Part 7 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

Because the evidence is there which is clearly the universe, nature, you and all other living and none living things exist and all this existence are clear evidence of an all powerful Being that created, design and started it all.

That is a theory base on mathematically observing and studying what is and are available evidences that could cause the origin of life and the universe it is the process as how God the ultimate designer and creator started everything from nothing. It is the experience of what we have learn and progresses through knowledge and understanding.

A. Einstein:
I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.

 

Great, I await reading your proof in a peer reviewed scientific journal. I mean, since it is based on math and "clear evidence", you should have no problem at all!

 

On the contrary you cannot 'disbelieve' something that you recognise as real - the qualities of your parents. You can only disagree with those qualities.

By the way you cannot 'disbelief' anything - you 'disbelieve'.

 

You wont get it. He is describing a "theory" and a theory cannot be proved. Of course, it is not even a theory.

 

Start here:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

Hubble found that stars are not uniformly distributed throughout space, but are gathered together in vast collections called galaxies. By measuring the light from galaxies, Hubble could determine their velocities. He was expecting that as many galaxies would be moving towards us as were moving away. This is what one would have in a universe that was unchanging with time. But to his surprise, Hubble found that nearly all the galaxies were moving away from us. Moreover, the further galaxies were from us, the faster they were moving away. The universe was not unchanging with time as everyone had thought previously. It was expanding. The distance between distant galaxies was increasing with time.

The expansion of the universe was one of the most important intellectual discoveries of the 20th century, or of any century. It transformed the debate about whether the universe had a beginning. If galaxies are moving apart now, they must have been closer together in the past. If their speed had been constant, they would all have been on top of one another about 15 billion years ago. Was this the beginning of the universe? Many scientists were still unhappy with the universe having a beginning because it seemed to imply that physics broke down. One would have to invoke an outside agency, which for convenience, one can call God, to determine how the universe began. They therefore advanced theories in which the universe was expanding at the present time, but didn't have a beginning. One was the Steady State theory, proposed by Bondi, Gold, and Hoyle in 1948.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
In physical cosmology, the age of the universe is the time elapsed since the Big Bang. The best measurement of the age of the universe is 13.798±0.037 billion years (13.798±0.037×109 years or 4.354±0.012×1017 seconds) within the Lambda-CDM concordance model.[1][2] The uncertainty of 37 million years has been obtained by the agreement of a number of scientific research projects, such as microwave background radiation measurements by the Planck satellite, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and other probes. Measurements of the cosmic background radiation give the cooling time of the universe since the Big Bang,[2] and measurements of the expansion rate of the universe can be used to calculate its approximate age by extrapolating backwards in time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Astronomy

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

It positioned the Sun near the center of the Universe, motionless, with Earth and the other planets rotating around it in circular paths modified by epicycles and at uniform speeds. The Copernican model departed from the Ptolemaic system that prevailed in Western culture for centuries, placing Earth at the center of the Universe, and is often regarded as the launching point to modern astronomy and the Scientific Revolution.[1]
As a university-trained Catholic priest dedicated to astronomy, Copernicus was acquainted with the Sun-centered cosmos of the ancient Greek Aristarchus. Although he circulated an outline of the heliocentric theory to colleagues decades earlier, the idea was largely forgotten until late in his life he was urged by a pupil to complete and publish a mathematically detailed account of his model. Copernicus's challenge was to present a practical alternative to the Ptolemaic model by more elegantly and accurately determining the length of a solar year while preserving the metaphysical implications of a mathematically ordered cosmos. Thus his heliocentric model retained several of the Ptolemaic elements causing the inaccuracies, such as the planets' circular orbits, epicycles, and uniform speeds,[1] while at the same time re-introducing such innovations as:
Earth is one of seven ordered planets in a solar system circling a stationary Sun
Earth has three motions: daily rotation, annual revolution, and annual tilting of its axis
Retrograde motion of the planets is explained by Earth's motion
Distance from Earth to the Sun is small compared to the distance to the stars.

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

 

A theory can be proven many searches and great scientist become great after establishing a theory a theory that would later either be proven wrong or correct. Already scientist that started with a theory about the God-particle now have proof that it exist the God-particle is no longer a theory. Soon scientist will discover that God is the great designer and creator of the universe the beginning of all that is why many scientist are now agreeing that nothing come from nothing there must be a designer just like men created the great telescope, smart cars, smart satellites etc. scientist know that none of those modern tools and gadgets created it self it involve human touch this would mean that humans can not have become humans with out a designer a creator a God.

 

You can disagree with your parents but you can not deny they exist.
You can always disbelief anything if you so chooses that is part of your free will you can even disbelieve it and insist that something that exist does not exist in direct contradiction to what is real in front of you it is call a state of denial.

 

... Did you seriously just post a page that debunks your entire "theory"? First off, the portion you quoted clearly says an outside cause of the Universe, which could be a natural force and not an omnipotent and omniscient deity that you're saying is required, could be equated with God.

Secondly, Hawking later goes on to say this:

And? How does this help your case?

Do you think that posting random links about astronomy helps your case?

How does any of this help your case?!

 

Yes and I did post that link the link from Hawking's own theory that he is having difficulty in disproving that no great designer started the universe. Read the sentence, many scientist are unhappy with their own theories because it points to a God so they continue to try to proof there is no such God but they are having difficulty with out contradicting their own position.

"Many scientists were still unhappy with the universe having a beginning because it seemed to imply that physics broke down. One would have to invoke an outside agency, which for convenience, one can call God, to determine how the universe began".

If it had a beginning, there would have to be someone to set the trains going. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity unified time and space as spacetime, but time was still different from space and was like a corridor, which either had a beginning and end, or went on forever. However, when one combines General Relativity with Quantum Theory, Jim Hartle and I realized that time can behave like another direction in space under extreme conditions. This means one can get rid of the problem of time having a beginning, in a similar way in which we got rid of the edge of the world.

It is not about helping my case because I believe God is the designer, this whole thing is more of trying to help your case to understand that nothing comes from nothing. Hawkins is THEORISING that time has no beginning "This means one can get rid of the problem of time having a beginning, in a similar way in which we got rid of the edge of the world" by removing the edge of the world time has to travel in a circle that has to meet at one end and end there but we know it does not end so this would mean it has to travel in a spiral circle which would mean where does it end? You travel from one end of the world to the other end you'll end up where you started is this what Hawking implying with time? If so you really accept that time has no beginning then this mean it is infinite and you'll keep on travelling not reaching your destination? One way or the other if time has no beginning as Hawking is theorising then this goes back to how did it begun?

Someone has to set the train going and that is God.

If you consider those links as random then you have problem not only with Christianity but also with science, if you can not accept your own science what else is there for you???

 

That isn't what the page says at all, so you clearly didn't read it. He says that some outside agent would be necessary, in which he clearly does not mean Jesus, if the Universe began at some point. But, he then dismisses that logic because it is meaningless to ask what "came before" time itself existed.

Man, that analogy went right over your head, didn't it? Look, here is what he is saying. We once thought the Earth was flat, right? Okay, when people did think this, many wondered what happened when you reached the end of the Earth. Did you fall off? Did you float into the sky? Once it was shown that the Earth was not flat, those questions became absolutely meaningless because obviously there was no end to the Earth at all. Likewise, he says that the question about what came "before" the Universe makes no sense because time began at the moment inflation of our Universe occurred. It's like asking what people used to connect to the Internet before the Internet even existed. It has nothing to do with time being a spiral or a circle.

Who says I don't accept science? I just don't see how links to Copernicus' model of our solar system, a link about Newton, one about the age of the Universe, and another about Galileo has anything to do with your claim that there is mathematical evidence for the existence of God. And the fact that you couldn't actually answer my question and instead slung insults says a lot about your intellectual honesty.

 

Your first comment has nothing to do with what you said in the beginning, or what I commented on.

Your second sentence is completely unintelligible.

Disbelief is a noun - Disbelieve is a verb. You do not 'disbelief' anything. You can, however, disbelieve something.

You cannot 'chooses' - You choose - you make a choice. HE chooses - He makes a choice.

Perhaps if you learnt (or if you come from the other side of the pond - learned) to punctuate your sentences we could understand.

I.E.
You can always disbelieve anything if you so choose. That is part of your free will. You can even disbelieve it and insist that something that exists does not exist, in direct contradiction to what is real in front of you. It is called 'a state of denial'.

Other slight variations could be made, but this makes sense.

 

And this is what Hawkings is trying to proof that time is limitless that somehow time started on its own and so far he can not proof that is the case because it will go back again to where and who.

It is a good thing you use the as an example and base on that is the earth limitless no it is a circle that has an end you start from one and and will end up at the the other end it is not a limitless circle unless it spiral on and on like a black hole and this is why Hawkings theory does not support that time is limitless or that there exist no great designer or a beginner to start time.

all those links proof that science or scientist have been using math to proof God.

 

The word is "prove" not "proof".

Science does not do proof. It does not prove things. "Proof" is for math, and alcohol.

It is impossible to prove or disprove god.

See if you can learn those few things.

 

No, that isn't what he was trying to prove. Where in the world did you get that idea?

You're the one that posted the bloody link in the first place. If you don't like that he refutes your God hypothesis, then why did you post it? And if you actually want to read Hawking and Hartle's theory, start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle–Hawking_state

Well, first off, yes, the Earth is a limitless sphere (a circle is a 2D shape). Do you know what a limit is?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/limit

Walking from one point on the Earth and ending up at the same point again isn't a limit.

Secondly, you obviously didn't understand what the purpose of the analogy Hawkings used and you obviously didn't take time to read my explanation of his analogy. So, go back, read my description of the analogy, then come back and discuss what I said.

...Black holes don't spiral, what the hell are you talking about? You are continually losing credibility by pretending you are knowledgeable about science.

Actually it does, sorry, that is what the entire page you posted is discussing for Pete's sake. This makes me question your reading and logic skills. Why would you post a page where Hawking says that his theory doesn't require a God when I ask you to back up your claim that a God has been proven with math?

Then you'd have no problem at pointing out where one of those pages describes a proof of God. How does a model of our solar system prove God? How does the age of the Universe prove God?

 

Lets see if he can grasp that a scientific theory cannot be proved. If he cant do that, these more advanced concepts are definitely beyond reach.

 

Here's a theory, how many courses does it take for 1 to be able to communicate effictively in a 2nd language?
Should someone who is a rookie in a 2nd language try and lecture others in their native language?

 

You really like beating your head against the wall?
You see the word God was in the writing, so of course that means the hebrew God he worships, not just a name given as that is what most call something outside the realm of human understanding. It could be alien forces from another universe for all anyone knows, but that just leads to more of the same.

 

Good thanks for those word check.
It is more impossible to disprove God and easier to prove God.

 

I certainly get my chances to lecture native English speakers in their own language.

 

Oh come now WR, even you know that if something is impossible, its just impossible, it cannot be more or less.
That is like being a little pregnant, or slightly dead.

Do you understand that it is impossible to prove a theory is correct? Do you understand why?

Any idea why the good Dr. would have said this, about his theories?

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." - Albert Einstein

 

I don't think you're a rookie.
Wanren can't even read english correctly and then he tries to tell us what it is he read and gets it completely backwards.

 

And yet, you're unable to do so. Instead, for some reason, you think posting theories that specifically say a God isn't required and Wiki articles about heliocentrism proves God.

 

True, I am not a rookie.
It is also true that ESL students very often know English better than the natives do.

 

First of all if you read there research it is all base on THEORIES not substantiated facts. And Yes, I posted those links with the hope that you'll understand how scientist are using mathematical calculations to prove or disprove the existence of God.
The solar system the universe is the basis that they have been using to prove or disprove God and so far the way the solar system and the universe is so well design that scientist are trying to find out who design it , who started it all or who push the on switch to get things going. And so far they can not find a definite answer as to who and at the same time their theories that it all started on its own or somehow there involves no God or designer is running contradictory to their own actual facts that everything start from something or by someone. And the proof is becoming more relevant with the creation of more sophisticated machinery and gadgets that can and are becoming self sustaining.

A simple experiment; a bucket of water and steer the water it will keep on going none stop until the person or machine stops the steering process makes the water goes on limitless which represent time. Stop steering it and the water will come to a stop. Or another great example is the Swiss mechanical watch a well created time piece that can run without battery but for it to start it needs first the human touch to get it going.

In our universe someone or somebody has to get time going and once it get started it become self automated and humans are the ones in charge to keep life going and expanding.