KingEbukasBlog:


1. Stop talking of an eternal universe if you cannot produce scientific evidence that the universe is one

I wish here on nairaland people would be more willing to hear more of what they don't know yet, everyone just wants to lash out and win an argument even if they are wrong.

2. Here is Stephen Hawking's lecture on why there is no evidence for an eternal universe

www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Did you read the whole lecture? He summarized his book "A brief history of time" there.

Please read the whole thing and we can discuss it its not really as simple as you hoped.

3. How does an eternal universe preclude the existence of God ?

It doesnt, even Hawkins lectures doesn't preclude the existence of God, they both have one thing in common and that is the role of God in the model.

From Hawkins lectures and the eternal universe theory God is unneeded and has no consequence in causing the universe.

But that doesn't stop God from existing outside the universe to which Hawkins will say is useless to us as can never know things outside space and time, they will have no observational consequence within our space/time so we might as well cut them off.

Which brings me back to one question I have been ringing about before.

If God didn't create the universe, is God still God?

Or

Is God God because it created the universe?

KingEbukasBlog:


1. Stop talking of an eternal universe if you cannot produce scientific evidence that the universe is one

2. Here is Stephen Hawking's lecture on why there is no evidence for an eternal universe

www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

3. How does an eternal universe preclude the existence of God ?

Stop presenting scientific speculations as of they are facts. Origin science as it stands now is purely speculative. If the universe had a beginning then will there ever be a time when it will end and there will be nothing at all just like the beginning?

Dalamama:


Stop presenting scientific speculations as of they are facts. Origin science as it stands now is purely speculative. If the universe had a beginning then will there ever be a time when it will end and there will be nothing at all just like the beginning?

Yes they would be a time it would end which is called the Big Crunch.

Which is gravity eventually stopping and reversing the expansion to collasp back on itself.

felixomor:


No it wasnt. There is no evidence for that

lol I wish you'd stop making such confident remarks on a naive footing

Even if u are correct,
And you will even still end up deadlocking yourself
With the question;
What gave rise to the previous universe?

The scientific answer to that is the universe would be a totally self contained system unneeding of external nudges.

I want so badly to teach you these things but I can't do that if you wouldn't be willing to listen with humiloty and not clawing to argue.

Secondly,
The cabon dating age for the components of this universe would all be wrong and dating as a whole will be wrong, if what you are saying is correct.....

No they wouldn't, this is physics sir not as simple as you think.

You see,
Its either you loose big or loose small.

its always about winning to you not about what is right.

That is always the problem, how can you ever grow with that?

johnydon22:


Yes they would be a time it would end which is called the Big Crunch.

Which is gravity eventually stopping and reversing the expansion to collasp back on itself.

The ig crunch was actually theorized by someone, its only a speculation . It is just one of the ideas out there. Some other scientist claim it will keep expanding for ever even after it has used up all its energy meaning that there will never be a time where there will be nothing.

When it comes to the universe and it's origin all we have are just speculations. We don't know when and how it began and she and how it will end. We just have differenttheories and speculations.

Dalamama:


The ig crunch was actually theorized by someone, its only a speculation . It is just one of the ideas out there. Some other scientist claim it will keep expanding for ever even after it has used up all its energy meaning that there will never be a time where there will be nothing.

a good theory is one that can make observational predictions, one that is backed by observations therefore can be falsified.

The big crunch is a direction of the Big bang cosmological model.

Yes it could expand forever, this is also consistent with the big bang but I earlier mentioned Gravity.

The matter in the universe and ultimately gravity determines the direction of the universe in the time graph

When it comes to the universe and it's origin all we have are just speculations.

any speculation backed by observations is a very good speculation and our confidence on it can only grow until falsified by observations

We don't know when and how it began and she and how it will end.

we can know and we are making progress gradually what we cannot know is events outside the universe.

Relativity breaks down at a Big bang singularity that is why quantum theory of gravity is hoped to develop a more sufficient mathematics at that singularity state.

We just have differenttheories and speculations.

I understand your point but most of these theories has been discarded.

I mentioned above: A good scientific theory is one that can make observational predictions and can be consistent with observations.

Once an observation even 1 disagrees with a theory, it is discarded or modified to a more fitting theory to agree with observations.

In that way our progress evolves

felixomor:


No it wasnt. There is no evidence for that

Even if u are correct,
And you will even still end up deadlocking yourself
With the question;
What gave rise to the previous universe?

What part of the universe could have been eternal don't you understand?

Secondly,
The cabon dating age for the components of this universe would all be wrong and dating as a whole will be wrong, if what you are saying is correct.....

You see,
Its either you loose big or loose small.

The age of the universe was calculated from the rate of its expansion. Carbon dating was used for earth. Stop mixing them up.

superhumanist:


Why shouldn't atheists discuss religion? Being a deist myself, I can discuss anything from religion to politics. I am not understanding your point. I personally think anyone should be free to discuss what they like.

If we are to go into theology, we can see that God is usually tied to religion. Not always but most of the time. So, I think the atheist can discuss religion. I am left wondering what the point of this thread was.

This is the reason why this thread was created. When you have atheists like seun and this other guy believing that questioning religious books and religion means questioning God

Seun:
Any belief in God is a religious belief, so there cannot be any dividing line.

Davidgrey:
[b][color=#000050] The "bible" is apparently the only evidence that supposedly proofs the existence of god

KingEbukasBlog:


Taaa !

Who told you that ? What gallimaufry of pseudo-science is this ?

Go read about the Planck's epoch, the big bang theory.
This link might help too.
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/faq.htm
The big bang never said anything about the origin of the universe.
It could have been eternal, this our present universe could have been the 6000 life cycle of the universe, all we have is speculation.

KingEbukasBlog:


https://www.nairaland.com/3944605/oh-atheists-me-out-quandary




There are theists who don't even believe that God is omnipotent or omniscient .




Consciousness is immaterial .



There are theists who reject the First Cause and there are atheists who acknowledge the existence of the First Cause but reject its deification .



Which reality ? Everyone has his own reality . Stop forcefully projecting your reality on others , thats bigotry .

Why do you keep telling me that there atheists who believe x and there are theists who believe y like that's supposed to have any bearing on my opinions?

Rather, you should try to stop making ignorant blanket statements only to try to defend them by saying "some atheists believe it". That is not the impression you gave with your general statement.

johnydon22:


Lol I ever so politely asked if I am to teach you a little, if you want to learn you have to come down your high horse and try to listen.

I knew that's what you would come up with "Big Bang" which is almost certainly a fact. But if you were someone humble and open intellectually you would have opted to learn the rest about the model.

Would you like to learn?

Lol, you get patience walahi. Please I need books on the big bang theory, any way you can help a brother?

KingEbukasBlog:


1. Stop talking of an eternal universe if you cannot produce scientific evidence that the universe is one

Nobody knows if the universe is eternal or has a beginning. There's no scientific consensus of its Origin.
All we have are speculations.

2. Here is Stephen Hawking's lecture on why there is no evidence for an eternal universe

www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

This a condensed A Brief History of Time.
The whole book gives a clearer picture. Even the quote I posted for Felix is smack there in the lecture.

3. How does an eternal universe preclude the existence of God ?

For me, An eternal universe precludes the existence of a god because it isn't the first cause, so I don't see why it should be there in the first place.
You can shout Creatio ex materia all you want, it's purely a theological position. I don't see how god "sustains" the universe.

johnydon22:


Did you read the whole lecture? He summarized his book "A brief history of time" there.

The first paragraph in the lecture begins with a clear and lucid summary of the content of the lecture :

In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago.

Then ends it with :

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.

Please where is the suggestion of an eternal universe in the lecture ? Because I can't find it .

It doesnt, even Hawkins lectures doesn't preclude the existence of God, they both have one thing in common and that is the role of God in the model.

From Hawkins lectures and the eternal universe theory God is unneeded and has no consequence in causing the universe.

But that doesn't stop God from existing outside the universe to which Hawkins will say is useless to us as can never know things outside space and time, they will have no observational consequence within our space/time so we might as well cut them off.

Which brings me back to one question I have been ringing about before.

If God didn't create the universe, is God still God?

Or

Is God God because it created the universe?

I explained God's role in an eternal universe fully here with panentheism .

https://www.nairaland.com/3914088/deism-last-refuge-dubious-religious/7#58379572

And I'm not sure why your ilks keep bringing it up every time because I've easily rebutted it severally

God can end the existence of material universe which has coexisted with it from past infinitude because It sustains it . God is the sustainer of all reality

CatfishBilly:
Nobody knows if the universe is eternal or has a beginning. There's no scientific consensus of its Origin.
All we have are speculations.

There is no scientific consensus on evolution , should we call it speculation too ?

This a condensed A Brief History of Time.
The whole book gives a clearer picture. Even the quote I posted for Felix is smack there in the lecture.

He stated clearly that the universe hasn't existed forever .

For me, An eternal universe precludes the existence of a god because it isn't the first cause, so I don't see why it should be there in the first place.

How many times will I explain this same thing ? God being the First Cause is a concept of creation , an eternal universe which coexists with God is another concept of creation .

https://www.nairaland.com/3914088/deism-last-refuge-dubious-religious/7#58379572

You are the same guy I discussed this same thing with here , you want us to go over it again ?

CoolUsername:


Why do you keep telling me that there atheists who believe x and there are theists who believe y like that's supposed to have any bearing on my opinions?

Rather, you should try to stop making ignorant blanket statements only to try to defend them by saying "some atheists believe it". That is not the impression you gave with your general statement.

Because your opinion does not disprove anything . You claim that God has to be omnipotent and omniscient and I said that there are theists who don't regard God as omniscient or omnipotent . So if there are people who acknowledge God without these attributes , how then is opinion worthy of consideration ?

johnydon22:
I am lost how you aim to tell someone what topic of discuss they are supposed to dabble into and which they aren't

exactly, which then means an atheist can also talk about religion, No?

And you forgot that theists that they engage often comes up with one Sura or one psalm. God becomes subdivided into religious inclination thus birthing the need to address every religious view point when it is necessary while still discussing God which this religious structure represents.

I am sure religious atheists don't pray Psalm 3 do they?

You don't get the point bro . Atheists here are skeptical of religion with the erroneous belief that it questions the existence of God . Is Religious Skepticism atheism ?

KingEbukasBlog:


There is no scientific consensus on evolution , should we call it speculation too ?

There's a difference between speculation and hard evidence. The origin of the universe is purely speculative, no shred of evidence.
However, evolution has tons of evidence to back it up and is one of the most wisely accepted theory in natural sciences, so it can't be speculation.

He stated clearly that the universe hasn't existed forever .

Hawking also said this in that lecture.
As far as we are concerned, events before the big bang can have no consequences, so they should not form part of a scientific model of the universe. We should therefore cut them out of the model and say that time had a beginning at the big bang

As you can see, the beginning of the universe and time was set as a matter of "convenience'

How many times will I explain this same thing ? God being the First Cause is a concept of creation , an eternal universe which coexists with God is another concept of creation .

https://www.nairaland.com/3914088/deism-last-refuge-dubious-religious/7#58379572

You are the same guy I discussed this same thing with here , you want us to go over it again ?

Creatio ex materia is a theological concept.
I don't see why a god needs to sustain a universe if it didn't create it. There's nothing to infer from that a god sustains the universe sef.

KingEbukasBlog:


The first paragraph in the lecture begins with a clear and lucid summary of the content of the lecture :

In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago.

Then ends it with :

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.

Please where is the suggestion of an eternal universe in the lecture ? Because I can't find it .

My simple remark was that the lecture was not as simple as you'd hope it is. A beginning to time does not preclude an eternal cosmos as Carl Sagan put it. I wish this would be a ground for me to break this whole matter to very simple bits for everyone to understand.

Here is an interesting part of Hawkins talk

"If space and imaginary time are indeed like the surface of the Earth, there wouldn't be any singularities in the imaginary time direction, at which the laws of physics would break down. And there wouldn't be any boundaries, to the imaginary time space-time, just as there aren't any boundaries to the surface of the Earth. This absence of boundaries means that the laws of physics would determine the state of the universe uniquely, in imaginary time. But if one knows the state of the universe in imaginary time, one can calculate the state of the universe in real time. One would still expect some sort of Big Bang singularity in real time. So real time would still have a beginning. But one wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began. Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time. Thus, the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by anything outside the physical universe, that we observe. "

The universe is totally self contained and self sufficient. In Carl Sagan book the cosmos the fate of the universe is determined by the effects of gravity.

If the Big crunch is correct then there would be another Big bang after this universe when everything goes back to a singularity, therefore this Big bang was not the first or would it be the last but rather one out of an infinite circle of this universe.

I told you it wasnt as simple as you'd think

I explained God's role in an eternal universe fully here with panentheism .

https://www.nairaland.com/3914088/deism-last-refuge-dubious-religious/7#58379572

And I'm not sure why your ilks keep bringing it up every time because I've easily rebutted it severally

God can end the existence of material universe which has coexisted with it from past infinitude because It sustains it . God is the sustainer of all reality

To this I'd just say Lol.

You agree with Hawkins lectures on the beginning of time and not the non-consequence of values outside the universe?

If you agree to Hawkins lecture then the universe as he also said is self contained and self sustained therefore needs no external sustainer.

If our time and space began at our big bang then you could also agree with us scientifically that anything outside our space/time is of no consequence inside our space/time therefore there cannot be such a thing as an external sustainer of reality its just a clutch to find a usefulness for God.

We'll discuss the whole of Hawkins lecture

KingEbukasBlog:


Because your opinion does not disprove anything . You claim that God has to be omnipotent and omniscient and I said that there are theists who don't regard God as omniscient or omnipotent . So if there are people who acknowledge God without these attributes , how then is opinion worthy of consideration ?

Who are the people saying that? What percentage of atheists/theists believe that?

Seriously, if a definition of God cannot be agreed upon then the theist position is even more senseless.

God must be distinct from an evolved species and from a natural to be called God. If not, then the word is basically meaningless and there's no merit even considering it as a hypothesis.

KingEbukasBlog:


You don't get the point bro . Atheists here are skeptical of religion with the erroneous belief that it questions the existence of God . Is Religious Skepticism atheism ?

Religious skepticism is hardly same thing as atheism but you can also agree that if anyone can be a religious skeptic atheist also can?

If yes then there you have it

CatfishBilly:

There's a difference between speculation and hard evidence. The origin of the universe is purely speculative, no shred of evidence.
However, evolution has tons of evidence to back it up and is one of the most wisely accepted theory in natural sciences, so it can't be speculation.

1. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aemfYmusSY

2. Physicists Chris LaRocco and Blair Rothstei on the universe having a beginning : http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

3. Nilakshi Veerabathina : The universe cannot be infinitely large or infinitely old : http://www.chara.gsu.edu/~nilakshi/chap26.pdf

Hawking also said this in that lecture.
As far as we are concerned, events before the big bang can have no consequences, so they should not form part of a scientific model of the universe. We should therefore cut them out of the model and say that time had a beginning at the big bang
As you can see, the beginning of the universe and time was set as a matter of "convenience'

You don't understand what he meant . Physicist and Theologian Isaac Newton believed that space and time had existed before the moment of creation and that God is everlasting (existing from infinite time in the past ) occupying infinite space , thats why Hawking an atheist went on to say

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.

since he did not believe in God .

Creatio ex materia is a theological concept.

Of course

I don't see why a god needs to sustain a universe if it didn't create it. There's nothing to infer from that a god sustains the universe sef.

This is an argument from incredulity .

CoolUsername:


Who are the people saying that? What percentage of atheists/theists believe that?

Seriously, if a definition of God cannot be agreed upon then the theist position is even more senseless.

God must be distinct from an evolved species and from a natural to be called God. If not, then the word is basically meaningless and there's no merit even considering it as a hypothesis.

God is the Necessary Being , without God nothing will exist be it abstract/mathematical objects or an eternal universe . Omniscience , omnipotence are attributes of God .

For the last time , stop projecting your opinions on others . Because you believe God has to have certain attributes does not mean everyone has to agree with you for them acknowledge the existence of God .

KingEbukasBlog:


God is the Necessary Being , without God nothing will exist be it abstract/mathematical objects or an eternal universe . Omniscience , omnipotence are attributes of God .

For the last time , stop projecting your opinions on others . Because you believe God has to have certain attributes does not mean everyone has to agree with you for them acknowledge the existence of God .

God comes from the notion that non-existence is the default of reality. What if the universe in some form has always existed?

KingEbukasBlog:


1. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aemfYmusSY



2. Physicists Chris LaRocco and Blair Rothstei on the universe having a beginning : http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

3. Nilakshi Veerabathina : The universe cannot be infinitely large or infinitely old : http://www.chara.gsu.edu/~nilakshi/chap26.pdf

This quote is from Vilenkin
If someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning.

You don't understand what he meant . Physicist and Theologian Isaac Newton believed that space and time had existed before the moment of creation and that God is everlasting (existing from infinite time in the past ) occupying infinite space , thats why Hawking an atheist went on to say

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.

since he did not believe in God .

I don't see how this disproves what I said. Time before the big bang was inconsequential. The laws of physics and nature more or less degenerates, so, no one could say with absolute certainty what happened, theists and theologians just took the easy way out and said God.

Of course



This is an argument from incredulity .

Ok, fair enough.
What has been observed of the universe that suggests that an external being is "supporting" its survival?

CoolUsername:


God comes from the notion that non-existence is the default of reality. What if the universe in some form has always existed?

WHAT IF!

so you are holding on to atheism based on a WHAT IF?

As you can clearly see, you are so full of faith.

CoolUsername:


God comes from the notion that non-existence is the default of reality. What if the universe in some form has always existed?

If nonexistence is a default state then God himself would also have to be nonexistent at some point. So if anything at all can exist then nonexistence cannot be assumed to be the default state.

spacetacular:


WHAT IF!

so you are holding on to atheism based on a WHAT IF?

As you can clearly see, you are so full of faith.

CoolUsername please ignore this and continue with the interesting discussion.

johnydon22:


If nonexistence is a default state then God himself would also have to be nonexistent at some point. So if anything at all can exist then nonexistence cannot be assumed to be the default state.

Non existence is focused on the material world and not on a spiritual world. God is is not a part of the material world so cannot be put in your non existent default theory.

Telling the other guy to ignore a very clear observation does not help your argument. Running around with any and every speculation just so you can convince yourself that God could not have been if the universe was eternal is simply ludicrous.

How can one bring a WHAT IF to an argument?

johnydon22:


Religious skepticism is hardly same thing as atheism but you can also agree that if anyone can be a religious skeptic atheist also can?

If yes then there you have it

Of course . When a Christian is skeptical about Islam , he wants you to see that Christianity is the right religion ; when a Muslim is skeptical about Islam , he wants you to see that Islam is the right religion ; when a deist is skeptical about religion , he wants you to know that you can acknowledge God without religion . Now if an atheist is skeptical about religion , what does he want to achieve ? Therefore , there is no God? You see the problem ? He is entangled with the false position that God is within the purview of religion

The typical Nairaland atheist sees it this way . Of what use is being skeptical about religion to an irreligious atheist when there is no really no end purpose ?

johnydon22:


If nonexistence is a default state then God himself would also have to be nonexistent at some point. So if anything at all can exist then nonexistence cannot be assumed to be the default state.

Exactly, there is no argument for God that is not self-refuting or doesn't contain a non-sequitur. Kingebukasblog has brought up many such arguments and none of them have stood up to scrutiny.

KingEbukasBlog:


Of course . When a Christian is skeptical about Islam , he wants you to see that Christianity is the right religion ; when a Muslim is skeptical about Islam , he wants you to see that Islam is the right religion ; when a deist is skeptical about religion , he wants you to know that you can acknowledge God without religion . Now if an atheist is skeptical about religion , what does he want to achieve ?

you can't figure it out from the secessive line of reasons you just gave?

He wants to show you there can be life without religion, he also may want to show you that religious claims are untrue.

There are countless reasons one can give and you cannot tell me that you didn't imagine these reasons before writing the above

Therefore , there is no God? You see the problem ? He is entangled with the false position that God is within the purview of religion

someone atheist or not can talk about religion independent of the argument on the existence of God, just like a deist talking about religion.

The typical Nairaland atheist sees it this way . Of what use is being skeptical about religion to an irreligious atheist when there is no really no end purpose ?

there is always an end to the purpose as I have shown above.

If you advocate silence on matters of public concern why not do so by being silent to demonstrate its effectiveness.

That said an atheist may gain nothing by arguing against religions but religions have everything to lose.

So it may be someone speaking against a system they find quite degrading, it may be someone trying to straighten out inconsistencies in religious postulations or even addressing the preferencial treatment religion enjoys in the society.

These all are very valid reason.

Surely what ever anyone's reasons are you cannot deny they all have as much reason to argue about religion as much as much a Christian against Islam.

johnydon22:


My simple remark was that the lecture was not as simple as you'd hope it is. A beginning to time does not preclude an eternal cosmos as Carl Sagan put it. I wish this would be a ground for me to break this whole matter to very simple bits for everyone to understand.

Here is an interesting part of Hawkins talk

"If space and imaginary time are indeed like the surface of the Earth, there wouldn't be any singularities in the imaginary time direction, at which the laws of physics would break down. And there wouldn't be any boundaries, to the imaginary time space-time, just as there aren't any boundaries to the surface of the Earth. This absence of boundaries means that the laws of physics would determine the state of the universe uniquely, in imaginary time. But if one knows the state of the universe in imaginary time, one can calculate the state of the universe in real time. One would still expect some sort of Big Bang singularity in real time. So real time would still have a beginning. But one wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began. Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time. Thus, the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by anything outside the physical universe, that we observe. "

The universe is totally self contained and self sufficient. In Carl Sagan book the cosmos the fate of the universe is determined by the effects of gravity.

If the Big crunch is correct then there would be another Big bang after this universe when everything goes back to a singularity, therefore this Big bang was not the first or would it be the last but rather one out of an infinite circle of this universe.

I told you it wasnt as simple as you'd think







To this I'd just say Lol.

You agree with Hawkins lectures on the beginning of time and not the non-consequence of values outside the universe?

If you agree to Hawkins lecture then the universe as he also said is self contained and self sustained therefore needs no external sustainer.

If our time and space began at our big bang then you could also agree with us scientifically that anything outside our space/time is of no consequence inside our space/time therefore there cannot be such a thing as an external sustainer of reality its just a clutch to find a usefulness for God.

We'll discuss the whole of Hawkins lecture

He said that because he thought the universe created itself because of gravity and that since it created itself , it sustains itself . Mathematician and Scientist John Lennox handled that properly , he said :

Similarly, the laws of physics could never have actually built the universe. Some agency must have been involved.

To use a simple analogy, Isaac Newton's laws of motion in themselves never sent a snooker ball racing across the green baize. That can only be done by people using a snooker cue and the actions of their own arms.

Hawking's argument appears to me even more illogical when he says the existence of gravity means the creation of the universe was inevitable. But how did gravity exist in the first place? Who put it there? And what was the creative force behind its birth?

Similarly, when Hawking argues, in support of his theory of spontaneous creation, that it was only necessary for 'the blue touch paper' to be lit to 'set the universe going', the question must be: where did this blue touch paper come from? And who lit it, if not God?

Much of the rationale behind Hawking's argument lies in the idea that there is a deep-seated conflict between science and religion. But this is not a discord I recognise.

But contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions.

The summary simply is : There is no such thing as self contained , self sufficient universe .