Stephen Hawking has done it all - Page 3

General » General Discussion

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Stephen Hawking has done it all (Page 3 of 4)

Posted: 3/19/2013 8:11:41 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

Quoted:
There. Is. No. God. We'll never advance to our full potential as a species until we get over this nonsense.

I wonder if when the day comes, when you know that you are dying, will you still say and think that?

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Lots of folks get chickenshit at the end. I probably will, too. That doesn't mean that there is anything out there. It just means that we tell ourselves what makes us feel better when we need to. Oblivion is more than a disquieting concept to me. It is an absolute terror.

Posted: 3/19/2013 8:12:26 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Romans 1

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Well, now that it's all explained this thread is over.

Posted: 3/19/2013 8:14:33 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Sad that he would be egotistical enough to say that. You cannot prove there is no God, as you would have to prove that God doesn't exist not only in the observable universe and dimensions in which we exist, but outside them - which science, and even logic, plainly cannot do.

It's what happens when you start reading and believing your own press....hubris.

Posted: 3/19/2013 8:17:27 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:
There. Is. No. God. We'll never advance to our full potential as a species until we get over this nonsense.

Explain the advantages of a modern, high-tech god-less society.

The only ones we've seen so far has been Communist countries and the Third Reich.
How do you plan to morally root a godless society to prevent the atrocities and cruelty seen so far every god free nation?

Instead of giving you an answer that you are too close minded to accept, I'll just go talk to my imaginary friend on a cloud.

I'll take that as " I have no clue how to base a Free Society, or even avoid a blood bath without a religious foundation for the masses."

And what liar told you I'm an Abrahamic monotheist?

Posted: 3/19/2013 8:22:57 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I watched that stuff last night too.
He didn't say he proved there was no god, he said one wasn't necessary for the creation of the universe.

Nope. He said there was no God because there was no time for a God to exist in before the Big Bang. In fact, since time did not exist before the Big Bang, there was no before the Big Bang.

I was curious to know how he knew that there wasn't another space time before the Big Bang, say like in another universe, in which a God could have existed, but I am not as smart as him so I left it alone. He's said that he has disproven the existence of God before too.

Wow. I'm sorry Steve, but the fact that you can't see the critical, obvious flaw in all that is a little disappointing. I would advise more discretion on who you choose to blindly follow before making such weighty decisions as the one whether or not to believe in God.

Better yet, don't blindly follow anyone

Send your sarcasm meter back and get a refund. If you can't tell that I was mocking Dr. Hawking's foolish arrogance, then you're sarcasm meter is fundamentally defective and useful only as a paperweight.

DAMN you Steve

For the record, I had just woken up when I wrote that...I have the older Sarco-meter 2000, so it takes about an hour to warm up

Posted: 3/19/2013 8:23:28 AM EDT

[#6]

Posted: 3/19/2013 8:23:58 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:
There. Is. No. God. We'll never advance to our full potential as a species until we get over this nonsense.

Explain the advantages of a modern, high-tech god-less society.

The only ones we've seen so far has been Communist countries and the Third Reich.
How do you plan to morally root a godless society to prevent the atrocities and cruelty seen so far every god free nation?

Instead of giving you an answer that you are too close minded to accept, I'll just go talk to my imaginary friend on a cloud.

Ok troll.....show empirical scientific evidence to back up your claim that there is no God.

Posted: 3/19/2013 8:27:40 AM EDT

[#8]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_k-MZcjCFI

Posted: 3/19/2013 8:28:19 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:
There. Is. No. God. We'll never advance to our full potential as a species until we get over this nonsense.

Explain the advantages of a modern, high-tech god-less society.

The only ones we've seen so far has been Communist countries and the Third Reich.
How do you plan to morally root a godless society to prevent the atrocities and cruelty seen so far every god free nation?

Instead of giving you an answer that you are too close minded to accept, I'll just go talk to my imaginary friend on a cloud.

Ok troll.....show empirical scientific evidence to back up your claim that there is no God.

It is impossible to prove a negative. We do have empirical and scientific evidence that the creation of the cosmos does not need a deity. There is the same evidence for the existence of god as there is for the tooth fairy, santa clause, and a tea kettle orbiting the moon.

Posted: 3/19/2013 8:33:06 AM EDT

[#10]

hawking sounds like all the guys I used to know that came up with these astounding pontifications while they were on acid.

Where does he come up with all this shit?

What makes him so much smarter than all the rest of the smart folks out there?

Posted: 3/19/2013 8:34:06 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
I'm smarter than most of you because i have this on my coffee table.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a3/BriefHistoryTime.jpg

I'm going to read it some day too.

Don't waste your time. A significant portion of it has been disproven. You would be learning about things which are not correct.

I read it and took it as fact when younger... then along came 'the paper'...

Posted: 3/19/2013 8:37:07 AM EDT

[#12]

Posted: 3/19/2013 8:37:16 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
hawking sounds like all the guys I used to know that came up with these astounding pontifications while they were on acid.

Where does he come up with all this shit?

What makes him so much smarter than all the rest of the smart folks out there?

Years of devotion to quantum physics and cosmology. That branch may seem wacky but they have been the first to theorize, then prove, many scientific discoveries. The universe is a very strange place and is not cut and dry as it may seem. What if I told you empty place ("nothing") has measurable weight? That it actually has energy? That it is so inherently unstable that the "nothing" would eventually lead to the creation of particles?

Posted: 3/19/2013 8:45:35 AM EDT

[#14]

At least we got bombs out of Einstein.

Something useful.

Hawkings? Not so much.

Posted: 3/19/2013 8:46:34 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:
There. Is. No. God. We'll never advance to our full potential as a species until we get over this nonsense.

I wonder if when the day comes, when you know that you are dying, will you still say and think that?

Maybe those gleefully suffering from dogma block can get this nonetheless: Those intellectuals who, on their death beds turn to [G]od, are doing so for one of two reasons: 1) Hallucination--narcotics make people do that, or 2) for the benefit of the believing survivors--so that they don't live the rest of their days believing uncle Joe burns in hell forever.

Posted: 3/19/2013 8:54:37 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:
In the last hour he's proved that there is no God and explained the meaning of life.

So I guess all that there is left is for us to go get some beers then eh?

Give it a few years... he will be proven wrong.... again

But not a single shred of evidence of God's existence has been ever shown to counter the argument.

At least not shown in your life time.

There is a saying. Just because you never seen a billion dollars doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just sayin.

Posted: 3/19/2013 8:57:21 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
There. Is. No. God. We'll never advance to our full potential as a species until we get over this nonsense.

Explain the advantages of a modern, high-tech god-less society.

The only ones we've seen so far has been Communist countries and the Third Reich.
How do you plan to morally root a godless society to prevent the atrocities and cruelty seen so far every god free nation?

Instead of giving you an answer that you are too close minded to accept, I'll just go talk to my imaginary friend on a cloud.

Ok troll.....show empirical scientific evidence to back up your claim that there is no God.

Posted: 3/19/2013 8:59:11 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:
There. Is. No. God. We'll never advance to our full potential as a species until we get over this nonsense.

Explain the advantages of a modern, high-tech god-less society.

The only ones we've seen so far has been Communist countries and the Third Reich.
How do you plan to morally root a godless society to prevent the atrocities and cruelty seen so far every god free nation?

Instead of giving you an answer that you are too close minded to accept, I'll just go talk to my imaginary friend on a cloud.

Ok troll.....show empirical scientific evidence to back up your claim that there is no God.

It is impossible to prove a negative. We do have empirical and scientific evidence that the creation of the cosmos does not need a deity. There is the same evidence for the existence of god as there is for the tooth fairy, santa clause, and a tea kettle orbiting the moon.

You see..that's the problem with evangelical atheists.....they will make absolute statements like "THERE IS NO GOD!!11!!" and when asked for proof of that absolute..the answer is always "can't prove a negative" you become what you despise.

Posted: 3/19/2013 9:00:34 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:
There. Is. No. God. We'll never advance to our full potential as a species until we get over this nonsense.

Explain the advantages of a modern, high-tech god-less society.

The only ones we've seen so far has been Communist countries and the Third Reich.
How do you plan to morally root a godless society to prevent the atrocities and cruelty seen so far every god free nation?

Instead of giving you an answer that you are too close minded to accept, I'll just go talk to my imaginary friend on a cloud.

Ok troll.....show empirical scientific evidence to back up your claim that there is no God.

http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/8/81/Teapot.png

Anything from that retard Dawkins is suspect.....at best.

Posted: 3/19/2013 9:04:46 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:
There. Is. No. God. We'll never advance to our full potential as a species until we get over this nonsense.

Explain the advantages of a modern, high-tech god-less society.

The only ones we've seen so far has been Communist countries and the Third Reich.
How do you plan to morally root a godless society to prevent the atrocities and cruelty seen so far every god free nation?

Instead of giving you an answer that you are too close minded to accept, I'll just go talk to my imaginary friend on a cloud.

Ok troll.....show empirical scientific evidence to back up your claim that there is no God.

http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/8/81/Teapot.png

Anything from that retard Dawkins is suspect.....at best.

Your Poisoning the well fallacy aside, Russell's Teapot explained:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.

But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Posted: 3/19/2013 9:14:46 AM EDT

[#21]

There are a lot of fine Christian gentlemen in this thread. Good job on further supporting a stereotype.

Posted: 3/19/2013 9:15:58 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Your Poisoning the well fallacy aside, Russell's Teapot explained:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.

But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Comparing God to a teapot is one of the best (if not the best) demonstrations of the New Atheism's profound, mind-numbing ignorance regarding anything of a philosophical nature. It's something I would expect from a 5th grader perhaps (no offense to 5th graders--you're still learning, so it's ok!).

Posted: 3/19/2013 9:19:39 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
In the last hour he's proved that there is no God and explained the meaning of life.

So I guess all that there is left is for us to go get some beers then eh?

42?

(didn't read the thread to see if someone beat me to it)

Posted: 3/19/2013 9:24:10 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
hawking sounds like all the guys I used to know that came up with these astounding pontifications while they were on acid.

Where does he come up with all this shit?

What makes him so much smarter than all the rest of the smart folks out there?

Years of devotion to quantum physics and cosmology. That branch may seem wacky but they have been the first to theorize, then prove, many scientific discoveries. The universe is a very strange place and is not cut and dry as it may seem. What if I told you empty place ("nothing") has measurable weight? That it actually has energy? That it is so inherently unstable that the "nothing" would eventually lead to the creation of particles?

Sorry, but a quantum vacuum (as well as gravity) do not = nothing. Nothing = nothing. So you're stuck with either an actual infinite or a finitude from a state of actual nothingness (not this nonsense definition Hawking gives). If you accept the former, then you run into the problems elucidated in Hilbert's Hotel; if you go with the latter, then you are left without an ultimate explanation and the atheistic hypothesis suffers for it.

Posted: 3/19/2013 9:26:32 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Your Poisoning the well fallacy aside, Russell's Teapot explained:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.

But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Comparing God to a teapot is one of the best (if not the best) demonstrations of the New Atheism's profound, mind-numbing ignorance regarding anything of a philosophical nature. It's something I would expect from a 5th grader perhaps (no offense to 5th graders--you're still learning, so it's ok!).

Reading comprehension is fundamental. I did not compare God to a teapot. Rather, I utilized Russell's teapot to refute the attempt to shift the burden of proof for the non-existence of a god onto the skeptic.

Posted: 3/19/2013 9:28:15 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
There are a lot of fine Christian gentlemen in this thread. Good job on further supporting a stereotype.

Sort of like the evangelical atheists eh?...or is your "outrage" selective?

Posted: 3/19/2013 9:28:51 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Your Poisoning the well fallacy aside, Russell's Teapot explained:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.

But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Comparing God to a teapot is one of the best (if not the best) demonstrations of the New Atheism's profound, mind-numbing ignorance regarding anything of a philosophical nature. It's something I would expect from a 5th grader perhaps (no offense to 5th graders--you're still learning, so it's ok!).

Reading comprehension is fundamental. I did not compare God to a teapot. Rather, I utilized Russell's teapot to refute the attempt to shift the burden of proof for the non-existence of a god onto the skeptic.

I agree that reading comprehension is fundamental, as you so clearly demonstrated. Notice that I was not addressing you, but rather the New Atheism.

Posted: 3/19/2013 9:30:54 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Your Poisoning the well fallacy aside, Russell's Teapot explained:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.

But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Comparing God to a teapot is one of the best (if not the best) demonstrations of the New Atheism's profound, mind-numbing ignorance regarding anything of a philosophical nature. It's something I would expect from a 5th grader perhaps (no offense to 5th graders--you're still learning, so it's ok!).

Reading comprehension is fundamental. I did not compare God to a teapot. Rather, I utilized Russell's teapot to refute the attempt to shift the burden of proof for the non-existence of a god onto the skeptic.

You see..that's the problem...Most Christians know that the existence of God is not provable through science....that is why we call it "faith" However you have folks here saying that science has proved the non existence of God......without proof.

Posted: 3/19/2013 9:31:07 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Maybe the little fuck can tell me why when I pour my damn coffee in the morning it runs uphill upside down on the pot and all over the counter

Surface tension.

Posted: 3/19/2013 9:31:13 AM EDT

[#30]

Do you remember what it was like before you were born? No? That's a shame because that's what happens when you die.

Posted: 3/19/2013 9:33:38 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Your Poisoning the well fallacy aside, Russell's Teapot explained:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.

But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Comparing God to a teapot is one of the best (if not the best) demonstrations of the New Atheism's profound, mind-numbing ignorance regarding anything of a philosophical nature. It's something I would expect from a 5th grader perhaps (no offense to 5th graders--you're still learning, so it's ok!).

Reading comprehension is fundamental. I did not compare God to a teapot. Rather, I utilized Russell's teapot to refute the attempt to shift the burden of proof for the non-existence of a god onto the skeptic.

I agree that reading comprehension is fundamental, as you so clearly demonstrated. Notice that I was not addressing you, but rather the New Atheism.

And incorrectly so, as I will demonstrate again. The syllogism I posted is not an attempt at "comparing God to a teapot", rather it is a specific refutation of an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

Posted: 3/19/2013 9:35:22 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Your Poisoning the well fallacy aside, Russell's Teapot explained:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.

But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Comparing God to a teapot is one of the best (if not the best) demonstrations of the New Atheism's profound, mind-numbing ignorance regarding anything of a philosophical nature. It's something I would expect from a 5th grader perhaps (no offense to 5th graders--you're still learning, so it's ok!).

Reading comprehension is fundamental. I did not compare God to a teapot. Rather, I utilized Russell's teapot to refute the attempt to shift the burden of proof for the non-existence of a god onto the skeptic.

You see..that's the problem...Most Christians know that the existence of God is not provable through science....that is why we call it "faith" However you have folks here saying that science has proved the non existence of God......without proof.

Except that's not what happened. Hawkings merely indicated that, in order for the universe to come in to being, a God is not necessary. The known physical, measurable properties of the universe are sufficient to infer and describe its genesis.

Posted: 3/19/2013 9:50:17 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:
In the last hour he's proved that there is no God and explained the meaning of life.

So I guess all that there is left is for us to go get some beers then eh?

Give it a few years... he will be proven wrong.... again

But not a single shred of evidence of God's existence has been ever shown to counter the argument.

You sir, are forgetting the banana.

Posted: 3/19/2013 9:54:42 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Your Poisoning the well fallacy aside, Russell's Teapot explained:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.

But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Comparing God to a teapot is one of the best (if not the best) demonstrations of the New Atheism's profound, mind-numbing ignorance regarding anything of a philosophical nature. It's something I would expect from a 5th grader perhaps (no offense to 5th graders--you're still learning, so it's ok!).

Reading comprehension is fundamental. I did not compare God to a teapot. Rather, I utilized Russell's teapot to refute the attempt to shift the burden of proof for the non-existence of a god onto the skeptic.

You see..that's the problem...Most Christians know that the existence of God is not provable through science....that is why we call it "faith" However you have folks here saying that science has proved the non existence of God......without proof.

Except that's not what happened. Hawkings merely indicated that, in order for the universe to come in to being, a God is not necessary. The known physical, measurable properties of the universe are sufficient to infer and describe its genesis.

"There. Is. No. God. We'll never advance to our full potential as a species until we get over this nonsense." is this not an absolute statement?

I wasn't addressing Hawking's statement...I was addressing "Keep moving the goalpost" position....which is what the evangelical atheists are accusing believers of doing....and then go on to do exactly....that.

Posted: 3/19/2013 10:06:20 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:
There are a lot of fine Christian gentlemen in this thread. Good job on further supporting a stereotype.

Sort of like the evangelical atheists eh?...or is your "outrage" selective?

According to you, athiests have no moral compass. So, who is breaking thier own rules again?

Posted: 3/19/2013 10:11:25 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:
There are a lot of fine Christian gentlemen in this thread. Good job on further supporting a stereotype.

Sort of like the evangelical atheists eh?...or is your "outrage" selective?

According to you, athiests have no moral compass. So, who is breaking thier own rules again?

I defy you to find where I made such a statement...and when you don't find it...admit you are wrong.

Posted: 3/19/2013 10:19:44 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Do you remember what it was like before you were born? No? That's a shame because that's what happens when you die.

I don't remember the 4 years after high school either.

Posted: 3/19/2013 10:24:52 AM EDT

[#38]

Posted: 3/19/2013 10:32:07 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:
There are a lot of fine Christian gentlemen in this thread. Good job on further supporting a stereotype.

Sort of like the evangelical atheists eh?...or is your "outrage" selective?

According to you, athiests have no moral compass. So, who is breaking thier own rules again?

I defy you to find where I made such a statement...and when you don't find it...admit you are wrong.

I am not wasting my time going through your countless inane posts slamming athiests. You are the epitome of why people think Christians are hypocrites.

and before you respond with the typical "so you don't have an argument", grow up. You're not that important.

Posted: 3/19/2013 10:36:19 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:
There are a lot of fine Christian gentlemen in this thread. Good job on further supporting a stereotype.

Sort of like the evangelical atheists eh?...or is your "outrage" selective?

According to you, athiests have no moral compass. So, who is breaking thier own rules again?

I defy you to find where I made such a statement...and when you don't find it...admit you are wrong.

I am not wasting my time going through your countless inane posts slamming athiests. You are the epitome of why people think Christians are hypocrites.

and before you respond with the typical "so you don't have an argument", grow up. You're not that important.

LMAO..figured that much. You accuse me of a statement..I call you on it..you deflect.

btw...how exactly does this conversation make me a hypocrite?

Posted: 3/19/2013 10:46:49 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
Lot's of butthurt bible thumpers here. Good, let the butthurt flow through you.

Now time for a second round of laughing

Your unbelief will never trump my faith - your not that smart

Posted: 3/19/2013 10:49:39 AM EDT

[#42]

It's nice to see that there are a few people here that understand the 'burden of proof' concept here.

It's very sad to see that there are so many people that still think it's possible to prove a negative.

Posted: 3/19/2013 10:50:23 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

LMAO..figured that much. You accuse me of a statement..I call you on it..you deflect.

btw...how exactly does this conversation make me a hypocrite?

Yes, wow, you 'got' me.

No one said it was only THIS conversation.

Have blessed day, and be sure you keep that chip on your shoulder. It is so Christlike.

Posted: 3/19/2013 10:51:57 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I watched that stuff last night too.
He didn't say he proved there was no god, he said one wasn't necessary for the creation of the universe.

Nope. He said there was no God because there was no time for a God to exist in before the Big Bang. In fact, since time did not exist before the Big Bang, there was no before the Big Bang.

I was curious to know how he knew that there wasn't another space time before the Big Bang, say like in another universe, in which a God could have existed, but I am not as smart as him so I left it alone. He's said that he has disproven the existence of God before too.

and yet like most everyone else, he counts by GODS time Anno Domini :)

Posted: 3/19/2013 10:54:30 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I watched that stuff last night too.

He didn't say he proved there was no god, he said one wasn't necessary for the creation of the universe.

Nope. He said there was no God because there was no time for a God to exist in before the Big Bang. In fact, since time did not exist before the Big Bang, there was no before the Big Bang.

I was curious to know how he knew that there wasn't another space time before the Big Bang, say like in another universe, in which a God could have existed, but I am not as smart as him so I left it alone. He's said that he has disproven the existence of God before too.

and yet like most everyone else, he counts by GODS time Anno Domini :)

Nope. It's called the Common Era now.

Posted: 3/19/2013 10:57:59 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I watched that stuff last night too.
He didn't say he proved there was no god, he said one wasn't necessary for the creation of the universe.

Nope. He said there was no God because there was no time for a God to exist in before the Big Bang. In fact, since time did not exist before the Big Bang, there was no before the Big Bang.

I was curious to know how he knew that there wasn't another space time before the Big Bang, say like in another universe, in which a God could have existed, but I am not as smart as him so I left it alone. He's said that he has disproven the existence of God before too.

and yet like most everyone else, he counts by GODS time Anno Domini :)

Nope. It's called the Common Era now.

Who says that? everyone I know is still saying 2013 which still means 2013 years since God was born in flesh on Earth.
Call it what you want, your still counting on Gods time :)

Posted: 3/19/2013 10:59:25 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I watched that stuff last night too.

He didn't say he proved there was no god, he said one wasn't necessary for the creation of the universe.

Nope. He said there was no God because there was no time for a God to exist in before the Big Bang. In fact, since time did not exist before the Big Bang, there was no before the Big Bang.

I was curious to know how he knew that there wasn't another space time before the Big Bang, say like in another universe, in which a God could have existed, but I am not as smart as him so I left it alone. He's said that he has disproven the existence of God before too.

and yet like most everyone else, he counts by GODS time Anno Domini :)

Nope. It's called the Common Era now.

Who says that? everyone I know is still saying 2013 which still means 2013 years since God was born in flesh on Earth.

Call it what you want, your still counting on Gods time :)

They've eliminated AD. This year, according to science is 2013 CE. My last history book for college had every date in CE instead of AD.

Posted: 3/19/2013 11:03:06 AM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I watched that stuff last night too.
He didn't say he proved there was no god, he said one wasn't necessary for the creation of the universe.

Nope. He said there was no God because there was no time for a God to exist in before the Big Bang. In fact, since time did not exist before the Big Bang, there was no before the Big Bang.

I was curious to know how he knew that there wasn't another space time before the Big Bang, say like in another universe, in which a God could have existed, but I am not as smart as him so I left it alone. He's said that he has disproven the existence of God before too.

and yet like most everyone else, he counts by GODS time Anno Domini :)

Nope. It's called the Common Era now.

Who says that? everyone I know is still saying 2013 which still means 2013 years since God was born in flesh on Earth.
Call it what you want, your still counting on Gods time :)

They've eliminated AD. This year, according to science is 2013 CE. My last history book for college had every date in CE instead of AD.

Steve your missing the point in what I said. You, no matter WHAT you want to call it, ARE counting based on the number of years since Jesus birth. Doesn't matter if you say common era, before common era, or steves awesome time, its ALL based from the year Jesus was born.

so like I said, Hawking is counting by Gods time.

its just a fact.

(ETA: look up "common era's" origin and its religious as well so I guess my statement is true lol)

Posted: 3/19/2013 11:03:40 AM EDT

[#49]

The spectacular ignorance on this thread reminds me ofthis.

Posted: 3/19/2013 11:11:26 AM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:

Quoted:

LMAO..figured that much. You accuse me of a statement..I call you on it..you deflect.

btw...how exactly does this conversation make me a hypocrite?

Yes, wow, you 'got' me.

No one said it was only THIS conversation.

Have blessed day, and be sure you keep that chip on your shoulder. It is so Christlike.

It seems when the "burden of proof " is placed on you, it's a different deal ain't it?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Stephen Hawking has done it all (Page 3 of 4)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us