existence without a cause. If everything needs a creator, than no matter what exists, it must have been created.  Furthermore, to be created means that someone or something had to create it.  But then, who created the creator and so on?  Logically, this would mean there would be an infinite regression of creators (prior causes), and we would never be able to find the first uncaused cause, since by definition (the question says that "everything needs a creator") there wouldn't be any uncaused cause. 

This would mean that the sequence of creations is eternal.  But, if it exists that there is an eternal regression of creators, then who created the infinite regression of creators?  Remember, the question presupposes that all things need a creator -- even the eternal sequence of creators -- which becomes logically absurd.  Furthermore, if there is an eternal regression of creators that are eternal, then the question is not answered.  In fact, it cannot be answered, since its weakness is that "all things need a creator."  Of course, this only begs the question in that how did the process begin?

That's what his assumption was based on.

[Gonuclear]

His assumption is based on the scientific principle of cause and effect.  Meaning something cannot come into existence without a cause. If everything needs a creator, than no matter what exists, it must have been created.  Furthermore, to be created means that someone or something had to create it.  But then, who created the creator and so on?  Logically, this would mean there would be an infinite regression of creators (prior causes), and we would never be able to find the first uncaused cause, since by definition (the question says that "everything needs a creator") there wouldn't be any uncaused cause.  

This would mean that the sequence of creations is eternal.  But, if it exists that there is an eternal regression of creators, then who created the infinite regression of creators?  Remember, the question presupposes that all things need a creator -- even the eternal sequence of creators -- which becomes logically absurd.  Furthermore, if there is an eternal regression of creators that are eternal, then the question is not answered.  In fact, it cannot be answered, since its weakness is that "all things need a creator."  Of course, this only begs the question in that how did the process begin?

That's what his assumption was based on.

Are you for real?  That whole absurd infinite regress argument has been around for over a thousand years.  You actually think you are breaking new ground? There are many arguments and counter arguments that you are apparently unaware of.  Why don't you educate yourself before opening your pie hole?  You might come off less like a fool.  

Just a suggestion.

[Radical Plato]

You are wrong.  Did you even read it?

Here is the relevant part:

"Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside."

From an operational point of view, he now says "events before the Big Bang are simply not defined because there's no way one could measure what happened at them."  That's very different than saying that time actually began at the Big Bank, which was his position twenty years ago.

As to your second point, of course it's true that it is scientific evidence that counts.  As Hawking says in the very lecture you cite, there is no way to know scientifically what, if anything, existed before the Big Bang.  There is no evidence in this case.

Hawkins conclusion from that lecture : "The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago"

Other quotes from Hawkins
 "Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang."
 
And this one from his documentary last year called "Grand Design: Did God create the Universe “When people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them that the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the big bang, so there is no time for god to make the universe in. It’s like asking directions to the edge of the earth; The Earth is a sphere; it doesn’t have an edge; so looking for it is a futile exercise. We are each free to believe what we want, and it’s my view that the simplest explanation is; there is no god. No one created our universe,and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization; There is probably no heaven, and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe, and for that I am extremely grateful.”

[Gonuclear]

Hawkins conclusion from that lecture : "The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago"

Other quotes from Hawkins
 "Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang."
 
And this one from his documentary last year called "Grand Design: Did God create the Universe “When people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them that the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the big bang, so there is no time for god to make the universe in. It’s like asking directions to the edge of the earth; The Earth is a sphere; it doesn’t have an edge; so looking for it is a futile exercise. We are each free to believe what we want, and it’s my view that the simplest explanation is; there is no god. No one created our universe,and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization; There is probably no heaven, and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe, and for that I am extremely grateful.”

What's your problem?  Hawking defines what he means by saying time began at the Big Bang:  If we can't get any information about it, we can make no statements about it, and hence we ignore it.  That is his current position on time before the Big Bang.  He used to think it did not exist; he now, defining knowability in terms of what science can establish through observation, he defines "existence" as knowabilty.

That is not an unexpected position from a scientist.  However, is it really true that the limits of human knowledge coincide with reality and it makes no sense to talk about the universe beyond what we can observe and detect? This position is called "Scientism", and it is by no means universal among scientists.

Many physicists - Alan Guth among them - are much less certain that the universe started with the Big Bang, and now talk openly about events before it happened.  

[Radical Plato]

Are you for real?  That whole absurd infinite regress argument has been around for over a thousand years.  You actually think you are breaking new ground? There are many arguments and counter arguments that you are apparently unaware of.  Why don't you educate yourself before opening your pie hole?  You might come off less like a fool.  

Just a suggestion.

Obviously touched a nerve when I pointed out your blatant lie that was supporting your nonsense theory that time existed before the big bang.  My response regarding infinite regress as to the question as to who created god was a simply a response to another poster suggesting the question was based on the assumption that god was a man.  How someone could come to that conclusion is beyond me.  I was simply pointing out what the question was based on. I am certainly not claiming to be breaking new ground.  And as for your comment that Hawkins said "there is no way to know scientifically what, if anything, existed before the Big Bang.'  you obviously misunderstood the lecture, he in no way implied such a thing.

The reason he says that "there's no way one could measure events before the Big Bang" because 'before' the big bang implies their was TIME before the big bang and he undeniably acknowledges there was no time before the big bang.  So if there is no time, their is no before!  Time started at the big bang,  most cosmologists accept this.

[doison]

Where did God himself come from, who made him, did he make himself?How? What are Gods origins? And none of this Gods always been there and always will be there shit, he had to start somewhere.

God is the empty set that contains all empty sets

[Gonuclear]

Obviously touched a nerve when I pointed out your blatant lie that was supporting your nonsense theory that time existed before the big bang.  My response regarding infinite regress as to the question as to who created god was a simply a response to another poster suggesting the question was based on the assumption that god was a man.  How someone could come to that conclusion is beyond me.  I was simply pointing out what the question was based on. I am certainly not claiming to be breaking new ground.  And as for your comment that Hawkins said "there is no way to know scientifically what, if anything, existed before the Big Bang.'  you obviously misunderstood the lecture, he in no way implied such a thing.

The reason he says that "there's no way one could measure events before the Big Bang" because 'before' the big bang implies their was TIME before the big bang and he undeniably acknowledges there was no time before the big bang.  So if there is no time, their is no before!  Time started at the big bang,  most cosmologists accept this.

No, you, didn't touch a nerve, imbecile.  Hawking's position is that talking about time before the Big Bang makes no sense because we cannot observe anything before it. 

He used to say that there was nothing before it.  You are confusing the two positions.  What a chump.

But go ahead, lie back and congratulate yourself on what you think you know. 

[Radical Plato]

What's your problem?  Hawking defines what he means by saying time began at the Big Bang:  If we can't get any information about it, we can make no statements about it, and hence we ignore it.  That is his current position on time before the Big Bang.  He used to think it did not exist; he now, defining knowability in terms of what science can establish through observation, he defines "existence" as knowabilty.

That is not an unexpected position from a scientist.  However, is it really true that the limits of human knowledge coincide with reality and it makes no sense to talk about the universe beyond what we can observe and detect? This position is called "Scientism", and it is by no means universal among scientists.

Many physicists - Alan Guth among them - are much less certain that the universe started with the Big Bang, and now talk openly about events before it happened.  

If you are going to make claims such as Stephen Hawkins changed his position on a key component to his theories, you probably need to provide evidence to be taken seriously.  Show me the evidence that Hawking denies his theory that time didn't exist before the big bang.  Your claim of suggesting that Hawkins defines existence as knowability sounds like semantic bullshit.  And how can many physicists not believe in the big bang or question it and then talk about events before something they are uncertain happened.  That's like me saying I don't believe in ghosts, but these are they types of sounds they make when haunting a place..  WWWHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOO !

[Gonuclear]

If you are going to make claims such as Stephen Hawkins changed his position on a key component to his theories, you probably need to provide evidence to be taken seriously.  Show me the evidence that Hawking denies his theory that time didn't exist before the big bang.  Your claim of suggesting that Hawkins defines existence as knowability sounds like semantic bullshit.  And how can many physicists not believe in the big bang or question it and then talk about events before something they are uncertain happened.  That's like me saying I don't believe in ghosts, but these are they types of sounds they make when haunting a place..  WWWHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOO !

Why don't you go Googling and come back when you know something, Chump?

Shaddup until then.   

[BikiniSlut]

why let so many children get raped, murdered, killed, etc? what god allows that?

You assume a higher power/God is good.

Just because something is more powerful does NOT mean it is good or does good things.

Look at the highest political powers in the world.

[Radical Plato]

No, you, didn't touch a nerve, imbecile.  Hawking's position is that talking about time before the Big Bang makes no sense because we cannot observe anything before it. 

He used to say that there was nothing before it.  You are confusing the two positions.  What a chump.

But go ahead, lie back and congratulate yourself on what you think you know. 

Hawkins never said there was nothing before the big bang, he said there was no time before the big bang. You are confusing the two positions.  What a chump.

But go ahead, lie back and congratulate yourself on what you think you know. 

(Once again, provide a quotation or some evidence to back up your claims, you have obviously pushed Hawkins words through some type of distorted filter to conform to some bias you have). Rather than make a claim, just provide a quotation of what Hawkins said, rather than putting words in the mans mouth"

[Gonuclear]

Hawkins never said there was nothing before the big bang, he said there was no time before the big bang. You are confusing the two positions.  What a chump.

But go ahead, lie back and congratulate yourself on what you think you know. 

(Once again, provide a quotation or some evidence to back up your claims, you have obviously pushed Hawkins words through some type of distorted filter to conform to some bias you have). Rather than make a claim, just provide a quotation of what Hawkins said, rather than putting words in the mans mouth"

You posted a link to the relevant quotation yourself,  numbskull.

[Radical Plato]

You posted a link to the relevant quotation yourself,  numbskull.

Then why don't you just post the quote, because I never posted any quote that Hawkins stated that there was nothing before the big bang.  You seem to take pretty concise and precise statements and run them through a filter that comes up with rather inaccurate interpretations.  For example, you have taken the concept of "NO TIME" to mean 'NOTHING"

[Gonuclear]

Then why don't you just post the quote, because I never posted any quote that Hawkins stated that there was nothing before the big bang.  You seem to take pretty concise and precise statements and run them through a filter that comes up with rather inaccurate interpretations.  For example, you have taken the concept of "NO TIME" to mean 'NOTHING"

What an idiot. 

[Hulkotron]

What does God put up on upright rows?

[Radical Plato]

What an idiot.  

You went from trying to present an articulate argument, to trying to offer an articulate argument interspersed with ad hominem attacks, to just simply resorting to ad hominem attacks. I guess that ends the debate then.

[Radical Plato]

You assume a higher power/God is good.

Just because something is more powerful does NOT mean it is good or does good things.

Look at the highest political powers in the world.

It isn't an assumption, the bible tells us so.

Psalms 145:9 The LORD is good to all, And His mercies are over all His works.

Mark 10:18 And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.

1 Timothy 4:4For everything created by God is good

1 Chronicles 16:34 O give thanks to the LORD, for He is good; For His lovingkindness is everlasting.

These are just a few examples, the bible is full of praise of God's goodness.

[Radical Plato]

I don't even know why all the god botherers get upset at Hawkins theories, he hasn't absolutely discounted the possibility of God. Hawkins simply believes the universe is governed by the laws of science. The laws may have been decreed by God, but he believes God does not intervene to break the laws.  Essentially, if their is a God/Creator it is highly unlikely it is the God of the bible or any other religion for that matter.  Hawking himself doesn't believe that their is a God and regarded the concept of Heaven as a myth, believing that there is "no heaven or afterlife" and that such a notion was a "fairy story for people afraid of the dark."

The beautiful thing about there being no God, as Hawkins pointed out, is that we are each free to believe what we want and no one directs our fate.  A concept far more liberating than the prison of religion with it's indoctrination and condemnation of free thinking coupled with forced subservience to a wrathful deity.

[arce1988]

 So god is NOT good? Then WHY pray to him? IF he is evil, I want NO part of him.

[galeniko]

getbigs intelectual council about to disclose everything about the bigbang.

[Radical Plato]

So god is NOT good? Then WHY pray to him? IF he is evil, I want NO part of him.

It's possible GOD could be both good and evil, which would explain the belief humans are created in his image.  The bible says God is good, but he commits acts that are pretty hard to interpret any other way than being pretty fucking evil.(especially the first testament)

[arce1988]

 thanks ekul


 I was thinking the same thing



 if we are made in his image, and we are fucking evil beyond belief... then he must be the most evil thing in history

[anabolichalo]

getbigs intelectual council about to disclose everything about the bigbang.

if the big bang was an explosion of a point of ultimate mass


what was that point of mass floating in? in nothingness?

[Fortress]

Slowly allowing the concept of a god to diminish in your mind is like being deprogrammed from the brainwashing indoctrination that occurs when one falls prey to any cult. Over time, the idiocy and foolishness becomes just that much more apparent.

Make no mistake. If you're a follower of any of the religions, you have been brainwashed. Either this or you're without a great deal of natural intelligence. Actually, if you fall into the latter category, you will be at a greater risk of fully becoming victim to that brainwashing.

Over a dozen years removed from my Roman Catholic upbringing and brainwashing, the very thought of modern man believing such unparalleled nonsense has me utterly depressed.