I Know That God Does Not Exist

Why would you assume that based on what I said?I said, 'There is no "answer that I want".' How does that suggest that I have an answer? At the present time, there is no way to know anything about T=0. T=0 is not even a concept.

No, he believed in science and in the ability of the human mind to figure out its own answers. How is this different from assuming that Humans are our own Creators in the sense that it is we who decide our destiny?

Humans obviously ARE our own creators but only in the obvious sense. What has creating our own destiny got to do with 'Creation'.

Because we become the decisions that we make. You claim that it is a harmful teaching to follow Christ. Look at this Bible Study and tell med where it gives bad advice:

quote:

---

Be Coachable

​

Casey Seymour, a successful soccer player and coach, notes that everyone on his team hates the 10-by-100 drill that ends practice. Before the men can leave the field, they must run 100 yards 10 times at full speed with minimal rest. If they don’t beat a prescribed time, they have to do it again.

​

The players hate ituntil the day of the game. Then they find that they can play at full capacity for the entire match. Their effort has been rewarded with a championship!

​

The apostle Paul used metaphors of training and competition in his letters. While he was a missionary to the Gentiles, he submitted to the instructions and drills of God amid great suffering and hardship. Twice in Philippians 4, he said, I have learned (vv.11-12). For him, and for each of us, following Jesus is a lifelong learning process. We are not spiritually mature the day we are saved, any more than a schoolboy athlete is ready for professional soccer. We grow in faith as we allow God through His Word and the Holy Spirit to empower us to serve Him.

​

Through hardship, Paul learned to serve God welland so can we. It’s not pleasant, but it is rewarding! The more teachable we are, the more mature we will become. As members of Christ’s team, let’s be coachable.

​

Philippians 4:10-19 NLT
How I praise the Lord that you are concerned about me again. I know you have always been concerned for me, but you didn’t have the chance to help me. Not that I was ever in need, for I have learned how to be content with whatever I have. I know how to live on almost nothing or with everything. I have learned the secret of living in every situation, whether it is with a full stomach or empty, with plenty or little. For I can do everything through Christ, who gives me strength. Even so, you have done well to share with me in my present difficulty. As you know, you Philippians were the only ones who gave me financial help when I first brought you the Good News and then traveled on from Macedonia. No other church did this. Even when I was in Thessalonica you sent help more than once. I don’t say this because I want a gift from you. Rather, I want you to receive a reward for your kindness. At the moment I have all I needand more! I am generously supplied with the gifts you sent me with Epaphroditus. They are a sweet-smelling sacrifice that is acceptable and pleasing to God. And this same God who takes care of me will supply all your needs from his glorious riches, which have been given to us in Christ Jesus.

God’s work in us isn’t over when we receive Christ it has just begun.

---

I'll try again. What has that got to do with (the) creation? Do I? Are you sure? Or are you - yet again - talking shite? Have you never seen me say that 'do as you would be done by', and 'love thy neighbour' aren't good ways to live your life? No.

Hi Tangle, Didn't he say that he had proved (with his instanton) that there was no need for a God.You can't create something without a creator. Why do you think Hawking came up with his instanton? Why do you think someone came up with string theory? Why did someone come up with the idea that 2 branes banged together and started the universe? Why did someone propose the bounce theory where one universe collapse's and another forms from it?Everyone is trying to get away from a creator.Problem is anyone who does not believe the universe is eternal in existence believes in creation by some method. Even You. No he did not believe in God but he believed in a creator. Which he called an instanton.Do you believe the universe is eternal in existence? That defies the two laws of thermodynamics.Did the universe have a beginning to exist? That requires a creator. I have hundreds of posts where I mention Hawking and I never once said he believed in God. I wish he had for his sake.I have said he believed in a creator.If he did not believe in a creator why did he invent the instanton and imaginary time? The instanton according to Hawking if it could pop into existence would create a universe just like this one. Some want to play with words and say the universe was self contained, and yes that is exactly what he said about the instanton.God Bless,

Hi Tangle, I don't care what he was, it doesn't matter now.What would you call the instanton that he said could create a universe just like this one if it popped into existence.God Bless,

Hi ringo, If there was no answer you would want to me would mean you had all the answers there were. T=0 means exactly what is written. Time does not exist.T=Time 0=zero time, as none exists.God Bless,

Hi Phat, Singularity does not exist as it is only a place where the math won't work. That is the reason when Hubble discovered the universe was expanding and therefore could not have existed eternally in the past. Everybody started trying to figure out in their wisdom how the universe could have begun to exist. Thus they began creating a creator. Isn't that what they claim about us inventing our God. I don't see any difference. Except there is a lot of evidence that points to God actually existing. But I find none for what has been proposed by the scientific community. I would think Hawking's instanton would be a made up entity and therefore fictional. Same for two branes banging together and creating the universe. or the bounce theory. They all sound like fiction to me as there is no evidence for any of them. If there was these guys would be plastering it all over this website.God Bless,

He, and others, say that the universe can create itself. Scientists are trying to understand how theuniverse works. No they don't. And additionally, you are conflating creation, with 'The Creation'. Phat said it and you backed him Up. This is how you guys operate. You deliberately twist scientific findings so that your hangers on get the wrong message. It's dishonest.Here you are again. He did not believe in 'a creator'. 'A creator' is not 'The Creator'. You are simply obfuscating, implying things that he does not believe.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

First of all lets get one thing straight. I never said that Hawking believed in a Creator. I said that Hawking had a problem with it. Learn to read. Which is more bollux than anything you will find in the Bible. Even esteemed physics geniuses can be as wrong as any creationist.Lets settle this issue.Do you believe that at one point in the past, perhaps at ICANTS imaginary (T=0) space where the maths break down that there was NOTHING? Or do you believe that there eternally was at least SOMETHING?And note one of my quotes in my signature:
****************************************************************
The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.- Criss Jami, Killosophy
****************************************************************
So which came first? The WHO or the WHAT?There never could have been any point in time or before time that there was NOTHING. Unless you swallow the lie that the first observable thing was an idea in the Late Dr. Hawkings Mind.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

That doesn't make a bit of sense. If there is no answer that I want, that means I don't have a preferred answer. No.T=0 is a position on the time line. It is not a quantity of time.We can not "see" all the way to T=0 or beyond it.

Ok, my apologies, I read that a different way.
But good. No. Esteemed physicists can be wrong, in which case others will correct their mistakes. Creationists are just wrong. I don't know or believe anything about those this. I don't even think that those terms have any meaning that we are able to even imagine. Your quote is silly. Atheists just don't believe in god. That's all you can say about them.

I find it depressing to hear people say even great physicists (or other scientists, scholars, etc.) can be wrong. It's true, I suppose, but it's not like making a moral choice (to steal or not to steal) and being wrong. One can live one's life without making a wrong moral choice, but one can't study science without going down dead ends, making mistakes, trying and failing. In fact, that's practically the definition of science: try something and see if it works.The scientists who are "wrong" are no more "wrong" than the explorers who tried to climb Mount Everest before Edmund Hillary (no, Hillary Clinton was not named after him: she was born in 1947 and Everest wasn't conquered until 1953).

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.