Guess This Settles It.

[phlegm 6]

Im convincedhttp://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6816EI20100902

[CaneBrain 95]

Im convincedhttp://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6816EI20100902

/forum

[SBriand 4]

So what do we talk about now in here? Cars?

[Balloon guy 158]

Who invented gravity?

[SBriand 4]

Who invented gravity?

Chuck Norris

[vbnautilus 48]

Who invented gravity?

Who invented god?

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Who invented god?

Oh, don't get smart. Clearly if something exists, there must have been a human like entity that magically created it. Everybody knows that.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

Clearly if something exists, there must have been a human like entity that magically created it. Everybody knows that.

Guess that settles it.

[Balloon guy 158]

Guess that settles it.

Who created logic?

[Balloon guy 158]

Chuck Norris

Reminds me of the commercial for Dos XX beer where the narrator says:The sharks have a week devoted to him.Oh and Chuck Norris is a Christian.

[phlegm 6]

Reminds me of the commercial for Dos XX beer where the narrator says:The sharks have a week devoted to him.Oh and Chuck Norris is a Christian.

This definetely settles it.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Sean Carroll discussing Hawking's statement:http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/

[Balloon guy 158]

Sean Carroll discussing Hawking's statement:http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/

Someone should tell him that in order to pull off the mock turtleneck sports jacket look, you need to have gotten a tan at least once in your life.Also, he's explaining it well, simply and concisely.He is wrong about the notion that "You can still believe in God, you just can't believe that He does anything"The theory Hawking is making ( which is funny cause I've been telling you guys for years you didn't have enough information, and Hawking is saying that now you finally do ( which means I was right all along)) The theory he is making is just a theory, based on the desire for it to be true.Arguing that a tornado could have mixed together a junkyard and created a perfectly functioning car, isn't the same thing as proving that a tornado DID mix together a junkyard and created a perfectly functioning car.This reality will be lost on some.

[phlegm 6]

Sean Carroll discussing Hawking's statement:http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/

So to sum up, carroll says hawkings didnt disproove God, he just prooved we dont need him?

[vbnautilus 48]

So to sum up, carroll says hawkings didnt disproove God, he just prooved we dont need him?

Please don't ever use the word prove again.

[brvheart 1,753]

Please don't ever use the word prove again.

He didn't.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

The theory he is making is just a theory, based on the desire for it to be true.

the ironist strikes again.

[phlegm 6]

Please don't ever use the word prove again.

Thought something didnt look right.

[SweetDee 0]

Someone should tell him that in order to pull off the mock turtleneck sports jacket look, you need to have gotten a tan at least once in your life.Also, he's explaining it well, simply and concisely.He is wrong about the notion that "You can still believe in God, you just can't believe that He does anything"The theory Hawking is making ( which is funny cause I've been telling you guys for years you didn't have enough information, and Hawking is saying that now you finally do ( which means I was right all along)) The theory he is making is just a theory, based on the desire for it to be true.Arguing that a tornado could have mixed together a junkyard and created a perfectly functioning car, isn't the same thing as proving that a tornado DID mix together a junkyard and created a perfectly functioning car.This reality will be lost on some.

Well, in this crowd some=most.

[SweetDee 0]

Someone should tell him that in order to pull off the mock turtleneck sports jacket look, you need to have gotten a tan at least once in your life.Also, he's explaining it well, simply and concisely.He is wrong about the notion that "You can still believe in God, you just can't believe that He does anything"The theory Hawking is making ( which is funny cause I've been telling you guys for years you didn't have enough information, and Hawking is saying that now you finally do ( which means I was right all along)) The theory he is making is just a theory, based on the desire for it to be true.Arguing that a tornado could have mixed together a junkyard and created a perfectly functioning car, isn't the same thing as proving that a tornado DID mix together a junkyard and created a perfectly functioning car.This reality will be lost on some.

Wait, so, he admitted to previously not having enough information but the belief stays the same, which is fine but doesn't that basically tell everyone that bought in previously that it was an act of faith?

[antistuff 0]

there is a giant leap from the title of the article (GOD DID NOT CREATE THE UNIVERSE) to what it is actually being said (we do not need god to explain the existence of the universe). if you think about it this claim actually falls right in line with most religions. god is something unexplainable and beyond human experience. to have to invoke god to explain existence, or to find a place for him in the explanation of existence both violate this. i am actually unsure about this first one, but the second one definitely violates it.

[Mills 0]

This has gotten a lot of press lately, i'm not sure why.I always thought that Hawking didn't believe in a creator god, and used the term in a pantheistic kinda way, like Einstein.

[BaseJester 1]

This has gotten a lot of press lately, i'm not sure why.

It's an easy way to get clicks so that people can recycle all of their God vs. Science arguments without thinking about any new issues.I'm way too stupid to understand how the physics in question works, by the way.

[vbnautilus 48]

Wait, so, he admitted to previously not having enough information but the belief stays the same, which is fine but doesn't that basically tell everyone that bought in previously that it was an act of faith?

Making a conclusion based on incomplete evidence is not what "faith" is.And antistuff is right, Hawking is basically misquoted by the title of the article.

[Balloon guy 158]

Making a conclusion based on incomplete evidence is not what "faith" is.And antistuff is right, Hawking is basically misquoted by the title of the article.

The first time you guys knew it was true was when the universe was a couple million years old and the human cell was the smallest building block for life.Later you guys declared it true when the universe was about 100 million years old and The embryo clearly showed that human babies have gills like a fish and tails like a monkey while growing in the womb.In a hundred years I will mock your 'truth' again with the limited knowledge we have now that basically requires you to understand the Theory of Relativity and QM in order to understand.