Theologians Think They’re Smarter Than Stephen Hawking

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist” – Stephen Hawking


Dr. Stephen Hawking, arguably one of the smartest human beings, alive or dead, declared that god did not create the universe and the “Big Bang” was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics. In his book, ”The Grand Design” (co-authored with U.S. physicist Leonard Mlodinow), Hawking stated that there exists a new series of theories that make a creator god redundant. By combining Albert Einstein’s Relativity Theory and Quantum Theory, Dr. Hawking states that the laws of physics mean it is simply not necessary to believe that God had intervened in the Big Bang.

The Peanut Gallery Strikes Back…
The “Religious Leaders” struck back before the ink was even dried, and this is where the sensibility stopped for many of the collective mass of humanity who blindly follow and readily agree with the consensus of theologians. Ah, Theologians… The jokers of the world of academia. People who have spent a sizeable chunk of their lives in the serious, educational pursuit to understand the inner workings of one of the oldest existing fairy tales. Many even have “doctorates” and are widely believed to be the experts of everything godly.


A Comparison…

Here’s a typical list of what topics are taught to a student of Theology, and keep in mind these topics are infected with religious indoctrination and ride on a hovercraft of superstition:

•Old Testament Survey
•Ancient Near Eastern Languages and Literature
•New Testament Survey
•History of Christianity
•Systematic Theology
•Philosophical and Moral Theology
•Pastoral Care
•Pastoral Leadership
•Preaching
•Worship
•Evangelism
•Educational Ministry
Now, here are a list of what Dr. Hawking had to learn to gain his doctorates in Theoretical Physics and Cosmology, not counting, of course, everything else he has learned, discovered or produced since gaining his doctorates:

•Black hole thermodynamics
•Classical mechanics
•Condensed matter physics
•Conservation of energy
•Dynamics
•Electromagnetism
•Field theory
•Fluid dynamics
•General relativity
•Molecular modeling
•Particle physics
•Physical cosmology
•Quantum chromodynamics
•Quantum computers
•Quantum electrochemistry
•Quantum electrodynamics
•Quantum field theory
•Quantum information theory
•Quantum mechanics
•Solid mechanics
•Solid state physics or Condensed Matter Physics and the electronic structure of materials
•Special relativity
•Standard Model
•Statistical mechanics
•Thermodynamics
•Causal Sets
•Dark energy or Einstein’s Cosmological Constant
•Einstein-Rosen Bridge
•Emergence
•Grand unification theory
•Loop quantum gravity
•M-theory
•String theory
•Supersymmetry
•Theory of everything
•Dynamic theory of gravity
•Luminiferous aether
•Scalar field theory
•Biefeld Brown Electrogravity
•History of the Universe
•Equations of motion
•Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric
•Positive cosmological constant
•Gravitation
•Radiation and matter content of the universe.
•Particle physics in cosmology
•Scattering processes and decay of unstable particles
•Timeline of the Big Bang
•Stars, quasars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies and superclusters
•The cosmological principle
•Magnetic monopoles
•Brane cosmology
•Antiparticles
•X-rays and gamma rays
•The baryon asymmetry and baryogenesis.
•CP-symmetry
•Nucleosynthesis
•The equivalence principle
•Neutrino physics.
•Cosmic microwaves
•Decoupling and Recombination
•Thomson scattering
•The thermal black-body spectrum.
•Cosmological perturbation theory
•COBE and WMAP
•Degree Angular Scale Interferometrics
•Cosmic Background Imaging
•The Lambda-CDM model
•The Sunyaev-Zel’dovich
•The Sachs-Wolfe effect
•Formation and evolution of large-scale structure
•Structure formation
•Galaxy formation and evolution
•The Sloan Digital Sky Survey
•The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey
•The Lyman alpha forest
•Dark matter
•Big Bang nucleosynthesis
•Dark energy
•The anthropic principle
Can I Get A Witness…?

So, there you have it, brothers and sisters. And people wonder why I laugh in the faces of Theologians and their “explanations.“
http://freethoughtblogs.com/alstefa...ns-think-theyre-smarter-than-stephen-hawking/

 

I read Hawking's latest book, and it's a good one. Although it's fairly short and intended for a general audience, it gets fairly abstract. There is some tough sledding involved. Except, of course, for our resident expert-in-everything theists who sailed through it with a breeze and dismissed cumulative scientific research and theory in favor of the fanciful teachings of flat-earther Bronze Age tribesmen.

 

People here on ET think they are smarter than Hawking, or the POTUS, or SCOTUS, or Warren Buffet, or George Soros......it's funny, that's why I come here for my daily jokes.

 

They also think they are smarter than all the world's science organizations and climatologists.

They must either be freekin' genius's or ....... ?

 

Grand Design” (co-authored with U.S. physicist Leonard Mlodinow), Hawking stated that there exists a new series of theories that make a creator god redundant.

Do you dumb bastards even know the difference between a theory and a fact? The man has a theory, a few of them. That's all well and good, but anyone claiming that this matter is even close to being settled science is a f'n idiot!

 

Try not to make the mistake of false equivalency as it relates to "theories." Quantum physics agrees with observation. As Hawking reported, it has never failed a test, and it has been tested more than any other theory in science. Whereas science endeavors to move forward by building upon the advances of history's great minds, theism seeks merely to revert to the past and stay there.

 

I'm guessing you also have a problem with the theory of gravitation?

The word theory has a completely different meaning in science than in regular language. A theory is (for all intents and purposes) an observable and repeatable result of an experiment that has hypothetical scenarios where it COULD be disproved, although nothing has disproved it yet.

 

Precisely. In science, disproven theories are discarded. Not so in theism, where the "theories" of choice are unfalsifiable. And so, some of these guys arrogantly dismiss what they do not understand in favor of stuff that seems to make more sense after a six-pack.

 

And using that same logic you have a problem with the theory of God. Spin your shit anyway you like, you cannot say with absolute certainty that your theory is right. Not unless you want to be in the same category as the religous zealots who claim that they are certain, Pot, meet kettle.
The more you guys worship at the alter of your wheel chair bound priest, the more you prove atheism to be a religion.

 

Bad example

Our latest sock puppet is correct. The scientific community has apparently changed the definition of theory. Unlike years ago today's scientists strut around like peacocks touting their latest theories as facts because they haven't been dis proven yet. Personally I liked the older definition of theory myself.