"God did not create Universe!", says Hawking.

[Mizango]

Goddamn Alleya saves the day <3

[Mizango]

Though this is the general understanding of Intelligent design (including by the people who advocate it, on average), Thomas Aquinas' version is much more general and can only be supported by physics.

Do tell.

[Mizango]

Yes, we had to read up on Aquinas' works when I was in school.

[Ashmada]

Goddamn Alleya saves the day <3

Actually, we're about 5 to have said the same thing, worded differently . But yeah, Alleya said it quite eloquently.

[Salodin]

If God made the universe, or set it into motion, because nothing going to something requires an intermediate step, then where exactly did God come from? Who made the maker? And who made the maker of the maker? And who made the maker of the maker of the maker? The god argument tries to account for spontaneous creation by hypothesizing a second spontaneous creation, except this second spontaneous creation must be, by the very logic of those who present this argument, at least as complex as the present universe in order to have then created it. It's a needlessly complex ruse to try to crowbar human beliefs into the order of the universe.

I don't remember much from when I was in catholic school back in 4th-8th grade from the religion classes, but I do remember the basic gist being "God always has been". I don't agree 100% with what they always teach, but it was pretty simple to understand the way the priest explained it to me one day (I still look up to the man, he was a good guy).

We can't fathom why God always has been since we ourselves had a beginning and a very apparent end, but god has neither of those, and therefore it is because of a gods existence that the cycle of maker that made the maker that made us ends.

Of course science doesn't have all the answers now and I respect that, but they apparently have enough to deny the existence of a god, which I find ludicrous.

[Alleya]

I went back and edited the post to address that argument, probably as you were typing that.

[Mojo]

I always assumed if you need to bring god into a creation theory, it is because by definition god has no beginning or end, there by ending the whole cycle of creation of the creation that created whateveritis that I am explaining created the universe as I know it.

I've never run across any formal definition of what a god is supposed to be, but even if a god was defined to simply exist, the question of why said god has this trait is unanswered by the definition. Despite how well science has progressed, it will never answer the question either as it's impossible to fully explain existence (the question itself is paradoxical.)

[Mayareira]

then where exactly did God come from?

Our grade school teacher (and this was uh, 15-20~ years ago) explained this by;

"Our brain computer is not advanced enough to answer this question."

...and I still remember this answer Kids are pretty damn awesome with asking pinpoint questions haha.

[Mizango]

But see Salodin, the beauty with Science is that we arent afraid to say "we dont know". Call god a theory, like we do and you'll have less of a headache. Religion hides behind that "we cant grasp god...", thats bullshit. That is your way of say "Look bro, idk, nut the nigga has always been there somehow".

Wrong on so many levels. There is no shame in saying you have no idea.

[Zhais]

We can't fathom why God always has been since we ourselves had a beginning and a very apparent end, but god has neither of those, and therefore it is because of a gods existence that the cycle of maker that made the maker that made us ends.

http://resistanceisfruitful.com/blog...-reasoning.jpg

[Salodin]

whereas the existence of god accomplishes exactly nothing and explains exactly nothing in the creation of the universe, it just band-aids a yet-to-be-solved problem. I think this is what Hawking is getting at.

This I can respect both as some one who believes in a god, but only as something that created the creation of the creator of the nothingness that created the big bang.

Wrong on so many levels. There is no shame in saying you have no idea.

Dude I have no problem admitting I have no idea wtf half the theory shit being thrown around is lmao. Hoping you guys post more links so I can learn.

[Mojo]

Yeah, but what created that something?

[Ashmada]

Of course science doesn't have all the answers now and I respect that, but they apparently have enough to deny the existence of a god, which I find ludicrous.

Hawkins didn't deny the existence of a god, he denied its necessity. Basically, he just said "the first cause argument is BS!"
The only appaling thing here is that it took him so long to get there.

[Mizango]

Circular reason is pretty much what it boils down to.

I mean, if you can interrupt differently and know what you're looking at with WMAP or can refute inflation or anything Edwin Hubble discovered in terms of doppler shifting and insert "God" in its place, then go for it. Why convince us here on the boards when you could have fame, fortune and could be labeled as the greatest contributor to Earth's history if you take your evidence and logic of God public? I mean, shit. If you got it, then flaunt that shit playa.

[Salodin]

Yeah, but what created that something?

Fuck if I know. Like Miz said, if you think of it as a theory, then I guess it would simply be god has always existed, simply because god has.

Then again, as it stands now, what I want to know is not where the nothingness came from that created the big bang, but the laws of physics that allowed such a thing to happen. Is it a "we don't know" answer, or is there one that can be sufficiently cliff noted by a wiki page?

[Gadritan]

Everything had a beginning, even the nothingness before the big bang.

Do you really think that the Big Bang was the beginning of everything? The beginning of our universe....yes. I like to think of infinity in math.....what if there is no beginning and no end? It's hard to imagine I know, and it's hard for us to wrap our minds around that concept.

So hard to explain this. Everything doesn't have a "beginning," nor an "end." Time is essentially a human perception. I'm one of the people who believes that all things are cyclical and infinite. It's an incredibly difficult thing for us to understand due to our dependence on the concept of "time." If you can take time out of the equation, it makes sense. All things have simply existed and will continue to exist in various forms. Energy doesn't cease to exist, nor is it "created," from nothing, it simply changes form.

As far as believing that something, or someone, has to have created the laws of physics...it's a something, or rather, everything. We've defined what we know as the laws of physics, but it's really nothing more than an explanation of the things we have the ability to study and understand. Energy itself dictates what's possible or impossible, and to think that we know everything possible or impossible is ridiculous. Otherwise we'd know exactly how everything in the universe works, including creation or existence. There are still occurrences in physics that we don't understand, and do not fall in line with these "laws." The laws of physics aren't truly as rigid as you may believe, as there are exceptions that we simply cannot understand yet. Our "laws," will continue to evolve with our knowledge. First taking form as theories, that, as we prove or disprove, will become part of our "laws," or will be disregarded.

[Mizango]

This I can respect both as some one who believes in a god, but only as something that created the creation of the creator of the nothingness that created the big bang.

There was no "nothingness" that created the big bang. That is a hot button topic, but there was/is definitely something that triggered it. Some think it was the 4 fundamental forces, others think it was atomic instability, but we call them theories and say "we dont know", myself included. You guys are the ones that deal in absolutes, wholeheartedly believing in something and not caring if/when/how it got a beginning.

Dude I have no problem admitting I have no idea wtf half the theory shit being thrown around is lmao. Hoping you guys post more links so I can learn.

Oh I know, wasn't anything personal, I was actually saying that before you put all your chips in on the God card, you should consider that there is a chance that he's magically not there. Many people have no idea that the term 'big bang' was in ridicule to the idea of an explosion, it just happened to stick.

Hawkins didn't deny the existence of a god, he denied its necessity. Basically, he just said "the first cause argument is BS!"
The only appaling thing here is that it took him so long to get there.

Actually he made that claim originally back in 1990ish iirc. I have a few of his books and I know he mentions it in "A brief history in time" and again in "On the shoulders on Giants". Typical reporters reporting on science

[Yabby]

http://www.fistofblog.com/wp-content...h_dinosaur.jpg
http://www.armadalinkshell.com/yabai...ing%20Dino.PNG

[Wanna_Spoon]

Spoiler: show

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2009/...encedammit.jpg

[Mojo]

Fuck if I know. Like Miz said, if you think of it as a theory, then I guess it would simply be god has always existed, simply because god has.

Then again, as it stands now, what I want to know is not where the nothingness came from that created the big bang, but the laws of physics that allowed such a thing to happen. Is it a "we don't know" answer, or is there one that can be sufficiently cliff noted by a wiki page?

That's actually the opposite of a theory. A theory explains the nature of one thing by introducing causality. The Big Bang theory explains how the energy and matter that exist in the universe was created. Laws of physics explain why Big Bang could have occurred, but there really is no theory on why the laws are the way they are. Claiming that god exists simply because god exists is not a theory and does not magically explain the paradox of existence.