God did not create the universe, says Hawking
-
I don't see any joke in teasing a handicap person?
The joke is there but it's just wrong (insulting someone for their disability) IMO
but what about your comment
that is inhuman, but what else can we expect from a teenager.
So are teenagers.....inhuman? There is some implication of this in the above quote. Teasing an individual for their....age???
Peace
-
we all know that the big bang was mentioned in the quran, as was the expansion of the unverse, i was an atheist too but believe if, u be an atheist mostly is due of pride "i know too much" how come i don't know god? , well , what was happening before the big bang? that is the question, according to quantum physics, how come they believe that the universe is gonna collapse and recreated again? who did set that law? of the second cycle of the universe, they differ in one think, is all matter going through black holes or is the universe gonna implode thand explode again, how about tha pattern, the blue print that thay all know about, the energy that is registring everything we do, movement, thaught, and all, or are they gonna just make science fixion movies out of it like 'flashforward?' there's people who love to ignore god just by pride, some others by gnorance
-
I recall hearing about this on a BBC podcast some weeks back. A physicist interviewed (not Hawking) was saying that the laws of physics in this universe seemed "perfectly suited for life to arise" - he gave gravity as one example slightly stronger gravity would mean everything would rapidly collapse into black holes. slightly weaker gravity and there would be no star formations at all, and the entire universe would just be a nebulous cloud of gas.
Then he continued saying that this wasn't indicative of a Creator at all, since there is an infinity of universes with all kinds of gravitational constants and other forces, and this particular one simply happened to be the one universe anyone was around to observe...
hmm
-
I watched Stephen Hawking's TV programmes recently. He does not say God did not create the universe, he says not necessarily, because there is a scientific explanation.
He also mentions multiple universes. This is a nice get out clause for such people, because to them multiple universes are a theoretical possibility, but they are unlikely ever to prove it. In other words, they believe in a theoretical that could be true and would explain things. Now, who does that remind you of?!!
-
I recall hearing about this on a BBC podcast some weeks back. A physicist interviewed (not Hawking) was saying that the laws of physics in this universe seemed "perfectly suited for life to arise" - he gave gravity as one example slightly stronger gravity would mean everything would rapidly collapse into black holes. slightly weaker gravity and there would be no star formations at all, and the entire universe would just be a nebulous cloud of gas.
Then he continued saying that this wasn't indicative of a Creator at all, since there is an infinity of universes with all kinds of gravitational constants and other forces, and this particular one simply happened to be the one universe anyone was around to observe...
hmm
This documentary http//topdocumentaryfilms.com/parallel-universes/ ?
It's a very atheistic attempt at explaining away the big bang by creating hypothetical universes based upon a math that is nonsensical.
-
I watched Stephen Hawking's TV programmes recently. He does not say God did not create the universe, he says not necessarily, because there is a scientific explanation.
He also mentions multiple universes. This is a nice get out clause for such people, because to them multiple universes are a theoretical possibility, but they are unlikely ever to prove it. In other words, they believe in a theoretical that could be true and would explain things. Now, who does that remind you of?!!
Precisely. The speculation of parallel universes is perhaps the best example of materialist reductionist scientists falling prey to a secular religion themselves, a scientism. The very fact that they have postulated this idea of parallel universes (with no evidence, mind you) should strengthen the faith of everyone for it shows that these scientists can no longer hide from the implications of the Big Bang model of the universe. So aware of its implications (briefly, that the universe had a beginning, and therefore something had to begin it) have they become that they have resorted to looking past any and all evidence and instead wildly speculating about the existence of an infinite number of universes.
In other words, materialist reductionists like to condescend to the rest of the lot about relying solely on evidence, but when it's time for them to put their money where their mouth is, when the evidence demands a sobering implication of which they want no part, they simply cower and resort to pure speculation. Anything to turn away from the truth. Hard data, all of a sudden, takes a backseat to a flurry of last-ditch grasp-at-straws models of reality.
Wishful thinking.
-
I think they opt for the multiple universes theory because in our universe the laws that govern it are just right for life, and everything seemed to go just right from the 'big bang' onwards for life in a bunch of coincidences, and of course too many coincidences and its harder to accept, so they explain it by saying "oh there are many universes, we just happen to be in one that works".
They also say in a singularity, i.e. just before the big bang, the laws of physics that we know today may not apply. How convenient.
-
I watched Stephen Hawking's TV programmes recently. He does not say God did not create the universe, he says not necessarily, because there is a scientific explanation.
So there is a scientific explanation. So in fact if wakas punches me on the face, since there is a scientific explanation for the hematomes, such that a self propelled bunch of muscles and bones happened to pass on the pth of may face with an acceleration of so much and so forth, then we conclude that wakas did not punch me at all. I like that.
In fact what I find these seudo scientific talk about God childish blabber, infantilism. Hey, guys, let's see a match betwen "science" and a cloke named God. It is so childish. It is like the dispute or discussion about whether we do not eat pork because it is not good for us or because the Qur'an forbids it. And one asks oneself Where is the problem or the contradiction. The Qur'an forbids it because it is not good for us, and science works, not because science is God, science is the name people give to a form of ascertaining knowledge, no more no less, and what does God or no God to do with it. I know people who are not believers and are even scientists, but they do not indulge in this kind of crusades. I supose they know that we are talking at two different levels and orders when we speak of science and when we speak of God. "What this science explains everything shows is a selfconsciousness that some psychoanalist, or not even, could explain in some useful ways to those subject to that kind of delusion.
Salaam
-
I was reading a very interesting book by Francis Hitching who touches on this topic of atheism/rationalism as opposed to religiosity/faith starting at an interesting point in time, many examples of the archeological society and how many times they were proven wrong pointing out that we are as stubbornly entrenched in our opinions about what/how things should be that we consistently deny what can be...I completely agree. We are all guilty of this on occasion and some obviously take it upon themselves as a lifetime crusade even though they might be questions that we cannot have a response for in our lifetimes...even worse is when this blinds us to plausible options as we are effectively blinding ourselves for the sake of some sort of obsession with how we think things should be.
-
I was reading a very interesting book by Francis Hitching who touches on this topic of atheism/rationalism as opposed to religiosity/faith starting at an interesting point in time, many examples of the archeological society and how many times they were proven wrong pointing out that we are as stubbornly entrenched in our opinions about what/how things should be that we consistently deny what can be...I completely agree. We are all guilty of this on occasion and some obviously take it upon themselves as a lifetime crusade even though they might be questions that we cannot have a response for in our lifetimes...even worse is when this blinds us to plausible options as we are effectively blinding ourselves for the sake of some sort of obsession with how we think things should be.
...so, once Moses went out to take a bath and put his clothes over a stone and then that stone ran away with the clothes. Moses followed the stone saying, "My clothes, O stone! My clothes, O stone!... Sahih Bukhari
They look at creation as everything sprang from nothing which over time the 92 natural elements combined themselves or in other words if a rock is left alone for billions of years, one day it will awake start walking or even bold enough to steal and run off with someone's clothes.
I see the world filled with 4 bit chemical programs called life with precise instructions coded to grow, divide, repair itself, IF THEN ELSE logic to invent machines to enable travel to other worlds and in my case often dream/see future events in this world or traversing time-space.
peace
-
So basically Bukhari was an undercover atheistic scientist! Things are falling into place now! D
I like the way you see the world
-
Wishful thinking.
Actually I don't think it is that much wishful thinking. A few physical laws make this all the easier to understand - energy conservation and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Taking both of these into account and rewind time to "just before" the beginning - all is one and everything is timeless. In that "moment", all possible configurations of the universe exist simultaneously. The question then is rather, why did this particular set of configurations dominate? A hard question, for if you knew the answer you could explain what a colour looks like to a blind person.
There actually is no argument here - this is a classical case of "Goldilocks and the three bears"; Atheists say "cold porridge for all, hot porridge burns", religious people say "hot porridge for all, if you burn yourself so be it". There is a fine point in between known as "just right" where there can be no disagreement, this point is also known as "the absolute truth".
It all comes from ambiguity. Who are you referring to when you say "God"? An atheist says "God (dude in the sky) does not exist" and rules out THE creator in the process, a theist says "God (the creator) exists" and then constructs his own image of God, hence creating the dude in the sky. Regardless of either stance, the creator exists (hey, we're here after all!).
The question of creation has been answered 5 millenia ago at least - it is all about the nameless river of tao.
-
I was reading a very interesting book by Francis Hitching who touches on this topic of atheism/rationalism as opposed to religiosity/faith starting at an interesting point in time, many examples of the archeological society and how many times they were proven wrong pointing out that we are as stubbornly entrenched in our opinions about what/how things should be that we consistently deny what can be...I completely agree. We are all guilty of this on occasion and some obviously take it upon themselves as a lifetime crusade even though they might be questions that we cannot have a response for in our lifetimes...even worse is when this blinds us to plausible options as we are effectively blinding ourselves for the sake of some sort of obsession with how we think things should be.
This might interest you as it refers to similar sort of cases.
http//www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wclose.html
-
Greetings and peace, all
This topic isn't fresh, but I'll post anyway. ;D
I've always supposed that the "big bang" was merely the explosion/release of one black hole. hmm !
Further suppositions Not only are matter and energy interchangeable, but so is space time. "Congealed" energy (such as in a black hole) can become space-time. Likewise, focused energy can displace space-time. If this premise bears out, then the initially-concentrated space-time released by a black hole exploding would have created an enormous expanding wave of space-time. The folding and stretching of space-time would allow for matter to precipitate. Practical applications/implications (eventually, Allah willing) are folding of space for faster than light travel, and time travel. It has already been proven that things can travel faster than the speed of light; scientists have thus far exceeded the speed of light by 310 times with a laser in cesium vapors. Regarding time travel, I'd argue that it isn't the amount of energy involved...it is the amount of focus. The amount of energy in my watch battery should be enough to displace the space-time of a space smaller than the nucleus of an atom. Of course, keeping the energy from disassociating any matter attempting time travel is another challenge, but not insurmountable, Allah willing.
But even if my supposings are incorrect... ;D
Allah has created ALL things.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Scientific observations are constantly changing--scientific law does not exist, only scientific theory. Even E=MC2 isn't totally correct, neither are Newtonian physics, neither is the Bohr theory of the atom. ignore A theory is just a theory.
peace
~Abdul-Hadi
-
...so, once Moses went out to take a bath and put his clothes over a stone and then that stone ran away with the clothes. Moses followed the stone saying, "My clothes, O stone! My clothes, O stone!... Sahih Bukhari
So basically Bukhari was an undercover atheistic scientist! Things are falling into place now!
I like the way you see the world
Is that even a real hadith? lol, i had a good laugh
talk about bukhari being a fan of the rolling stones! rotflhttp//www.budapestinfo.hu/noc/photos/Esemenynaptar/rslogo.jpg
