P.S. your science "god" Stephen Hawking once thought that time would reverse as the universe re-collapsed but eventually had to retract it. You probably would have bought that one too given how he's a "more intelligent mind," eh?
You're arguing - which is more plausible? The laws of physics or the existence of a creator God? Of course you don't have to accept or understand any of the physicists who explain how the laws of physics allow a universe to begin from nothing. You can of course just make up as much of your own personal version of pseudo-science as you wish to declare them wrong. The whole of physics and explanations of gravity can be so easily discarded with unintelligent revelations of intelligent falling. Reading your posts I'd say Gabfly has summed your position dead right. Dissing a physicist or two seems to be the bog standard method of approach in defense of God and a creator, which of course adds not a grain of understanding about the universe itself to the mass of knowledge provided by great physicists like Hawking over the centuries. Your alternative to the laws of physics, is for a necessary creator, who by laws of just the bleedin' obvious, would then necessarily need its own creator too. Makes Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot analogy strikingly apposite for no other reason than if fantasy creators why not fantasy teapots. At least teapots have the distinct advantage that they first have credibility for existing in reality. An infinite regress of imaginary creators creating each other , never addressing the begged question from whence a first one would arrive. Unless from nothing, thus destroying the premise "something can't come from nothing" before it starts. More plausible than the laws of physics? I don't think so.
You quoted my post but haven't disputed any of my points with anything other than haughty arrogance. Your ignorance of how little humans know has clouded your objectivity and you clearly don't know what you don't know. Stephen Hawking used to believe the universe would collapse on itself and that in doing so, time would reverse. Current thinking is it won't and Hawking has admitted he was wrong about the latter. You're a fool to think Stephen Hawking has any clue about how the universe formed. Which is more likely... that the following statement is true, or that Stephen is hawking his book? ANSWER THIS QUESTION. âbecause there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing..." Explain how, if there truly was "nothing," there existed a "law such as gravity" from which the universe spontaneously created itself. ANSWER THIS QUESTION. Explain how humans are in a position to proclaim that everything spontaneously formed from nothing when we don't even understand the nature and structure of the universe. ANSWER THIS QUESTION. The fact that 96% of the universe is currently thought to be "dark energy" and "dark matter" clearly makes the point that we're far from figuring everything out. This also explains why science "gods" like Hawking wildly change their views on things they're not in a position to explain. What are the odds they finally got it right? ANSWER THIS QUESTION. I'm not saying science is BS BTW. What's BS is when scientists speculate beyond the range of their understanding and competence and dullards like you take it as gospel.
...for what, so you can make another random inaccurate accusation like "You quoted my post but haven't disputed any of my points...." again? You're arguing - which is more plausible. The laws of physics or the existence of an imaginary creator God. Are you kidding?
Look what a zealout atheist like gabfly will do when confronted with science. His reaction is very typical for all leftists when confronted with reality.
That's not what I'm arguing dumbass. Of course you answered NONE of my questions which I conveniently marked for you. Because you can't.
Gayfly, is that a self-portrait of you believing that everything spontaneously created itself from nothing because Stephen Hawking said so?