Jump to content

Guess This Settles It.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
Link to post
Share on other sites
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?
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...