If the world was created by a Big Bang?

[Bill Walker]

He was certainly an atheist, he co wrote a book called “Grand Design” which said as much.

I didn’t agree with the general premise, in one part he said there’s no free will, what we all do is decided by cause and effect but he couldn’t have been more of an atheist anyway.

Grand Design was 2010.
Yes he was an atheist, but In his final paper on the very interesting multiverse hypothesis, Hawking made a supernatural creator more plausible.

Not a beardy man in the sky type God but an entity encompassing the laws of nature.
In his multiverse theory exists an infinite number of universes, but each is governed by the exact same finely tuned laws which made life on Earth and maybe many other planets viable.
At present there is no scientific explanation for this fine tuning. This was ruled out by Hawking.
There is still hope for a scientific account of fine-tuning. However, by ruling out one of the two scientifically credible options for doing this, Hawking has slightly strengthened the alternative explanation in terms of God. It is ironic that the atheist Hawking should, in his final contribution to the science, make God’s existence less improbable.
Hawking didn't suddenly declare his belief in a God but his final paper seemed to infer such a possibility was erm maybe possible.
More here..

Did the dying Stephen Hawking really mean to strengthen the case for God? | Philip Goff

In his final paper on the multiverse hypothesis, the world’s best-known atheist made a supernatural creator more plausible, says academic and author Philip Goff

www.google.com

 

[Ban-jani]

Grand Design was 2010.
Yes he was an atheist, but In his final paper on the very interesting multiverse hypothesis, Hawking made a supernatural creator more plausible.

Not a beardy man in the sky type God but an entity encompassing the laws of nature.
In his multiverse theory exists an infinite number of universes, but each is governed by the exact same finely tuned laws which made life on Earth and maybe many other planets viable.
At present there is no scientific explanation for this fine tuning. This was ruled out by Hawking.
There is still hope for a scientific account of fine-tuning. However, by ruling out one of the two scientifically credible options for doing this, Hawking has slightly strengthened the alternative explanation in terms of God. It is ironic that the atheist Hawking should, in his final contribution to the science, make God’s existence less improbable.
Hawking didn't suddenly declare his belief in a God but his final paper seemed to infer such a possibility was erm maybe possible.
More here..

Did the dying Stephen Hawking really mean to strengthen the case for God? | Philip Goff

In his final paper on the multiverse hypothesis, the world’s best-known atheist made a supernatural creator more plausible, says academic and author Philip Goff

www.google.com

Fair enough mate, didn’t know that.

I think it’s impossible there isn’t a higher power but that’s just my view.

 

[SWP's back]

Grand Design was 2010.
Yes he was an atheist, but In his final paper on the very interesting multiverse hypothesis, Hawking made a supernatural creator more plausible.

Not a beardy man in the sky type God but an entity encompassing the laws of nature.
In his multiverse theory exists an infinite number of universes, but each is governed by the exact same finely tuned laws which made life on Earth and maybe many other planets viable.
At present there is no scientific explanation for this fine tuning. This was ruled out by Hawking.
There is still hope for a scientific account of fine-tuning. However, by ruling out one of the two scientifically credible options for doing this, Hawking has slightly strengthened the alternative explanation in terms of God. It is ironic that the atheist Hawking should, in his final contribution to the science, make God’s existence less improbable.
Hawking didn't suddenly declare his belief in a God but his final paper seemed to infer such a possibility was erm maybe possible.
More here..

Did the dying Stephen Hawking really mean to strengthen the case for God? | Philip Goff

In his final paper on the multiverse hypothesis, the world’s best-known atheist made a supernatural creator more plausible, says academic and author Philip Goff

www.google.com

Whilst that is one take away Phil Goff (writing in the guardian) has from the paper. It’s not what it’s co-author thinks about it (nor Hawking):

Stephen Hawking Final Paper: Co-Author on His 'End of the Universe' Theory

Luckily, there are other universes.

www.inverse.com

 

[SWP's back]

Fair enough mate, didn’t know that.

I think it’s impossible there isn’t a higher power but that’s just my view.

Impossible?

 

[Bigga]

I am well aware of the Book of Enoch and that there are more texts outside of what’s considered Canon, I’m also not a fundamentalist that does believe word for word, certainly not the Old Testament.

My point is that the West, specifically white people, didn’t try and change the religion to suit them as Westerners, King James merely put his version of the Bible together to give some consistency, but scripture wasn’t changed and certainly doesn’t benefit any ethnicity over another.

I think you're changing the narrative, some.

I was talking about the depiction of the famous version of the deity the world sees.

We were also talking about the Bible not being accurate in its whole sense. The Gospel isn't "the Bible", it's an 'overview', a generalism of the Bible.

If you're just saying THAT hasn't changed, you'd be correct. The essence is there.

We're not talking about that.

Or, at least, I wasn't.

Anyway, there's LOADS of proof the Bible has been altered!!





It's logical and common sense that mistakes happen and text subverted in order to change the narrative for reasons unknown.

That's my last contribution to this thread on religion.

 

[urban genie]

The Vulgate, which is the latin translation that hs pretty much been used to copy any bible since in the holy roman empire was instructed to be much more conservative than those before from the greek, roman and early church.

It was the same time several gospels were destroyed or dismissed and women who were prominent and equal in early catholicism were downgraded and made second class, strict loyaltily to the church and their law were also encouraged.

 

[Ban-jani]

I think you're changing the narrative, some.

I was talking about the depiction of the famous version of the deity the world sees.

We were also talking about the Bible not being accurate in its whole sense. The Gospel isn't "the Bible", it's an 'overview', a generalism of the Bible.

If you're just saying THAT hasn't changed, you'd be correct. The essence is there.

We're not talking about that.

Or, at least, I wasn't.

Anyway, there's LOADS of proof the Bible has been altered!!





It's logical and common sense that mistakes happen and text subverted in order to change the narrative for reasons unknown.

That's my last contribution to this thread on religion.

To be honest I’ve lost the point you’re trying to make here so maybe best we do leave it.

 

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

God created the universe.

And where did god come from?

 

[Ban-jani]

And where did god come from?

Infinite

 

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

Infinite

Which means what?