Stephen Hawking speaking on his ideas at the moment on whether we can attribute God to how the universe functions . . .

video to be posted here after the documentary

My thoughts:

1. Does science explain away the need for "religion"?

2. How does science explain the very origin of man?

3 ingredients to design the universe:

1. matter - anything that has weight (dust, gases, e.t.c.)

2. Energy

3. Space

But how does science explain the origin of each and how do all 3 coalesce to design a universe that obeys extremely specific laws of "nature"?

Update - E=mc2  - means matter and energy are simply the same thing, 2 sides of one coin.

The big slam purports to explain the appearance of energy and matter? But what about space?

Interesting note from Hawking - if the universe is created by positive energy from the big bang balanced out by the corresponding negative energy stored in space (i.e +ive E + -ive E = 0), then you dont need God to create the universe? Interesting postulation without any shred of evidence. Kinda like saying . . . since we dont know what caused the big bang itself then God must exist.

I watched that documentary today; I could not believe the deception!!!! Stephen Hawkins tries so much to use science to prove that there is no God but on the contrary, every proposition of his spoke clearly enough that there has to be a creator. As much as I try not to call names or insult people; I find it extremely hard to prevent myself from calling that guy a trickstar or a charlatan. They trick the uneducated by speaking big scientific words and mentioning big theories, theories that he is sure that the layman does not grasp; then after mentioning these theories, he will conclude that there is no God.

The layman does not know enough about scientific theories to see that these theories have absolutely nothing to do with Hawkins conclusion. I screamed when he mentioned Einstein; the uninformed is deceived into thinking that Einstein shared Hawkins’s very personal conclusions! I know enough about Einstein to know that he was theist.

Honesty is very important! At least Einstein was honest enough not to use scientific theories to achieve or propagate his personal beliefs. Hawkins is taking advantage of his reputation as an intelligent scientist. This is nothing but deception! If he was an honest person he could still declare his non-belief in God, but he wouldn’t try to science propagate it.

I pointed this out in an earlier thread, ( https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=692886.msg8543689#msg8543689 ), somebody came to his defense by suggesting that perhaps his publishers misprint his words or urge him to say outrageous things in their quest to sell more books. Even if this is the case, it does not justify Hawking’s claims and outrageous conclusions. As an eminent scientist, his love for science should deter him from attaching outrageous conclusions to scientific theories. He is harming science; not to mention the harm he does the masses by leading them astray.

The funny thing in that documentary is the analogy of a man making a mounting by digging dirt from the ground. They showed a man making a mountain by digging dirt from the ground, thereby making a hole on the ground simultaneously. As the mountain grew so did the hole that the man made on the ground, and if you add them together, mathematically they equal zero. They used this to prove that if you add the all the positive mass (energy) in the universe to all the negative mass, they cancel out and equal to zero. The summation of the mass (both positive and negative) in the universe equals to zero. And then they concluded that there is no God! But in the analogy we see a man digging the hole! Could the mountain and the space it leaves behind, (the hole) have existed or taken on that form, if there was no external force? If there was no man making a mountain by digging dirt from the ground, would the dirt have separated itself from the ground and pile up to become a mountain? NO! They completely neglected the most important factor in their analogy—THE MAN DIGGING THE DIRT!

The fact that if you add both the positive and negative matter in the universe, they add up to zero does not mean that God does not exist. If anything it confirms that an external force must have worked or must continually be at work in the universe. Because the positive and the negative matter could not have separated by themselves, if they are all there is!

I wish everybody would watch that documentary. I will set my DVR to record it the next time they show it. It is a mockery of science.

justcool:

I watched that documentary today; I could not believe the deception!!!! Stephen Hawkins tries so much to use science to prove that there is no God but on the contrary with, every proposition of his spoke clearly enough that there has to be a creator. As much as I try not to call names or insult people; I find it extremely hard to prevent myself from calling that guy a trickstar or a charlatan. They trick the uneducated by speaking big scientific words and mentioning big theories, theories that he is sure that the layman does not grasp; then after mentioning these theories, he will conclude that there is no God.

The layman does not know enough about scientific theories to see that these theories have absolutely nothing to do with Hawkins conclusion. I screamed when he mentioned Einstein; the uninformed is deceived into thinking that Einstein shared Hawkins’s very personal conclusions! I know enough about Einstein to know that he was theist.

Honesty is very important! At least Einstein was honest enough not to use scientific theories to achieve or propagate his personal beliefs. Hawkins is taking advantage of his reputation as an intelligent scientist. This is nothing but deception! If he was an honest person he could still declare his non-belief in God, but he wouldn’t try to science propagate it.

I pointed this out in an earlier thread, ( https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=692886.msg8543689#msg8543689 ), somebody came to his defense by suggesting that perhaps his publishers misprint his words or urge him to say outrageous things in their quest to sell more books. Even if this is the case, it does not justify Hawking’s claims and outrageous conclusions. As an eminent scientist, his love for science should deter him from attaching outrageous conclusions to scientific theories. He is harming science; not to mention the harm he does the masses by leading them astray.

The funny thing in that documentary is the analogy of a man making a mounting by digging dirt from the ground. They showed a man making a mountain by digging dirt from the ground, thereby making a hole on the ground simultaneously. As the mountain grew so did the hole that the man made on the ground, and if you add them together, mathematically they equal zero. They used this to prove that if you add the all the positive mass (energy) in the universe to all the negative mass, they cancel out and equal to zero. The summation of the mass (both positive and negative) in the universe equals to zero. And then they concluded that there is no God! But in the analogy we see a man digging the hole! Could the mountain and the space it leaves behind, (the hole) have existed or taken on that form, if there was no external force? If there was no man making a mountain by digging dirt from the ground, would the dirt have separated itself from the ground and pile up to become a mountain? NO! They completely neglected the most important factor in their analogy—THE MAN DIGGING THE DIRT!

The fact that if you add both the positive and negative matter in the universe, they add up to zero does not mean that God does not exist. If anything it confirms that an external force must have worked or must continually be at work in the universe. Because the positive and the negative matter could not have separated by themselves, if they are all there is!

I wish everybody would watch that documentary. I will set my DVR to record it the next time they show it. It is a mockery of science.

They might be a cause that started the universe, no one knows. All they (myself included) are saying is that "God" as depicted by mankind does not exist. The only place these "gods" exist are in mythology. Anyway, about Einstein and "god".

Albert Einstein: God is a Product of Human Weakness
The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

2. Albert Einstein & Spinoza's God: Harmony in the Universe
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.

- Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein's question "Do you believe in God?" quoted in: Has Science Found God?, by Victor J Stenger
3. Albert Einstein: It is a Lie that I Believe in a Personal God
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Hawking does agree with Einstein.

Martian:

They might be a cause that started the universe, no one knows. All they (myself included) are saying is that "God" as depicted by mankind does not exist. The only place these "gods" exist are in mythology. Anyway, about Einstein and "god".

Albert Einstein: God is a Product of Human Weakness
The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

2. Albert Einstein & Spinoza's God: Harmony in the Universe
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.

- Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein's question "Do you believe in God?" quoted in: Has Science Found God?, by Victor J Stenger
3. Albert Einstein: It is a Lie that I Believe in a Personal God
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Hawking does agree with Einstein.

@Martian,

Forgive me to say that your bias and enthusiasm to fight religious views makes it difficult for you to separate things. God, Personal God, Religion, Religious dogma, and science are very different things.

If you want to fight religion, then do so but take science out if it because science and religion are two different things.

Forgive me for sounding harsh, but re-read this:

They might be a cause that started the universe, no one knows.

The above can only be born out of bias not science; because the above statement completely disagrees with everything that science stands for. Nothing can be more unscientific. Science clearly shows that the universe has a cause! Turn and twist as you will but the scientific law that 'for every action there is a reaction' is still very valid. The universe is a reaction that an action(cause) must have preceded.

What science cannot prove or disprove is whether this cause is a personal being or not.

If you disagree with the God that the religious fanatics propose, then fight them on that ground. But realize that you are fighting a religious battle and not a scientific one. After all the religions all claim that God is non-physical, and even a primary school student knows that science only deals with the physical. So how can you use science to prove or disprove what is non-physical? Anybody who tries to use science in his battle against the notion of non-physical God is a pseudo scientist, who lacks the basics of science. Or perhaps somebody who had let bias blind him/her.

Re-read the Einstein’s quotes that you provided and compare it with Hawking’s claims. Einstein separated the two worlds; he made it clear that he does not believe in a personal God, yet he never tried to use science to back up his non-belief in a personal God. Neither did he ever claim that scientific theories have proved that there is or that there is not a non-personal God. Neither did he ever claim that scientific theories imply that the universe has no cause.

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
-Albert Einstein

I am not religious, neither do I agree with picture of God that the various world’s religions present. But this has nothing to do with science. This does not mean that the universe has no cause.

It’s up to you to decide what to call this creator or cause of the universe. But to say that science implies that the universe has no cause is a blatant lie. For science deals with action and reaction; you can’t have one without the other!

At best you can say that the religious view of the cause of the universe as a man sitting in the clouds is unscientific; but do not try to use science to validate atheism. Such would be deception.

Thanks.

Might have a cause, might not have a cause.  If you say there must be a cause, then what caused that cause?

The universe exists, that cannot be denied. What caused or didn't cause it is not currently known or will it be known anytime soon unless there is some scientific breakthrough or the "cause" makes itself known.

You say there must be a cause. Well maybe the universe is that first cause. Maybe absolutely nothing existed before the universe existed. Maybe the big b@ng itself is the uncaused cause. The big b@ng is how far our current knowledge goes, whatever happened before that or if anything happened before that, nobody knows.

I don't think that's biased in any way.

davidylan:

My thoughts:

1. Does science explain away the need for "religion"?

Religion and science are two very different things, science is based mostly on naturalism with an agreeable standard or method of approach while religion is based mostly on some vague super-naturalism that has no clear or agreeable method of approach. . . .Scientific explanations remain the best explanation for most phenomenon and scientific principle are universal the world over. . .Scientific explanations mostly trump religious explanations which are mostly vague postulations that lack hard evidence. For example according to various religious beliefs the rainbow is either the necklace of some Goddess or the covenant between a tribal God and his chosen people. . .Then came science to explain that the rainbow is just a refraction of water droplets in the earth's atmosphere that's why it forms in the garden and on the beaches. . . .

2. How does science explain the very origin of man?

Evolution is the scientific explanation for the origin of man. . . .According to the scientific explanation man evolved from apes. . . .

mazaje:

Evolution is the scientific explanation for the origin of man. . . .According to the scientific explanation man evolved from apes. . . .

Man is an ape. A relatively hairless, bipedal, talking ape. That's the reason why religious folks can't come to terms with evolution. It proves humans are not the most important things in the universe and shows the absurdities of their claims that god made them specifically in his own image or whatever their various myths claim.

davidylan:

3 ingredients to design the universe:

1. matter - anything that has weight (dust, gases, e.t.c.)

2. Energy

3. Space

But how does science explain the origin of each and how do all 3 coalesce to design a universe that obeys extremely specific laws of "nature"?

Update - E=mc2  - means matter and energy are simply the same thing, 2 sides of one coin.

The big slam purports to explain the appearance of energy and matter? But what about space?

Science doesn't claim to have all the answers. . . .The function and detailed explanation of energy, space and matter on how the obey the laws of physics are best explained through the scientific process and not through some vague religious explanations that are nothing but  ancient stories about ancient men and their invisible friends that will take care of things if only we live according to their laws. . . .Cosmogony not the big ba.ng is the branch of science that tries to provide scientific explanations to your queries. . . .Pls how does the God hypothesis explain the origins of matter, energy and space?. . . .Why did God assuming he is creator of the universe create the asteroid belt in our solar system for example, and why are most of the stars in our galaxy (tens of billions of them) red dwarfs?. . .What are the religious explanations for all these?. . . .

Interesting note from Hawking - if the universe is created by positive energy from the big slam balanced out by the corresponding negative energy stored in space (i.e +ive E + -ive E = 0), then you dont need God to create the universe? Interesting postulation without any shred of evidence. Kinda like saying . . . since we dont know what caused the big slam itself then God must exist.

Hawking is telling you is that the universe doesn't require a cause. (Sure this hypothesis is speculative, but there is at least some mathematics behind it). You then come back with a demand for the cause of the big ban.g. Are you paying attention?

The bible clearly tells us how and who created the universe (cosmos)
Genesis 1:1
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"

John 1:1-3
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made"

Hebrews 11:3
"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear"

mazaje:


. . .According to the scientific explanation man evolved from apes. . . .

As I understand it, this is not exactly correct. Man and ape (and indeed all animals) have a common ancestor. The theory is that man and ape split from their common ancestor millions of years ago.
It is a popular ploy of the cretinists creationists to claim that if evolution is true, it means that man evolved from apes.

Zodiac61:

As I understand it, this is not exactly correct. Man and ape (and indeed all animals) have a common ancestor. The theory is that man and ape split from their common ancestor millions of years ago.
It is a popular ploy of the cretinists creationists to claim that if evolution is true, it means that man evolved from apes.

and the popular conjob of the pseudo-scientist (i.e. the ignorant who use science as a cloak for their own disbelief) is to claim that man must have evolved from a primordial soup.

If you say that man and apes have a common ancestor, on what scientific basis is that claim made and how is it much different from evolving from apes?

davidylan:

and the popular conjob of the pseudo-scientist (i.e. the ignorant who use science as a cloak for their own disbelief) is to claim that man must have evolved from a primordial soup.

If you say that man and apes have a common ancestor, on what scientific basis is that claim made and how is it much different from evolving from apes?

Abuse coming from one who believes that the earth was created in six days. One who is a creationist. One who believes the bible to the inerrant word of god. And you, sir, call me ignorant.
You are the one who hides his ignorance behind a two thousand year collection of myths, fairy tales and failed prophecies by people who believed that illness was caused by demons. By people who believed that the sun revolved the earth. By people who believed that their god destroyed the earth in a flood. By people who believed that a man lived inside a fish for three days. By people who believed that their lord rose from the dead after   three days in a tomb.
You, who tries to explain the various inconsistencies in the book by really sophisticated babble.
Whether you like it or not, evolution best explains man and other living things today.
Deny this as much as you want. Your sincere beliefs (false and mistaken) are irrelevant to the truth.

Zodiac61:

Abuse coming from one who believes that the earth was created in six days. One who is a creationist. One who believes the bible to the inerrant word of god. And you, sir, call me ignorant.
You are the one who hides his ignorance behind a two thousand year collection of myths, fairy tales and failed prophecies by people who believed that illness was caused by demons. By people who believed that the sun revolved the earth. By people who believed that their god destroyed the earth in a flood. By people who believed that a man lived inside a fish for three days. By people who believed that their lord rose from the dead after   three days in a tomb.
You, who tries to explain the various inconsistencies in the book by really sophisticated babble.
Whether you like it or not, evolution best explains man and other living things today.
Deny this as much as you want. Your sincere beliefs (false and mistaken) are irrelevant to the truth.

arent we all tired of all these merry-go-round nonsense? You folks rarely ever answer the questions posed to your scientific minds.
Yes i believe the bible to be the inerrant word of God, yes i believe that God destroyed the earth in a flood, yes i believe that noah lived in the belly of a fish for 3 days but what has all that to do with the very question this thread poses - what is the scientific rationale for man's origin? Do you answer the question only by calling to question the belief of others? No one is arguing the bible here . . . provide empirical evidence for your own belief in science!

Christians werent the only ones who once believed that the sun revolved around the earth, that was the prevailing view then (including pagans too) due to widespread ignorance about how the earth worked. to claim that this was solely a christian belief is just false and symptomatic of the atheist dogma . . . just attribute everything bad to religion that way you get around having to own up to the deficiencies of your own theories.

Evolution DOES NOT explain the origin of man dude, forget the bible . . . i'm not relying on it here neither do i expect you to use it as a cloak for your own ignorance. Please provide proof that evolution is anything but metaphysics. I'm waiting.

davidylan:

My thoughts:

1. Does science explain away the need for "religion"?

No it doesn't. But there are purely naturalistic reasons for religions.

davidylan:

2. How does science explain the very origin of man?

Man arrived by millions of years of evolution.

davidylan:

3 ingredients to design the universe:

1. matter - anything that has weight (dust, gases, e.t.c.)

2. Energy

3. Space

But how does science explain the origin of each and how do all 3 coalesce to design a universe that obeys extremely specific laws of "nature"?

Update - E=mc2  - means matter and energy are simply the same thing, 2 sides of one coin.

The big slam purports to explain the appearance of energy and matter? But what about space?

And space too. Space is formed as matter and energy expand.

davidylan:

Interesting note from Hawking - if the universe is created by positive energy from the big slam balanced out by the corresponding negative energy stored in space (i.e +ive E + -ive E = 0), then you dont need God to create the universe? Interesting postulation without any shred of evidence. Kinda like saying . . . since we dont know what caused the big slam itself then God must exist.

What sort of evidence are you looking for? We know that the universe expanded and is expanding and we know that gravity acts within the universe so what sort of evidence are you looking for?

thehomer:

What sort of evidence are you looking for? We know that the universe expanded and is expanding and we know that gravity acts within the universe so what sort of evidence are you looking for?

What created the big bang? Expanding empty space?

justcool:

I watched that documentary today; I could not believe the deception!!!! Stephen Hawkins tries so much to use science to prove that there is no God but on the contrary, every proposition of his spoke clearly enough that there has to be a creator. As much as I try not to call names or insult people; I find it extremely hard to prevent myself from calling that guy a trickstar or a charlatan. They trick the uneducated by speaking big scientific words and mentioning big theories, theories that he is sure that the layman does not grasp; then after mentioning these theories, he will conclude that there is no God.

You are misstating his point which is that God is not needed to explain the universe. You seem to think that he is a trickster or a charlatan. Why don't you point out the tricks that you think he actually used? Which theories are you referring to?

justcool:

The layman does not know enough about scientific theories to see that these theories have absolutely nothing to do with Hawkins conclusion. I screamed when he mentioned Einstein; the uninformed is deceived into thinking that Einstein shared Hawkins’s very personal conclusions! I know enough about Einstein to know that he was theist.

Which theories are you claiming that had nothing to do with his conclusion? What sort of theist was Einstein? Why do you keep harping on Einstein? Why don't you simply present the arguments that you think are relevant?

justcool:

Honesty is very important! At least Einstein was honest enough not to use scientific theories to achieve or propagate his personal beliefs. Hawkins is taking advantage of his reputation as an intelligent scientist. This is nothing but deception! If he was an honest person he could still declare his non-belief in God, but he wouldn’t try to science propagate it.

Do you think Hawkins was being dishonest? If you do, why don't you point it out rather than making these blanket statements? Actually, Einstein did use scientific theories to propagate his personal beliefs just that his beliefs were also scientific.

justcool:

I pointed this out in an earlier thread, ( https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=692886.msg8543689#msg8543689 ), somebody came to his defense by suggesting that perhaps his publishers misprint his words or urge him to say outrageous things in their quest to sell more books. Even if this is the case, it does not justify Hawking’s claims and outrageous conclusions. As an eminent scientist, his love for science should deter him from attaching outrageous conclusions to scientific theories. He is harming science; not to mention the harm he does the masses by leading them astray.

What was the outrageous conclusion? Remember that concluding that the earth revolved round the sun was once an outrageous conclusion. What harm is this that you keep referring to? Is it actually fear that I detect?

justcool:

The funny thing in that documentary is the analogy of a man making a mounting by digging dirt from the ground. They showed a man making a mountain by digging dirt from the ground, thereby making a hole on the ground simultaneously. As the mountain grew so did the hole that the man made on the ground, and if you add them together, mathematically they equal zero. They used this to prove that if you add the all the positive mass (energy) in the universe to all the negative mass, they cancel out and equal to zero. The summation of the mass (both positive and negative) in the universe equals to zero. And then they concluded that there is no God! But in the analogy we see a man digging the hole! Could the mountain and the space it leaves behind, (the hole) have existed or taken on that form, if there was no external force? If there was no man making a mountain by digging dirt from the ground, would the dirt have separated itself from the ground and pile up to become a mountain? NO! They completely neglected the most important factor in their analogy—THE MAN DIGGING THE DIRT!

No, that was an analogy. It was to get the point across easily and not to prove that the total energy was zero. Sorry, but you are again drawing the wrong conclusion from the analogy and you're reading too much into the analogy by focusing on extraneous information because it is an analogy.

justcool:

The fact that if you add both the positive and negative matter in the universe, they add up to zero does not mean that God does not exist. If anything it confirms that an external force must have worked or must continually be at work in the universe. Because the positive and the negative matter could not have separated by themselves, if they are all there is!

I wish everybody would watch that documentary. I will set my DVR to record it the next time they show it. It is a mockery of science.

You miss the analogy. The point is that if the total energy is zero, then God was not needed for the entire event to occur. If God did anything, then the universe may have started from a 1 or a 10000000000.

davidylan:

What created the big slam? Expanding empty space?

The big bang was an expansion from a prior state.

thehomer:

The big slam was an expansion from a prior state.

which was? evidence?

davidylan:

which was? evidence?

What sort of evidence do you want? I hope you realize that we know that the universe is expanding. Simply look up the theory on Wikipedia. There, you will find the evidence supporting it. I refuse to spoon feed you with such publicly available information when you are also online.

thehomer:

What sort of evidence do you want? I hope you realize that we know that the universe is expanding. Simply look up the theory on Wikipedia. There, you will find the evidence supporting it. I refuse to spoon feed you with such publicly available information when you are also online.

You said this - The big slam was an expansion from a prior state.

What prior state? what's your evidence?

If the universe is expanding (which is true), does this not suggest evidence that we live in an INFINITE universe? Which means there is no concept of space where the universe is concerned? How is this possible?

Can we also create infinite space too?

thehomer:

What sort of evidence do you want? I hope you realize that we know that the universe is expanding. Simply look up the theory on Wikipedia. There, you will find the evidence supporting it. I refuse to spoon feed you with such publicly available information when you are also online.

I hear this a lot when the individual being queried has no answers beyond perusing thousands of webpages in ignorance. I dont need to be spoonfed, this are simple common-sense questions you should have answers to.

davidylan:

I hear this a lot when the individual being queried has no answers beyond perusing thousands of webpages in ignorance. I dont need to be spoonfed, this are simple common-sense questions you should have answers to.

Have you perused five of the relevant webpages to rectify the ignorance you're displaying? You seem to need spoon feeding with the questions you're asking. Do you really think astrophysics is common sense? If you think so, then you're simply demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect (look that up too while you're at it).

thehomer:

[b]Have you perused five of the relevant webpages to rectify the ignorance you're displaying? [/b]You seem to need spoon feeding with the questions you're asking. Do you really think astrophysics is common sense? If you think so, then you're simply demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect (look that up too while you're at it).

which is interesting because rather than point out the "ignorance" or even attempt the common sense questions, you go on bleating about being "spoon fed"? 
The typical response you get from the illiterate merely using science as cover for their own atheism.

Did you even watch the show in question? Probably not . . . and he's here talking about other folks ignorance. At least i educate myself on alternate viewpoints rather than sit here using google to cover my gaps.

davidylan:

which is interesting because rather than point out the "ignorance" or even attempt the common sense questions, you go on bleating about being "spoon fed"? 
The typical response you get from the illiterate merely using science as cover for their own atheism.

I have pointed out your ignorance and recommended that you rectify it. This you seem to be allergic to. I wonder who this illiterate you're referring to is because you continually demonstrate an allergy to knowledge.

davidylan:

Did you even watch the show in question? Probably not . . . and he's here talking about other folks ignorance. At least i educate myself on alternate viewpoints rather than sit here using google to cover my gaps.

Did you read my response to other posters on this very thread? Yet you think I did not watch the show? Wow.
Actually, what you're showing is that whatever you've done, you've not educated yourself on the best information available.

thehomer:

I have pointed out your ignorance and recommended that you rectify it. This you seem to be allergic to. I wonder who this illiterate you're referring to is because you continually demonstrate an allergy to knowledge.

Hilarious! You have tell to us the symptoms of this allergic reaction though.

thehomer:

I have pointed out your ignorance and recommended that you rectify it. This you seem to be allergic to. I wonder who this illiterate you're referring to is because you continually demonstrate an allergy to knowledge.

That's the problem, simply pointing out "ignorance" (i.e. things i dont agree with but have no idea why other than hating God) without any reason why such should be considered "ignorance" makes little sense. Telling me to just go "read" since you wont "spoon feed" (i.e. have no idea what i'm talking about so cant be relied upon to substantiate my claims) me is nonsense.

Allergy to knowledge? At least that indicates i have been sensitized by knowledge no?

thehomer:

Did you read my response to other posters on this very thread? Yet you think I did not watch the show? Wow.
Actually, what you're showing is that whatever you've done, you've not educated yourself on the best information available.

It was just as bereft of any serious empirical evidence to back up your claims. You seem to have "educated yourself on the best information available" (i.e. you've been browsing through atheist websites that use high-fallutin nonsense to deceive you into thinking they know what they are saying) but that doesnt seem to be coming across here at all. Your responses have been simply the same standard format:

1. Claim everyone else is "ignorant"

2. Cry about "spoon feeding" when you are asked to provide evidence of your claims

3. insult some more if you cant get your way

4. Ignore the thread

Just an example of thehomer's nonsense:

thehomer:

You miss the analogy. The point is that if the total energy is zero, then God was not needed for the entire event to occur. If God did anything, then the universe may have started from a 1 or a 10000000000.

This is spurious.

1. the fact that total energy = zero does not negate a need for God. Infact it makes the idea that the universe spontaneously occurred an even more difficult point for scientists to prove. Science has NEVER been able to generate matter from nothing neither have we seen this occur in nature. What Hawking and his equally clueless proteges are trying to tell us is that highly complex laws of nature, the universe and highly diverse forms of life just appeared out of NOTHING!

2. Again the fallacy of knowing exactly what God would do. If God created the universe why do you think it would start from 1 and not 0?

I wont even waste my time on his claim that man arrived after millions of years of evolution, i'm sure he doesnt even know how to prove it either unless of course he goes off to copy some article on talkorigins.

Martian:

Hilarious! You have tell to us the symptoms of this allergic reaction though.

The symptoms include fear of scientific knowledge which leads to hostility and aggressiveness, obtuseness when presented with the relevant information.
Active refusal to learn when referred to simple and basic sources containing this information. Then there is logorrhoea. Though with time, some learn to curtail this particular symptom. There are other symptoms but I'll just leave it at this for now.

thehomer:

The symptoms include[b] fear of scientific knowledge[/b] which leads to hostility and aggressiveness, obtuseness when presented with the relevant information.
Active refusal to learn when referred to simple and basic sources containing this information. Then there is logorrhoea. Though with time, some learn to curtail this particular symptom. There are other symptoms but I'll just leave it at this for now.

1. where is the "relevant information" you claim to present?

2. At least your first point would make sense if i did see any "scientific knowledge" from you.

3. At least i try to keep my discussions on the issues the thread is supposed to be on, you keep rambling on about exactly what?