I Know That God Does Not Exist

I understand your feelings on this but being wrong is part of the process. Until the experimenters found Higgs's Boson, no one knew whether he was right or wrong about it - even him. If it wasn't there he'd be devastated but no-one would think he was wrong in trying.Newton was as mad as a sack of monkeys most of the time, being wrong about alchemy (and god) but he was mostly right about gravity. The bit he got wrong Einstein fixed, but he then got his sums wrong too with his cosmological constant - and seemingly regretted it ever after.It's a different kind of wrong to the way creationists are wrong though. It's a misstep on a long developmental road. Creationism is going nowhere but backwards.A mate of mine did a PhD and proved all his original ideas for it wrong. He was still awarded the PhD because often proving something to be wrong is a necessary step in understanding the next step. Best if you prove yourself wrong tho'It's harsh, but necessary because some ideas are just wrong when tested. That's how knowledge grows.

No. Don't be ridiculous, if I could I wouldn't be here and you couldn't possibly understand it.

I said that Hawking and others believes that the universe creates itself. Like you, I haven't a clue.The only way either of us can understand this high level cosmology is by having the same level of mathematical understanding as they have - or something close to it. I don't have it and neither do you. Hawking published his work you know - and I don't mean his popular science books, I mean his hard research, if you really want to know about it, go read it and show where he's wrong. Good luck with that.All I'm doing here is pointing out that you are a liar when you continue to say that Hawking believed in a creator.Also Krauss

quote:

---

A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing is a non-fiction book by the physicist Lawrence M. Krauss, initially published on January 10, 2012 by Free Press. It discusses modern cosmogony and its implications for the debate about the existence of God. The main theme of the book is how "we have discovered that all signs suggest a universe that could and plausibly did arise from a deeper nothinginvolving the absence of space itself andwhich may one day return to nothing via processes that may not only be comprehensible but also processes that do not require any external control or direction."[1][2]

---

A Universe from Nothing - WikipediaKrauss is as rabid an atheist as I am, does he belive in a creator too?Attempting to recruit celebrity cosmologists into your belief system that don't share your beliefs at all is dishonest and you know it.If you're at all interested my position on all this is best summed up by Sorensen"To explain why something exists, we standardly appeal to the existence of something else... For instance, if we answer 'There is something because the Universal Designer wanted there to be something', then our explanation takes for granted the existence of the Universal Designer. Someone who poses the question in a comprehensive way will not grant the existence of the Universal Designer as a starting point. If the explanation cannot begin with some entity, then it is hard to see how any explanation is feasible. Some philosophers conclude 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' is unanswerable. They think the question stumps us by imposing an impossible explanatory demand, namely, 'Deduce the existence of something without using any existential premises'. Logicians should feel no more ashamed of their inability to perform this deduction than geometers should feel ashamed at being unable to square the circle." Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

None of those things make any sense to non-cosmologists. A universe existing forever is not understandable and neither is one popping into existence by itself. Something causing it to happen - your's or somebody else's god - does not help us either as it simply creates an infinite regress of what created the god.The question can not be answered. The concept of 'nothing' makes no sense to us. There is nothing outside the universe yet the universe is expanding into it. We do not have the tools to understand, but that's no reason to irrational invent a uncased, cause let alone grovel on your knees to worship it. That's pagan superstition. Which is not A Creator is it?

So what caused the uncaused cause ICANT?

Where did that god come from ICANT? Where did the ,existing energy come from?

You just doubled your problem. Declaring them eternal doesn't solve anything. Two uncaused causes.

Right, so what created his universe?

Like you, that would be all of it.'Eternal' makes as much sense as 'nothing'. Neither have meaning, both are human inventions that we can't understand using normal language, and in your case you just plonk a god in there so that you don't have to think further about it. The uncaused cause - just further back.

I heard that some bloke said something weird to a few other blokes about 2,000 years ago. Sadly the first bloke got himself killed by upsetting the local bosses.That would have been the end of that except that 300 years later a pagan Roman emperor decided it would be good politics to create a new religion to join his territories together.The rest is, well, you know the rest. A lot of people reckon Allah did it. But it might have been Ik Onkar?

That's one big problem.wwjd doesn't seem to be a question they ask themselves.

It's not Ringo's hypothesis is it? It's Jesus's teaching. It's what he asks of his followers.You know what he says, it's in your book, but you can't do it so you pretend to yourself that it wasn't what he said.
​ It's impossible to imagine in today's society. That's why you pretend Christians try to ignore it. But it's what Jesus asks of you.His way was supposed to be hard wasn't it? How can you believe what you believe but ignore this because it's hard?

Yes, the ethics of abortion are not restricted to those with religious beliefs. It's concerns us all.I have to say that I'm personally uncomfortable with the current situation where we devolve the decision to the woman's right to choose and arbitrary time periods.

I don't have any. Some problems don't have simple answers, but I'm uncomfortable ending life for convenience.
One day we'll look back on these practices and shudder.

I'm pretty sure it is. But I guess it depends what you think 'convenience' means.