Like I wrote, lot's of holes in that theory. Quote taken from the linked article points it out. "Similarly, when Hawking argues, in support of his theory of spontaneous creation, that it was only necessary for âthe blue touch paperâ to be lit to âset the universe goingâ, the question must be: where did this blue touch paper come from? And who lit it, if not God?" http://www.danielspratlin.com/2010/09/03/the-universe-cannot-be-explained-without-god/
think you'll find his quote says ... "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
I don't argue about Religion that much... what the heck, Jesus is my buddy and redeemer and he guides my steps.. He's not guiding me into arguments that much I guess... but wow, I really am tired of this absolutely phony "science" where they say they calibrate the strata by the geologic column and they say [elsewhere, it has to be elsewhere or people would catch on] that they calibrate the geologic column by the strata... nothing is calibrated in a system with circular reasoning like that, nothing at all, outside of fantasy land... the definition of calibration is "comparison to a known standard" [hint: there aren't any known standards, it's all conjecture with trappings of sciene] further, people checked, 70 to 80% of actual measurements are thrown out because they don't fit the resulting ginned up world view... and they can get @ssholes to go on television and radio and teach this stuff in classrooms ad nauseum ad infinitum proclaiming that they are "science" and should be taken seriously... what a joke, I'd laugh were it not so incredibly destructive to the minds that believe it...
I stand corrected. I am shocked that a man of religion which wrote the article I linked would twist a quote just to make his point. Shocked I tell you. That aside, I still say you can't get something from nothing, but have to admit my argument was made weaker by quoting some dumbass preacher.
I am sorry but the argument that god does not exist because we are not able to prove his existence by science is completly bogus. We know so little, until hundred years ago, we humans were still using leaches for bloodletting to cure illness. In the late 1800's US congress wanted to close the patent office because they felt science was sufficiently advanced and there was nothing else to discover. I would argue we have discovered less than 1% of knowledge. Lets be humble and not take our scientific accomplisments too seriously. 100 years from people will look back at 2010 and laugh at us, how ignorant and naive we were. I see god all around us. once our science is sufficiently advance we will know god. In the meantime have some wonderment and amazement, don't take yourself too seriously.
An atheist who converts to a "believer at age 33" as a result of a "personal experience" and yet today states that he is a "believer but open to other ideas." I started of as an atheist, then had a profound epiphany that changed me from an atheist to "a believer" but wait, not so fast, today I still remain a "believer" while being "open to other ideas."
the only problem with that is that as science advances the "god did it"explainations become more silly and childish. no scientific revelation in the last 200 years has shown any evidence of a god. on the contrary. all evidence points to no supernatural beings.
this is a tricky quote and needs to be explained. How so? Are you referring to strings intersecting? In which case where were they... in a different universe? Which therefore begs the question of creation and is an unprovable theory at this point.