Stephen Hawkings "God did not create the universe."

Has written a new book called 'The Grand Design."

lol... he's just pissin the religious folks right off.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe...rse/index.html


LONDON, England [[CNN) -- God did not create the universe, world-famous physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book that aims to banish a divine creator from physics.
Hawking says in his book "The Grand Design" that, given the existence of gravity, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing," according to an excerpt published Thursday in The Times of London.

The world you see is an illusion of a world. God did not create it, for what He creates must be eternal as Himself. Yet there is nothing in the world you see that will endure forever. Some things will last in time a little while longer than others [e.g., the greater cosmos, as we shall see below in a passage from the text). But the time will come when all things visible will have an end [[C-4. 1). A Course In Miracles :)

Quote:

---

lol... he's just pissin the religious folks right off.

---

Or wake them up.

Religious Leaders Fire Back

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe....html?hpt=Sbin

and now, here we are... 6,866,503,865 of us as of 16:39 UTC [[EST+5) Sep 03, 2010. Winners of the sperm race, each in our own little know-it-all self-centered universes. Glued to this insane world of duality by the forces of gravity. Puppets of media, materialism, error, and false perception; continously searching for something in this world of idols to fill some empty void. Judging everything we see when we don't have .000000000001 of the knowledge to judge anything. Born with eyes that really don't see, ears that really don't hear. Victims of circumstance, brothers and sisters of blame...thinking we are special, better, smarter, more informed than the next guy. Some folks need religion to make it thru the day, just like other folks need drugs, sex, relationships, alcohol, food, pills, shopping, or some other mindless distraction to make sense of this.... :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

MizMotown: God did not create it, for what He creates must be eternal as
as Himself.

---

Why? Why didn't Jesus bring this up when he supposedly was teaching? It can't be because he was afraid of pissing off the High Priest and King.

God did not create the world as it is today. We are creating it. We have created it. God may have played a part in the form and laid down His laws to govern it such as time and space, etc... Seems He definitely is letting us have a hand in destroying it if he created it or not.

How can one person be so sure that there wasn't a creation then a evolution in thought and reality... science and creation can merge...an example is rough but worth repeating...

if we can trace our DNA to 5000 people that share similar characteristics ..these people could have migrated taking with them a creation story...it evolved at the times to satisfy primitive intellect and cognitive understanding ...but is very similar to anthropological understandings.

but then again it could be like the splitting of a village .... just like biblical tails... we all were near each other...moved on and evolved into the cultures that we know today...one group copted the story and made it suit their needs...but all this doesn't prove either theory to a statistically relevant number... until I can have proof at .001 that we didn't come from a higher power I am going to believe in one...and use the Jesus adage as my guiding principles.... but hey that's just me...

Well, God dealt Dr. Hawkings a lousy hand with his ALS, so perhaps he's earned the right to be pissed off. [[The "he" being Stephen, not God. Everyone knows God is female.)

Curious the article didn't mention his fondness for the anthropic principle.

Unrelated, but possibly interesting to those who read this thread: This month's Discover magazine has an article about fossil evidence revealing that the human brain is actually smaller than it was 20,000 years ago by about the volume of a tennis ball. One theory [[idiocracy?) is that in today's organized societies, individuals don't need to be as sharp-witted as our more isolated ancestors. Good read.

Quote:

---

.these people could have migrated taking with them a creation story...it evolved at the times to satisfy primitive intellect and cognitive understanding

---

And that's what it is. A story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MizMotown

Religious Leaders Fire Back

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe....html?hpt=Sbin

and now, here we are... 6,866,503,865 of us as of 16:39 UTC [[EST+5) Sep 03, 2010. Winners of the sperm race, each in our own little know-it-all self-centered universes. Glued to this insane world of duality by the forces of gravity. Puppets of media, materialism, error, and false perception; continously searching for something in this world of idols to fill some empty void. Judging everything we see when we don't have .000000000001 of the knowledge to judge anything. Born with eyes that really don't see, ears that really don't hear. Victims of circumstance, brothers and sisters of blame...thinking we are special, better, smarter, more informed than the next guy. Some folks need religion to make it thru the day, just like other folks need drugs, sex, relationships, alcohol, food, pills, shopping, or some other mindless distraction to make sense of this.... :rolleyes:

---

What's even more disturbing is the media's version of "fair and balanced", where it's legitimate to take the scholarly opinion of someone who studies a particular topic for a living...

...and then in the spirit of "fairness", invoke the unlearned opinion of someone who disagrees "just because".

Then to "balance", give the opinion of the scholar and the idiot equal weight, regardless of facts, evidence, or proof.

I'm glad Stephen Hawkins Thinks he has got it all down pat about what God did and didn't or couldn't do. If Hawkins was so smart, maybe he could figure out a way out of his wheelchair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littlebuddy

I'm glad Stephen Hawkins Thinks he has got it all down pat about what God did and didn't or couldn't do. If Hawkins was so smart, maybe he could figure out a way out of his wheelchair.

---

Are you refuting Hawking's research on physics based on your OPINION???

Because of the nature of my business I have had a long-time interest in the earth sciences. The study of the earth and its formation necessarily requires some smattering of knowledge of the formation of the universe. The theory du jour is of course the big bang theory. That assumes that all matter in the universe at one time was compressed into an object the size of a pea. Then, allegedly spontaneously, the "pea" exploded and the universe as we know it was formed in less than a second, and has been expending since that moment of creation. The theory is that at some point it will stop expanding and will commence to contract back into that pea sized space. Hawking believes this,

[[To me it sounds like the musings of some deranged Jim Jones type preacher.)

Now if you believe in the big bang as Hawking and most scientists apparently do, who created that pea sized ball of energy and matter? What caused it to go boom? Is this the first time it's happened? Of the millions of heavenly bodies created as a result of the big bang, is Earth the only one with intelligent life? [[If you believe that, you'd have to believe in God and that God created this whole thing for to believe otherwise would be unthinkable. A random occurance that would defy all the laws of mathematics.)

I admire Hawkings for several reasons. But, perhaps he should have read the Thomistic proofs of God's existence. Call God what you wish. First cause, uncaused might be a good start.

Quote:

---

The theory du jour is of course the big bang theory.

---

Not so much any more since it really doesn't make sense. String theory or Membrane theory is far more practical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meddle

Not so much any more since it really doesn't make sense.

---

Doesn't make sense TO YOU? Or doesn't make sense to the physicists that study this for their career?

Show your work.

String theory? I thought they taught that at Julliard. Frankly, I agree with you that the big bang theory makes no sense. I have to go with Newton, who was a creationist. [[Actually, creationism doesn't conflict, in my opinion, with any of the scientific theories, whatever they may be on any given day, as long as there's some explanation of the first cause -- such as who created the pea.)

There is an excerpt from Hawking's book in today's Wall Street Journal, The link is too long - thus obscured - to print. Sorry. Go to www.wsj.com if interested; it's the third article from the top, and page W3 of the print edition.

Quote:

---

Or doesn't make sense to the physicists that study this for their career?

---

Doesn't make sense to a lot of them any more either, hence the new theories.

And of course this brings back the old chicken/egg debate, did God create Man, or did Man create God?

I didn't realize there was a debate over who created whom. [[I'm aware, of course, of Voltaire's comment that "If there were no God, it would have been necessary for man to invent him.") But, I don't see the analogy to this issue.

[Voltaire also said that "Common sense is not so common." I'd say he must have read some of the political and economic discussions on this forum but for the fact he's been dead for decades.]

Why God Did Not Create the Universe
There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our world—no gods required

For the life of me, I will never understand why so many people think that God and science cannot mix.

Reading that article about with the retort from the Brit religious folks, they all made fairly eloquent points except for the Muslim cleric. Sorry, that is one religion I'm never going to be down with. I'm a liberal but geez, what a shitty religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Doesn't make sense TO YOU? Or doesn't make sense to the physicists that study this for their career?

Show your work.

---

GP, I believe it's actually moved on to Steady State Theory, in which the universe expands at a constant rate and has since its beginning

Yes, the whole debate is a bit of a waste if you ask me. The proof of the big bang is so faint that some believe in it only because they have "faith" in the scientific community.Who's to prove that some supreme being didn't start the whole Universe and Evolution in motion? And if our existence is pure co-incidence and there is no life after death, what a waste of effort to learn all of the lessons in life, just to die and have it all be for naught!

Quote:

---

in which the universe expands at a constant rate and has since its beginning

---

I don't even buy that. String/Membrane or whatever you call it suggests movement in a wave motion in different directions caused as the strings/membranes/dimensions bump each other periodically. I don't recall that theory discussing a specific beginning or end of the universe.

Quote:

---

And if our existence is pure co-incidence and there is no life after death, what a waste of effort to learn all of the lessons in life, just to die and have it all be for naught!

---

Humans are organic beings. Like all other organic entities, they live, they die. Simple as that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroitej72

For the life of me, I will never understand why so many people think that God and science cannot mix.

---

Isn't that called Scientology?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroitej72

For the life of me, I will never understand why so many people think that God and science cannot mix.

---

I'm with you on that, and I would add that one of the cross-ups is that folks from each "side" use their beliefs as a way of contradicting those of the other "side."
Hawking seems to be doing that, actually.
I'm curious about the book, and I may pick it up when it's published in trade paper size, but I can say that I read an excerpt in the Wall Street Journal, and whatever point was being driven at was largely incomprehensible to me; not because I couldn't follow the thoughts [[although, not being a physicist, I'm not automatically familiar with all of the references) so much as because, while much was written, no clear statement emerged.
Of course, it is worthwhile to keep in mind that being a genius of physics does not automatically bring wisdom or the ability to write effectively.
As for the God: Yes or No? aspect of it, I, as always, don't give a damn what anybody believes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaumVogel

Yes, the whole debate is a bit of a waste if you ask me. The proof of the big bang is so faint that some believe in it only because they have "faith" in the scientific community.Who's to prove that some supreme being didn't start the whole Universe and Evolution in motion? And if our existence is pure co-incidence and there is no life after death, what a waste of effort to learn all of the lessons in life, just to die and have it all be for naught!

---

What the hell?
Supposing that there is an afterlife, you are expecting that the lessons learned in life will be useful therein?

Quote:

---

Jimaz:Curious the article didn't mention his fondness for the anthropic principle.

---

How so? link?

"The intelligent beings in these regions should therefore not be surprised if they observe that their locality in the universe satisfies the conditions that are necessary for their existence. It is a bit like a rich person living in a wealthy neighborhood not seeing any poverty."
http://atheism.about.com/library/quo...q_SHawking.htm

That doesn't sound like he agrees with the anthropic principle.

Quote:

---

RaumVogel: Yes, the whole debate is a bit of a waste if you ask me. The proof of the big bang is so faint that some believe in it only because they have "faith" in the scientific community.

---

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

Big Bang Theory - Evidence for the Theory
What are the major evidences which support the Big Bang theory?

• First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
• Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble [[1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
• Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin [[-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation [[CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
• Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.

Quote:

---

3WC: I didn't realize there was a debate over who created whom. [[I'm aware, of course, of Voltaire's comment that "If there were no God, it would have been necessary for man to invent him.") But, I don't see the analogy to this issue.

---

What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary. [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]

Maxx: OK, point taken. But, you state "..it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science." Could it be that you're wrong on that point?

Great scientists have been examining that question for centuries. They have technology available to them in this quest that is incomprehensible to most people. An immense amount of human scientific brainpower has been devoted to the quest. Yet all these truly brilliant scientists with all their technology haven't been able to determine the origin of the universe to the satisfaction of a large percentage of those same scientists. Admittedly, they come up with many "theories" but theories appear to be cheap when it comes to science.

Is it possible that creationism will eventually be accepted as the origin of the universe by the process of elimination? It's as good a theory as any I've seen.

Quote:

---

3WC: Is it possible that creationism will eventually be accepted as the origin of the universe by the process of elimination? It's as good a theory as any I've seen.

---

It's not a theory at all because it is based on nothing but people's desire to believe in a supernatural being. And that's whether you're talking about creationism as the literal interp. of Genesis or just as the idea that everything was started by some supernatural creator.
Show me the evidence that creationism is based on.

Quote:

---

Is it possible that creationism will eventually be accepted as the origin of the universe by the process of elimination?

---

No.

Nice fairy tale, nothing more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPole

Reading that article about with the retort from the Brit religious folks, they all made fairly eloquent points except for the Muslim cleric. Sorry, that is one religion I'm never going to be down with. I'm a liberal but geez, what a shitty religion.

---

[The Archbishop of Canterbury] ... added: "Belief in God is not about plugging a gap in explaining how one thing relates to another within the Universe. It is the belief that there is an intelligent, living agent on whose activity everything ultimately depends for its existence."

M: But the point Hawking was making that there is no need for a creator/god. Matter/energy has everything it needs without any "divine" intervention. And there is no ultimate answer to why everything is here. Everyone must answer that question for him/herself. The stars and planets don't care.

Writing in the Times, Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said: "Science is about explanation. Religion is about interpretation ... The Bible simply isn't interested in how the Universe came into being."

M: No and a lot of the things the Bible is concerned about like whose god is superior, who are the chosen people, and how to treat those who don't worship the "superior " god have led to a lot of misery.

"The Bible simply isn't interested in how the Universe came into being." Yeah? Well I am, and "science" sure as hell hasn't been able to tell me.

Maxx, Meddle, maybe you geniuses have the answer. You seem to know without qualification who or what didn't create or cause the universe so you surely must know how it did come into being. Don't you? We won't accept any bullshit "theories."

[[Here's a hint for as good an explanation as any you're likely to come up with. In the '50s Gahan had a cartoon in Playboy that's a classic. A rocket ship was turning to go behind the moon, and lo and behold, the moon turned out to be a hollow stage prop with "Act 2, Scene 5" stenciled on the back. "The world's but a stage.....")

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3WC

"The Bible simply isn't interested in how the Universe came into being." Yeah? Well I am, and "science" sure as hell hasn't been able to tell me.

---

If you really wanted to know the answer to that question, you would read what the cosmologists and astronomers have to say and study the appropriate sciences so you could thoroughly understand what they are saying. But I think that, like a lot of believers, you just want to believe that after you die you will continue to live in some way and a belief in a certain sort of god fulfills that need for you.

Quote:

---

Maxx, Meddle, maybe you geniuses have the answer. You seem to know without qualification who or what didn't create or cause the universe so you surely must know how it did come into being. Don't you? We won't accept any bullshit "theories."

[[Here's a hint for as good an explanation as any you're likely to come up with. In the '50s Gahan had a cartoon in Playboy that's a classic. A rocket ship was turning to go behind the moon, and lo and behold, the moon turned out to be a hollow stage prop with "Act 2, Scene 5" stenciled on the back. "The world's but a stage.....")

---

Only the moon really wasn't just a cardboard cutout, was it? And who got us there? People who studied math and physics and other sciences, not people reading some bronze age parchment.

maxx, you're a little too arrogant for me and based upon what I've read in your posts you don't have too much to be arrogant about. Nothing personal.

The fact is I read constantly about the earth sciences. I've also subscribed to Scientific American for many years and try to muddle through it every issue; by the way, if you're not familiar with that mag, it's loaded with cosmological and astronomical articles.) Now, what kind of background do you have in cosmology and astronomy and the "appropriate sciences?" Not extensive I'll bet, based on your comments. Also, you have no idea whether I'm a believer merely because I happen to support a role for creationism in the formation of the universe; It makes the most sense to me, since the theories you seem to espouse don't.

You last comment is pretty lame. Come on. Don't waffle and obfuscate. Explain the origin of the universe. [[I won't hold my breath.)

There actually is no rational basis whatsoever for creationism. It's pure fantasy of the Disney variety.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maxx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimaz

Curious the article didn't mention his fondness for the anthropic principle.

---

How so? link?

"The intelligent beings in these regions should therefore not be surprised if they observe that their locality in the universe satisfies the conditions that are necessary for their existence. It is a bit like a rich person living in a wealthy neighborhood not seeing any poverty."
http://atheism.about.com/library/quo...q_SHawking.htm

That doesn't sound like he agrees with the anthropic principle.

---

To me, that does sound like he agrees with the anthropic principle. Whatever.

I reread the original article and found it does mention the anthropic principle, just not by name:

Quote:

---

And, indeed, he argues, any form of intelligent life that evolves anywhere will automatically find that it lives somewhere suitable for it.

---

Hawking is saying that it is not surprising that people view the earth as a place conveniently created for their existence. He could add, given the appalling lack of interest in science among today's students which is only encouraged by a number of religions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3WC

The fact is I read constantly about the earth sciences. I've also subscribed to Scientific American for many years and try to muddle through it every issue; by the way, if you're not familiar with that mag, it's loaded with cosmological and astronomical articles.)

---

I'm quite familiar with it. My family had a subscription to it for years, and I read some articles from it usually the ones on archaeology while I was in high school. So show me an SA article that speaks positively of creationism. Incidentally, that remark of yours was arrogant .

Quote:

---

You last comment is pretty lame.

---

I was responding to your little anecdote.

Quote:

---

Come on. Don't waffle and obfuscate. Explain the origin of the universe. [[I won't hold my breath.)

---

Astronomy and cosmology experts have been explaining what they have found and their conclusions for quite a while. Why use a typical ploy of the religious right by asking me to explain it and do some real research yourself? Religious fundies are always asking people to explain how everything came into being in 500 words or less and don't use words that are too big or sentences that are too long and for Ingersoll's sake, don't be boring. You guys crack me up.
The world is still waiting for an actual coherent theory of creationism, but it isn't going to happen because it is based on magical thinking and fantasies. Just ask Mike Behe about his testimony at the Dover, PA, case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MizMotown

God did not create it, for what He creates must be eternal as Himself.

---

I sure hope he explains that one in more detail in the book. I'm certainly weak on theological matters, but I don't see how that follows. Why couldn't God just do what it pleases? That would seem to be one of its defining characteristics [[omnipotence).

That said, my knee-jerk reaction to this is that he has an agenda, that he is trying to assert science over lunacy. You know, bold stickers on high school text books, equal time for empirically observable facts and a haphazard assemblage of historical events, moralistic fables and starry-eyed dreamscapes, interpreted and reinterpreted throughout multiple millenia, and so on.

Of course, there could be more to it, I may not be as all-knowing as I pretend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3WC

Explain the origin of the universe.

---

Why bother? I understand Steven Hawking may be asserting some sort of knowledge about this, but really, what's the point of even trying? To figure out what? The why of it all? Or the real truth? The can we're in is traveling down the road, surely someone kicked it, or maybe it was just a gust of wind, but how are we going to know anything certain about that, ever? I am reminded of Chris Rock saying he could state the name of God, but one's head would explode, in the movie Dogma. And anyway, who cares why the can is traveling down the road, let's up and end some suffering.

We are, ourselves, in the can. The best we can do is to surmise.

It's all irrelevant, unless you can figure it out in the next two years. The world is ending in 2012 anyway.

Of course, if the world doesn't end in 2012, do you really think another five years matters? Ten years? Forty years? One hundred years?

If you figure it out in five, and you end up living for another one hundred, one might think you would run out of things to do. So, carry on, I guess!

I always found it interesting when I was a tot, in school, that the teacher would give us stupid essays that would ask questions like "pretend you had a time machine, wright a five page report on what period of history you would go to and why". I got a "F" [[actually in Metro Detroit you got an "E", not an "F") for going back to the beginning of creation and finding out how it all began... mostly because my answer was more creative, and less based on historic events that I had to research. There is something wrong with the way we educate our kids.

Anyway, while you are thinking about what you should spend your time thinking about, does anyone know what kind of web cam would work best to monitor auto break ins on Bagley Street? Problems have been on the rise across Metro Detroit lately.

Getting back to the topic though, there is no question that a genius would know how to title a book to sell. On the question about whether God created the universe; it isn't a relevant question. All signs point to the fact that she doesn't want us to know or act like she does exist. It's much more about what we do; do we do the right thing because we don't want to go to Hell? Or, do we do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do?

That's just my two cents. More of my thoughts: http://campusmartiuschronicle.blogsp...r-madness.html

Hiccup!

the bajillion dollar question

who/what created that pea sized ball of energy and matter? What caused it to go boom?

with regards to life lessons, etc... i believe Jesus's teachings and other great mytics teachings were how to live in THIS world as peaceful as possible now! That all this stress, anxiety, and fear need not be! You can choose heaven or hell at each moment and THAT is your free will. And I believe that not having attachments to this world is the key to that. Trials are just lessons repeated over until you make a better choice.

one thing we are not taught growing up is the actual POWER of our minds. I don't think folks are properly taught or educated on how to use it. Our heads are filled with an endless stream of monkey chatter, it is possible to tune into another frequency that will always guide you to your highest good.

"Our heads are filled with an endless stream of monkey chatter,"

Don't speak for the entire class. The desks are all identical, but every student is unique.

Thank you above for mentioning Thomism which lead me to Jewish philosopher Bahya ibn Paquda. This is in align with my beliefs and the study of A Course In Miracles.

"all that the world offers will disappoint man in the end"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duties_of_the_Heart


"Our heads are filled with an endless stream of monkey chatter,"

well God Bless you if you don't have monkey mind!!! [[lol)

Miz MoTown:
So what do you mean by monkey chatter?

Let me answer for her.

"Many of the comments on this forum." [[Generally, when they don't agree with me.)

God,[[ the supreme spiritual being) created the universe. THE END! No more dogmas Steven Hawking!

Hi Maxx :)

So what do you mean by monkey chatter?

We've all had moments of monkey mind. Some folks are better controlling them than others. Monkey mind is the wild and crazy and seemingly uncontrollable thoughts. The Buddhists say the mind is like a monkey furiously leaping about. Basically utterly meaningless, senseless thoughts that truly mean nothing and are chaotic and impermanent. We have real and unreal thoughts, the real ones are covered up the unreal ones, or the thoughts of God, which are reality itself.

Most people keep their thoughts to themselves. Mentally ill people sometimes let their thoughts come out of their mouths. Usually you here street folks building a case and defending themselves, practising a speech.

The Buddhist have a word for when become self-absorbed in our thoughts. It is called a "Shempa." It is a place where we are hooked. A little irritant that works it's way into our mind that we can't let go of. We have a hard time letting go of it and if nourished can become strong and powerful. Usually involves a grievance we hold in our minds against someone. We [[our ego's) actually spend time convincing ourselves that we are right, someone else is wrong, and we have been hurt by them. This usually results in loss of peace.

Huh. Well, "Asked & Answered," so to speak. That was an interesting explanation of your comment, which was timely, because I inferred something quite different from what you meant.
Thenk-que, and yeah, if that's what you mean, I do that, too.

Not only was the entire universe the size of a pea just after the big bang, it was smaller than a proton, and time was rolled into the singularity, as well as all matter. The big bang is also not just a "theory du jour." It is supported by substantial evidence and will not be replaced by another scientific theory any more than the "theory" of gravity will.

Further, Hawking doesn't believe in the "big crunch" as you state [where the universe collapses]. Recent evidence shows that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating and Hawking accepts it as do all serious cosmologists.

"What caused it to go boom?"
Causality has little meaning when we are talking about activities on the subatomic level because actions are controlled by quantum mechanics which is more counter-intuitive than you can imagine. Asking what "caused" the big bang is a meaningless question.

"Is this the first time it's happened?"
It's extremely unlikely that our universe was a one-off event. New universes are probably being created continuously but we cannot detect them.

"Of the millions of heavenly bodies created as a result of the big bang, is Earth the only one with intelligent life?"
Vanishingly unlikely.

"Perhaps [Hawking] should have read the Thomistic proofs of God's existence. Call God what you wish. First cause, uncaused might be a good start."
Thomas Aquinas was obviously a very wise man for the 13th century, but like everyone back then, he knew NOTHING about the nature of the universe, gravity, matter, energy, galaxies or quantum mechanics. If he were alive today and knew what we know, he would not even believe his own "proofs." Either that, or he would consider "god" to be a quantum-mechanical blip of a space-time continuum. That's quite different from the purposeful, anthropomorphic god of Christianity, Islam and Judaism.

"Is it possible that creationism will eventually be accepted as the origin of the universe by the process of elimination? It's as good a theory as any I've seen."
Creationism is the theory that an undetectable, magical, supernatural, male humanoid, with no creative or evolutionary history, who none of us have ever seen, snapped his virtual fingers and everything magically popped into existence just as it is now, including light from distant galaxies already on its way to us, just to deceive us into thinking that there was a big bang. Clever god!
Here's a better exposition: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YotBt...eature=related
And this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_nqySMvkcw&NR=1
"The fact is I read constantly about the earth sciences. I've also subscribed to Scientific American for many years and try to muddle through it every issue"
Your understanding of cosmology certainly doesn't support that claim.

"The Bible simply isn't interested in how the Universe came into being." Yeah? Well I am, and "science" sure as hell hasn't been able to tell me.”
I recommend this easy reading book to those who want to understand what science has learned -- and how: http://www.amazon.com/gp/search?inde...rds=0393059928

"maxx, you're a little too arrogant for me and based upon what I've read in your posts you don't have too much to be arrogant about. Nothing personal."

What could be more arrogant than claiming to know the mind of the omnipotent creator of the universe? Wouldn't that be like an ant claiming to understand the mind of Einstein? And what conclusion would the ant probably come to? That Einstein is a big ant-thropomorphic ant!

Jeez. Do I haveta settle every argument?
*ahem*
OK, here's the deal:
We, Ravine [[a poster by any other name would bear as many thorns, be it in a culvert, or chasm, or wherever) created the universe, because we very much wanted a Frank McCourt to write his memoir, "Angela's Ashes," a Miles Davis to record "Kind Of Blue" & "Bitches Brew," a Francis Ford Coppola to direct "The Godfather," an Al Kaline to be the finest man to ever wear a Detroit Tiger uniform, and a Lola Falana to... well, never mind; we think we have said enough. The point is that, for alla that stuff to happen, we had to start somewhere, so There You Go.
Have a Lovely Day & a Pleasant Tomorrow. Go ahead and make plans for the next few weeks; the world ends when we say so, and ain't shit gonna happen until after the World Series, at the very earliest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MizMotown

So what do you mean by monkey chatter?

---

Why, the divine language of evolution [[get it? :D). Ooh-ooh-ah-ah-ah!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitDad

The world is ending in 2012 anyway.

---

Lions fans shall be left behind and inherit the earth. Red Wings fans shall inherit Detroit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitDad

Hiccup!

---

:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ravine

Jeez. Do I haveta settle every argument?
*ahem*
OK, here's the deal:
I, Ravine [[a poster by any other name would bear as many thorns, be it in a culvert, or chasm, or wherever) created the universe, because I very much wanted a Frank McCourt to write his memoir, "Angela's Ashes," a Miles Davis to record "Kind Of Blue" & "Bitches Brew," a Francis Ford Coppola to direct "The Godfather," an Al Kaline to be the finest man to ever wear a Detroit Tiger uniform, and a Lola Falana to... well, never mind; I think I have said enough. The point is that, for alla that stuff to happen, I had to start somewhere, so There You Go.
Have a Lovely Day & a Pleasant Tomorrow. Go ahead and make plans for the next few weeks; the world ends when I say so, and ain't shit gonna happen until after the World Series, at the very earliest.

---

Can you hold it off until after Christmas? I've got family plans.

Sure, why not?
Maybe even a bit further. We may have squares for the Super Bowl.

Great post, Gyro!

So, Hawking''s has ZERO proof and has not demonstrated that Something can be created from Nothing. If he can repeat that experiment or prove it, then I will bow to him as god.
Can anyone prove that god created the universe, NO. Can anyone prove god did not, NO.
I do know the catholic church says creation and evolution coexist and aren't mutually exclusive.

well, i'm a believer in a higher intelligence. not a fanatic, religious believer but a believer that there is a reality beyond "this." have no proof and really can't explain an experience except to say i've experienced shifts. never grew up with religion, never had any type of dogma instilled in my head, etc...

In the Beginning, God created the universe... THE END!

Miz MoTown:
So why bring up monkey chatter on this particular thread which is about the scientist Stephen Hawking?

Quote:

---

What could be more arrogant than claiming to know the mind of the omnipotent creator of the universe?

---

Who has made such a claim and where?

Danny:
Your statement is dogmatic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ravine

Jeez. Do I haveta settle every argument?
*ahem*
OK, here's the deal:
We, Ravine [[a poster by any other name would bear as many thorns, be it in a culvert, or chasm, or wherever) created the universe, because we very much wanted a Frank McCourt to write his memoir, "Angela's Ashes," a Miles Davis to record "Kind Of Blue" & "Bitches Brew," a Francis Ford Coppola to direct "The Godfather," an Al Kaline to be the finest man to ever wear a Detroit Tiger uniform, and a Lola Falana to... well, never mind; we think we have said enough. The point is that, for alla that stuff to happen, we had to start somewhere, so There You Go.
Have a Lovely Day & a Pleasant Tomorrow. Go ahead and make plans for the next few weeks; the world ends when we say so, and ain't shit gonna happen until after the World Series, at the very earliest.

---

D'oh! Now it all makes perfect sense! How could I have been so stupid! :o Where do I go to worship you?

Who has made such a claim and where?

The Pope, Pat Robertson, Ayatollah Khomeini and every Jehovah's Witness to knock on my door.

"God did not create the universe."
-Stephen Hawking

"Like anyone can even know that."
-Kip Dynamite

OK, next topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnsmith

"God did not create the universe."
-Stephen Hawking

"Like anyone can even know that."
-Kip Dynamite

OK, next topic.

---

Please, if you will, indulge me by showing just where it is that the Hawking "quote" appears.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ravine

Please, if you will, indulge me by showing just where it is that the Hawking "quote" appears.

---

"In The Grand Design we explain why, according to quantum theory, the cosmos does not have just a single existence, or history, but rather that every possible history of the universe exists simultaneously. We question the conventional concept of reality, posing instead a “model-dependent” theory of reality. We discuss how the laws of our particular universe are extraordinarily finely tuned so as to allow for our existence, and show why quantum theory predicts the multiverse–the idea that ours is just one of many universes that appeared spontaneously out of nothing, each with different laws of nature. And we assess M-Theory, an explanation of the laws governing the multiverse, and the only viable candidate for a complete “theory of everything.” As we promise in our opening chapter, unlike the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life given in the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, the answer we provide in The Grand Design is not, simply, “42.”

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing, It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”
Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design

The link below is to a lecture by cosmologist Lawrence Krauss which will give the lay person an understandable summary of what we now know about the origin and nature of the universe and how we know it. Krauss is the best communicator I've heard on the subject, and he's funny to boot. IMHO, this is the best investment of 54 minutes of your time you will ever make.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Imvl...rom=PL&index=2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gyro

"In The Grand Design we explain why, according to quantum theory, the cosmos does not have just a single existence, or history, but rather that every possible history of the universe exists simultaneously. We question the conventional concept of reality, posing instead a “model-dependent” theory of reality. We discuss how the laws of our particular universe are extraordinarily finely tuned so as to allow for our existence, and show why quantum theory predicts the multiverse–the idea that ours is just one of many universes that appeared spontaneously out of nothing, each with different laws of nature. And we assess M-Theory, an explanation of the laws governing the multiverse, and the only viable candidate for a complete “theory of everything.” As we promise in our opening chapter, unlike the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life given in the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, the answer we provide in The Grand Design is not, simply, “42.”

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing, It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”
Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design

---

Why did you quote my post when your post does not address the request in my post?

give the lay person an understandable summary of what we now know about the origin and nature of the universe and how we know it.

what we now believe

why we believe it.




We don't KNOW anything. We only think we do.

Here, I'll give it another stab.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ravine

Please, if you will, indulge me by showing just where it is that the Hawking "quote" appears.

---

The title of this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ravine

Why did you quote my post when your post does not address the request in my post?

---

The Hawking quote that you asked for appears in his latest book "The Grand Design" which I quoted since everyone here doesn't have a copy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meddle

give the lay person an understandable summary of what we now know about the origin and nature of the universe and how we know it.

what we now believe

why we believe it.

We don't KNOW anything. We only think we do.

---

Meddle, you may know nothing and think that belief is an adequate substitute, but I'm not confused by the distinction. Knowledge is supported by substantial evidence. Beliefs, especially religious beliefs, require none.

Gyro: You've posted [[in your post #8 above) a creative response to my recent post; I thought everyone had said pretty much all there is to say about the topic on a forum like this but I guess not; but that's why I haven't popped in for a few days.

I'm impressed and a little flattered that you spent so much time responding to my post. You're a little snide here and there, but, hell, I love snide and am myself from time to time. The substance of some of your comments leaves a lot to be desired here and there, but I'll respond to some of your comments.

"ASKING WHAT CAUSED THE "BIG BANG" IS A MEANINGLESS QUESTION"

How the universe was created [[or, was it never created and just always "was?") has been a hot topic for centuries and has seen the entire lives of brilliant scientists devoted to the issue. But, that doesn't mean you can't just minimize or ignore it to your heart's content. What is this thread about, anyway, if not that question?

"IF HE [[ST. THOMAS) WERE ALIVE TODAY AND KNEW WHAT WE [[you?) KNOW HE WOULD NOT EVEN BELIEVE HIS OWN "PROOFS."

That's a pretty bold statement to make being that I doubt you're much of a Thomistic scholar, and you're given no indication that you have any support for such a statement from someone that might know what they're talking about.

"YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF COSMOLOGY CERTAINLY DOESN'T SUPPORT THAT CLAIM."

Maybe not.

But, I'm not pretending to be a knowledgable cosmologist. You are.

CREATIONISM IS THE THEORY THAT AN UNDETECTABLE, MAGICAL, SUPERNATURAL, MALE HUMANOID, WITH NO CREATIVE OR EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY, WHO NONE OF US HAS EVER SEEN, SNAPPED HIS VIRTUAL FINGERS AND EVERYTHING MAGICALLY POPPED INTO EXISTENCE JUST AS IT IS NOW INCLUDING LIGHT FROM DISTANT GALAXIES ALREADY ON ITS WAYTO US, JUST TO DECEIVE US INTO THINKING THAT THERE WAS A BIG BANG. CLEVER GOD."

No, clever you. You've shown us in a few words what the problem is. You see, you don't have the slightest understanding of any of the concepts of "God." You've created Him in your own mind, and made Him less than a desireable entity. Your prerogative, of course.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're sort of the mirror image of a guy I know down here. He's a very experienced petroleum geologist who has made a fortune exploring and producing oil and gas [[but not from the wells we jointly drilled in West Texas on the Pitchfork Ranch - dry holes.) This guy has two degrees, one in Geology from Texas and a Masters in geology from the Colorado School of Mines [[big time.) He is learned in historical geology and the concept of geologic time. He's the quintessential wildcatter. He is aware that irrefutable science has dated the earth to its formation and before, the evolution of the earth geologically [[better know this stuff if you want to find oil), plate tectonics, source rocks, all the trapping mechanisms that have developed over million of years, and so forth. The thing is, however, he is a profound fundamentalist, born again, Pentacostalist who believe literally that God created the earth in 7 days, and He created it just as it is now, today, as IF it had been created and evolved over countless millions of years. He believes that theory just as you believe something equally, to most people, ridiculous. But, maybe you're both right. I guess you could be on to something: Why ask the question? Why involve ourselves in meaningless discussions when it's all so clear to you? As it should be to us, I guess you're saying, if we just knew as much about it as you do.

[quote=3WC;180444] CREATIONISM IS THE THEORY THAT AN UNDETECTABLE, MAGICAL, SUPERNATURAL, MALE HUMANOID, WITH NO CREATIVE OR EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY, WHO NONE OF US HAS EVER SEEN, SNAPPED HIS VIRTUAL FINGERS AND EVERYTHING MAGICALLY POPPED INTO EXISTENCE JUST AS IT IS NOW INCLUDING LIGHT FROM DISTANT GALAXIES ALREADY ON ITS WAYTO US, JUST TO DECEIVE US INTO THINKING THAT THERE WAS A BIG BANG. CLEVER GOD."

no, creationism is NOT a theory

"Creationism is the theory that an undetectable, magical, supernatural, male humanoid,"

Sorry. God is female. My wife told me so.

Religious people are always pissed off anyway, so what does it matter? Look at the whole fiasco over Ground Zero. How about the burning of the quran? Arabs and Israeli's? Obama's religious background? Gays and marriage? Atheist communists and fundamentalist religious whatevers? It goes on and on and on. They'll always find something to HATE and condemn about their opposing god's creatures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray1936

Sorry. God is female. My wife told me so.

---

God is not female or male or a child, It's a supreme alien spirit"I AM" who claims it created everything. To find out about 'it', consult it by using your heart. Then you will know who it is.

I was pressed for time during my previous response to Gyro and didn't address a couple of his comments which in the spirit of constructive debate should have been.

Gyro stated that Hawking does not believe in the "big crunch" [[G's words, not mine) which states that the universe will expand until one point where it stops and thereafter by the force of gravity contract to its former state of a pea [[not proton) size bundle of energy. Gyro [[and apparently Hawking per G) believe that the universe will continue to expand and will never stop expanding. In other words, they're saying that the universe is eternal. So, are they saying that the universe itself is God? [[They sure are. They're saying there was no first cause uncaused and that the universe is eternal. Voila! God. Pre-historic sun and moon worshipers apparently had the right idea although they didn't have enough knowledge to carry those beliefs to the conclusion Gyro has reached.")

Also, to continue expanding, are they saying that gravity, even though weak and unable to stop the expansion of the universe, will eventually disappear entirely, as it must if the universe will continue to expand eternally. So, I guess gravity only exists here and there, certainly not way out there. G says his theory [[not theory, it's fact) is shared by all "serious" cosmologists. As opposed to frivolous, flighty cosmologists?

Gyro says the universe started out as the size of a proton, not the size of a pea such as I stated. Most serious, and frivolous, cosmologists say t was the size of a pea and I'll fight to the death in support of that truth.

Gyro, the phrase in the first sentence of your post # 8 which states "and time was rolled into the singularity, as well as all matter" is pure gibberish. I don't wish to be confrontational, but everyone on this forum can read the English language but I'll bet not one of us has the slightest idea what you're trying to say. Talk down to us and please explain. Thanks.

"ASKING WHAT CAUSED THE "BIG BANG" IS A MEANINGLESS QUESTION"

How the universe was created [[or, was it never created and just always "was?") has been a hot topic for centuries and has seen the entire lives of brilliant scientists devoted to the issue. But, that doesn't mean you can't [sic] just minimize or ignore it to your heart's content. What is this thread about, anyway, if not that question?

You misunderstood my statement, 3WC. I'm not minimizing or ignoring anything. At the big bang singularity, all matter, space, AND TIME ITSELF were rolled up in a tiny ball smaller than a proton. It's literally meaningless to ask what happened "before" there was time. Words like "before," "after," and "concurrently" only have meaning if time is a dimension.


"IF HE [[ST. THOMAS) WERE ALIVE TODAY AND KNEW WHAT WE [[you?) KNOW HE WOULD NOT EVEN BELIEVE HIS OWN "PROOFS."

That's a pretty bold statement to make being that I doubt you're much of a Thomistic scholar, and you're given no indication that you have any support for such a statement from someone that might know what they're talking about.

You don't think that Tom would change his opinion a bit based on the enormous amount of scientific knowledge available today? I'm giving him a lot more credit for intelligence than you are, but you may be right. He may have been a lot stupider than I thought.


"YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF COSMOLOGY CERTAINLY DOESN'T SUPPORT THAT CLAIM."

Maybe not.

Get educated here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo


CREATIONISM IS THE THEORY THAT AN UNDETECTABLE, MAGICAL, SUPERNATURAL, MALE HUMANOID, WITH NO CREATIVE OR EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY, WHO NONE OF US HAS EVER SEEN, SNAPPED HIS VIRTUAL FINGERS AND EVERYTHING MAGICALLY POPPED INTO EXISTENCE JUST AS IT IS NOW INCLUDING LIGHT FROM DISTANT GALAXIES ALREADY ON ITS WAYTO US, JUST TO DECEIVE US INTO THINKING THAT THERE WAS A BIG BANG. CLEVER GOD."

No, clever you. You've shown us in a few words what the problem is. You see, you don't have the slightest understanding of any of the concepts of "God." You've created Him in your own mind, and made Him less than a desireable entity. Your prerogative, of course.

I know exactly as much as anyone else does about gods -- nothing. It's impossible to know anything about things that don't exist. And yes, I created god in my own mind, just like everyone else did. As for "less desirable," I would have to work pretty hard to come up with a less desirable god than the one depicted in the bible. A petty, vain, cruel, self-obsessed, irrational god who doesn't hesitate to commit genocide. Go read Numbers 31 again.

So, are they saying that the universe itself is God? [[They sure are. They're saying there was no first cause uncaused and that the universe is eternal. Voila! God.... Also, to continue expanding, are they saying that gravity, even though weak and unable to stop the expansion of the universe, will eventually disappear entirely, as it must if the universe will continue to expand eternally. So, I guess gravity only exists here and there, certainly not way out there.

Oh please!
Both Hawking and I are perfectly capable of speaking for ourselves without you putting such idiotic words in our mouths. Watch the video I gave you above, would you? Then we can talk.

no, creationism is NOT a theory

I stand corrected. Let's just call it a "claim."


Sorry. God is female. My wife told me so.

So is mine! :D I'm a faithful follower of the loving lapine, the randy rabbit, the fuzzy, fertile, fornicating ESTRUS BUNNY!!! [[Praise her name!). Unlike all those other cold, prickly, punitive gods :eek:, the boisterous buxom bunny communes with her followers via the splendid sexual sacrament and the orgastic orgy on the vernal equinox. You should give her a try!

Gyro, I'll respond to you later.

There is an interesting review of "The Grand Design" in today's Wall Street Journal; If someone could post it here you'd find it interesting and informative. The title of the piece is "The 'Why?' Questions. Chapter and Multiverse."

Quote:

---

So, are they saying that the universe itself is God? [[They sure are. They're saying there was no first cause uncaused and that the universe is eternal. Voila! God...

---

Hawking is saying that a creator/god is unnecessary. What you worship is up to you.

Quote:

---

Also, to continue expanding, are they saying that gravity, even though weak and unable to stop the expansion of the universe, will eventually disappear entirely, as it must if the universe will continue to expand eternally. So, I guess gravity only exists here and there, certainly not way out there.

---

Gravity is a function of the distance between two bodies. We don't know how it works, but it is a force that exists within a body with mass.

http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/proj...s-gravity.html

Evidence for the expanding universe and lots of answers to cosmology questions:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#CC

So the accelerating expansion of the universe is more than mere belief.

Quote:

---

3WC: Gyro says the universe started out as the size of a proton, not the size of a pea such as I stated. Most serious, and frivolous, cosmologists say t was the size of a pea and I'll fight to the death in support of that truth.

---

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
"...Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity.."

That doesn't sound like a pea to me. So where's your evidence for your singularity/pea claim?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danny

God is not female or male or a child, It's a supreme alien spirit"I AM" who claims it created everything. To find out about 'it', consult it by using your heart. Then you will know who it is.

---

My heart is a muscle that pumps blood and can be replaced if it wears out. The heart you are referring to is a nice romantic notion of those ideas that are wishful thinking. And to find out about your "I AM", one has to read the OT of the Bible. Your implication that your god is naturally found in everyone's "heart" just discounts the many other concepts of god that people have created and worshipped for millenia.

Just time for a quicky.

Maxx: Re: Gravity. You say "We don't know how it works..." So, like we have to take everything we have heard about it on faith? Like, there is disagreement over whether, or how, the universe was created, and if, or when, it will end. So, we should let the geniuses select and by consensus pick a workable theory and have - gotta say it again - faith that they're correct?

One more: Maxx. You say that gravity is the function of the distance between two bodies. So I suppose that it's possible that someplace in the universe [[this or another) there's a heavenly body a million light years from anything. I presume that there's no r in tat area of the universe. Or, is gravity created when another body moves closer to the first one? Is it analogous to the tree falling in the forest and no one is with a hundred miles of it; is there a sound?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3WC

Just time for a quicky.

Maxx: Re: Gravity. You say "We don't know how it works..." So, like we have to take everything we have heard about it on faith? Like, there is disagreement over whether, or how, the universe was created, and if, or when, it will end. So, we should let the geniuses select and by consensus pick a workable theory and have - gotta say it again - faith that they're correct?

---

Scientists have observed enough examples of gravity to have worked out mathematically how gravity is affected by mass and distance. We know that it exists; we just don't know what causes it. Some think it is probably a particle exchange since that's how atoms combine. That requires no faith since science is self-correcting.

Quote:

---

One more: Maxx. You say that gravity is the function of the distance between two bodies.

---

I don't say it. I think Newton said it first and it has been corroborated many times since Newton's time. How do you think NASA figured out how much thrust their rockets need to escape the earth's gravity?

Quote:

---

So I suppose that it's possible that someplace in the universe [[this or another) there's a heavenly body a million light years from anything. I presume that there's no r in tat area of the universe. Or, is gravity created when another body moves closer to the first one? Is it analogous to the tree falling in the forest and no one is with a hundred miles of it; is there a sound?

---

I don't think scientists talk about gravity being created. It's a function of a body's mass. I don't know if anyone has observed a body in space that has no gravitational effect on anything. Even light is affected by the gravitational pull of stars and planets.
http://www.physorg.com/news162820004.html

okay Maxx, explain this one away for me.

God is mind and/or thought. Could the mind be independant of the brain and the brain just a transmittor? Could God [[or supreme intelligence) be the theological meaning of mind.

"I do not myself grasp all that I am." Augustine

Cynical realism is the intelligent man's best excuse for doing nothing in an intolerable situation.
Aldous Huxley

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MizMotown

okay Maxx, explain this one away for me.

God is mind and/or thought. Could the mind be independant of the brain and the brain just a transmittor? Could God [[or supreme intelligence) be the theological meaning of mind.

---

I have never heard of a thought that was independent of a brain. Therefore, your mind/god is dependent on mortal flesh since the brain is not immortal. If the brain is just the transmitter, then you still have to prove the existence of this god. And why does your mind/god give some people hallucinations? And if it does give hallucinations, why are we able to control those hallucinations with drugs? And which thoughts are from a god? Is there also an evil god that gives us evil thoughts? Then, how can we truly know from whom any of those middling thoughts that are neither really great nor really evil come? Maybe it doesn't matter if you don't believe in a fiery hell.

nope, don't believe in a fiery hell. don't believe in angels floating on clouds playing harps and pearly gates either.

according to the Course.... [[just FYI of course)
-The body is "the ego's chosen home"
-the "proof" that we really have separated from God and really have become egos
-And once we believe that we are bodies, it must follow that mind itself is something physical. That "something physical" is, of course, the bodily organ that most of us consider to be synonymous with, or at least inseparable from, the mind: the brain.
-But though we generally believe that the brain is the mind, or at least is the home of the mind, the Course tells us in no uncertain terms that this is not the case
-Most startling of all, the Course tells us that because we think with the Mind of God and only the thoughts we share with Him are real, the brain cannot even really think [[see W-pI.92.1-3). Indeed, the Course considers the idea that the brain can think absolutely preposterous.

You...believe the body's brain can think. If you but understood the nature of thought, you could but laugh at this insane idea. It is as if you thought you held the match that lights the sun and gives it all its warmth; or that you held the world within your hand, securely bound until you let it go. [[W-pI.92.2:1-3)

In its view, all forms of physical medicine alleviate symptoms only because the non-physical mind has given its power to them. When physical medicine works, all that has happened is that the patient's mind has decided to allow it to work: "Special agents seem to be ministering to him, yet they but give form to his own choice" [[M-5.II.2:8). Therefore, it is only because we believe in the "magic" of physical medicine that altering the brain's chemistry seems to alter mental states. In fact, the non-physical mind is the true agent of change. Again, the mind is cause, and the brain is effect.

The Course tells us that "all choices are made consciously, with full awareness of their consequences" [[M-12.6:4), but that we then bury those choices in the unconscious mind in order to deceive ourselves into thinking that they were not our choices [[see W-pI.136.3-4). The Course's aim is to bring those choices back into consciousness, and remind us that we do have the power of choice: our conscious minds can "choose once again" [[T-31.VIII.1:5).

Maxx, I don't have any problem with the statements in your post # 1185, except where you say that "...science is self correcting." Otherwise, it's pretty much what I learned in school or have subsequently studied.

You will, however, have to argue with Gyro over whether gravity was created. I recall he said it was. The big bang theory, and I muddled thru an entire book on the subject a couple of years ago, claims that gravity was created in the first microsecond of the bang.

Quote:

---

MizMoTown: -Most startling of all, the Course tells us that because we think with the Mind of God and only the thoughts we share with Him are real, the brain cannot even really think.

---

So Hitler thought with the mind of a god? All the great tyrants of history thought with the mind of a god? And this god is the creator of everything?

Quote:

---

The Course tells us that "all choices are made consciously, with full awareness of their consequences" [[M-12.6:4), but that we then bury those choices in the unconscious mind in order to deceive ourselves into thinking that they were not our choices.

---

So if we think with the mind of a god, why are so many people's choices so wrong? I can understand the burying business, that's denial. But that seems to come after the choice has been made from what you're saying. And, again, this god is the creator of everything? The course appears to be dealing with personal responsibility. Does that extend to small children? I was told that some muslims believe that children are born with an innate knowledge of good and evil. The person telling me this couldn't explain to me why children appear to need instruction about ethics.
So does the Course just not believe that some people see and hear people who aren't there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3WC

Maxx, I don't have any problem with the statements in your post # 1185, except where you say that "...science is self correcting." Otherwise, it's pretty much what I learned in school or have subsequently studied.

---

You don't believe that science is self-correcting through peer review? And I mean real peer review not the ten minute talk with his vet that Mike Behe had.

Quote:

---

You will, however, have to argue with Gyro over whether gravity was created. I recall he said it was. The big bang theory, and I muddled thru an entire book on the subject a couple of years ago, claims that gravity was created in the first microsecond of the bang.

---

It came along with the singularity. Gravity is inherent with mass.The purpose of the new Hadron collider in Cerne is to look for particles that may have been present at the moment of the Big Bang and that may account for mass and possibly gravity. My understanding is that gravity doesn't continue to be created or lost today. Scientists sometimes write about things in nature as though those things made decisions about their evolution, i.e., some finches in the Galapagos developed beaks that were useful for breaking nuts open. I think they are getting a bit better at explaining things more accurately to lay people nowadays.

So Hitler thought with the mind of a god? All the great tyrants of history thought with the mind of a god? And this god is the creator of everything?

As hard as it is to admit. Hitler was still born an innocent child of God. Hitler thought with his ego, as do most of us. Again, you have a choice. When a person chooses to give up disordered thought, the proper order of thoughts becomes quite apparent.

So if we think with the mind of a god, why are so many people's choices so wrong?

Because we are not taught how powerful our minds are and definitely not taught how to use them correctly.

Does that extend to small children? We teach our children. They learn from the best of us. We are teaching them wrong-mindedness in most cases.

So does the Course just not believe that some people see and hear people who aren't there? The Course teaches we have very limited perception and we continously make judgements based on there limited perceptions. The Course teaches we all have sick minds in different degrees.

The Bible tells you to become as little children. Little children recognize that they do not understand what they perceive, and so they ask what it means. Do not make the mistake of believing that you understand what you perceive, for its meaning is lost to you. Yet the Holy Spirit has saved its meaning for you, and if you will let Him interpret it, He will restore to you what you have thrown away. Yet while you think you know its meaning, you will see no need to ask it of Him.

3 You do not know the meaning of anything you perceive. Not one thought you hold is wholly true. The recognition of this is your firm beginning. You are not misguided; you have accepted no guide at all. Instruction in perception is your great need, for you understand nothing. Recognize this but do not accept it, for understanding is your inheritance. Perceptions are learned, and you are not without a Teacher. Yet your willingness to learn of Him depends on your willingness to question everything you learned of yourself, for you who learned amiss should not be your own teacher. ;)

Related Articles
The Course on Childhood.
"When I Said...": Jesus Commenting in the Course on His Own Sayings in the Bible
What We Do Not Know
Making Error Real
A Course in Cause and Not Effect
Are Little Children Really Egoless?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MizMotown

So Hitler thought with the mind of a god? All the great tyrants of history thought with the mind of a god? And this god is the creator of everything?

As hard as it is to admit. Hitler was still born an innocent child of God. Hitler thought with his ego, as do most of us. Again, you have a choice. When a person chooses to give up disordered thought, the proper order of thoughts becomes quite apparent.

---

So the Course sees the ego as a bad thing. But the ego is what makes our individuality. Eastern religions that talk about extinguishing the ego use meditation as a way to turn off the mind. But most people in the modern world cannot spend their lives turning off their minds nor do I think they should. Of course, the Course's answer is to take the Course. But I don't think that a person like Hitler would voluntarily take the Course because it doesn't help him achieve the goals he was after. Also a person whose primary goal is making a ton of money may not care who else s/he hurts by doing it. They would also not be interested in taking the Course.

I see that Maxx has been doing an admirable job of trying to educate the superstitious in my absence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3WC

You will, however, have to argue with Gyro over whether gravity was created. I recall he said it was. The big bang theory, and I muddled thru an entire book on the subject a couple of years ago, claims that gravity was created in the first microsecond of the bang.

---

Along with the strong and weak nuclear forces and electromagnetism, gravity is one of the four fundamental forces of nature. Although scientists are still trying to understand how the interact with subatomic particles, their existence is beyond doubt by knowledgeable people. While they all apparently came into existence at the big bang, they were not "created" in the theological sense. The standard assumption at this point is that they were all one force at the big bang.

Science is constantly correcting itself based on experiments and new evidence. Theology doesn't even try to reality test its dogmas since it claims to already have the ultimate truth. Any kind of reality testing would quickly expose theology to be equal parts wishful thinking and self-delusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MizMotown

So if we think with the mind of a god, why are so many people's choices so wrong?

Because we are not taught how powerful our minds are and definitely not taught how to use them correctly.

---

And how does one use their mind "correctly"? By taking the Course, no doubt. lol

Quote:

---

Does that extend to small children? We teach our children. They learn from the best of us. We are teaching them wrong-mindedness in most cases.

---

The last two sentences contradict each other. How do people teach their children incorrectly? Most people teach children right and wrong. They tell their children to follow the rules of school and society. They teach their children to prepare themselves in school for the adult world. How is this wrong?

Quote:

---

The Course teaches we have very limited perception and we continously make judgements based on there limited perceptions. The Course teaches we all have sick minds in different degrees.

---

So the Course teaches people to not trust their own minds. They must instead trust the Course because the teachings come from Jesus although this is not the Jesus of the Bible. Right? So who is this Jesus? The creator? And if this is what the Course says, why should anyone trust that this is true? Because someone claimed to have received a vision or a "gift" of automatic writing?

Quote:

---

The Bible tells you to become as little children. Little children recognize that they do not understand what they perceive, and so they ask what it means. Do not make the mistake of believing that you understand what you perceive, for its meaning is lost to you.

---

I think it is a very dangerous teaching to tell people they must not trust their own perceptions, that instead they must trust the Course. Jim Jones taught his congregation in a similar way as well as the leader of the Heaven's Gate cult. It sounds as though the Course is setting up permanent dependence on the Course the way Scientology does. Does the Course have a machine that measures how "clear" one is of wrong perceptions? Or is that achieved when the person just no longer thinks for him/herself at all.?

maybe your right Maxx, maybe your not. maybe oneday the truth shall set us all free.

you can't judge the Course on my measly postings and that is something you want to seem to do It is nothing like scienctology and i'm sure there are folks that would say the same about The Bible.....


a message from Jesus author of A Course In Miracles...

You can accept insanity because you made it, but you cannot accept love because you did not. You would rather be a slave of the crucifixion than a Son of God in redemption. Your individual death seems more valuable than your living oneness, for what is given you is not so dear as what you made. You are more afraid of God than of the ego, and love cannot enter where it is not welcome. But hatred can, for it enters of its own volition and cares not for yours.