Did anyone notice Stephen Hawking contradicted himself?

@DudeSid,

No, watch the first episode of "Think like a Genius". He said that backward time travel isn't impossible because "someone could change it", it's more because something cannot come out of nothing. You walking backward in time must inevitably meet yourself who's coming forward in time. Thus, there are two you and one of you is a doppelganger that didn't exist the 1st time forward. Then, as the you who traveled to the past return to your "present" time, you'll again meet the you who's going forward the first time, and another you who's travelling backward -- so there becomes a total of three "You". Each time you travel back and forth, two new you gets created and that's not possible because something must come out of nothing. That was Hawking's argument.

However, clearly the current Standard Model (including the big bang) advocates something coming out of nothing. So that is the contradiction here. Hawking said "asking what's before the big bang is like asking what's south of south pole", effectively dodged the question. The only way to resolve the paradox without a "Creator" is that something has always existed, for an eternity.

0 Replies

There's a third choice in "love thy enemy" here and that is, to NOT have any enemy. Maybe that's what Jesus meant but since Hawking pointed out that backward time travel is not possible, it is unfortunate that I can't ask him for clarification. I'm not twisting anyone's words and neither does anyone have any guarantee that the scribes of the Bible interpreted and wrote God's words correctly. So here, I'm gonna quote Pirates of the Caribbean "IT'S MORE LIKE A GUIDELINE".

If US hasn't meddle with Middle East's business, there may not be a 9/11 and there probably wouldn't be an ISIS and we won't need to worry about refugees. It was my long term view that we should just leave everyone alone. They wanna fight, then they fight -- it's not our business. If they want to sell oil to us then fine, we pay for it, but if they refuse, then that's fine too, we'll do our own frackling and clean energy. Unfortunately, the US majority has a knack to meddle with other people's business.

1 Reply

@Angelgz2,

Have you read the Bible.

The Jesus in the Bible.

- Was a political refugee fleeing a Middle Eastern dictator as a child (see Matthew 2).
- Told people who didn't invite in strangers to go to hell (Matthew 25)
- Was attacked, and ultimately executed for breaking the law (see Mark 3).
- Attacked the wealthy, comfortable class in support of the poor.
- Command redistribution of wealth (Luke 12)
- Challenged people to overcome racial racial stereotypes (Luke 10)
- Told people to love their enemies and turn the other cheek.

Today's Christians ignore everything that Jesus said.

The Bible says "God is Love". You say that "God is Hate" and seem to not see the contradiction in that.

The biggest reason that no one takes Jesus seriously any more is that His so-called followers are such hypocrites.

It is ridiculous for anyone who supports Trump to claim to follow the Jesus in the Bible to support Trump.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

It reveals that many Americans just look at his wealth, and now how he gained his wealth. They ignore Trump's bigotry, discrimination, and his surface level of knowledge on a very limited number of subjects.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

- Told people who didn't invite in strangers to go to hell (Matthew 25)
He said “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” Didn't see anything mentioning he told anyone to go to hell. You are making this up.

Quote:

- Was attacked, and ultimately executed for breaking the law (see Mark 3).

True, but what's the contradiction here?

- Attacked the wealthy, comfortable class in support of the poor.
He said, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” But then, his disciples were confused and then Jesus replied "“With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Saul was a wealthy man who prosecuted all of Jesus's believers, but was then repented and followed Jesus.

Quote:

- Command redistribution of wealth (Luke 12)

Jesus replied, “Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?” 15 Then he said to them, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.” Greed is not equal to wealthy and redistribution of wealth is good, doing it excessively is harmful, especially those who preaches this idea doesn't do it themselves. Let's see whether any liberal progressives actually did any charitable work themselves -- all talks but no action.

Quote:

- Challenged people to overcome racial racial stereotypes (Luke 10)

That's good, what's wrong with that?

Quote:

- Told people to love their enemies and turn the other cheek.

You can just choose to not have enemies.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I don't care about his money or how wealthy he is. He is in fact ignorant on many subjects. However, it's lesser of two evils. Hilary is worse. She is a complete HYPOCRITE. Remember when she was up against Obama she lied about so many things. I guess Americans just forget about it. Hilary is a pathological liar + and idealist. That's a dangerous combination, more so than Trump's ignorance and bigotry.

0 Replies

@Angelgz2,

The Contradiction is when compared with Trump who (in contrast to Jesus)

- Wants to build a wall to keep out political refugees.
- Wants to punish "illegal" immigrants rather than forgiving them.
- Wants to keep out the strangers rather than inviting them in.
- Wants the rich to keep their money from the poor.
- Wants to suspect, punish and show no sympathy for perceived enemies.
- Enflames racial hatred.
- Wants to make America great without any concern for any other people.

Trump is nearly the exact opposiite of the Jesus in the Bible. This is why when so many so-called Christians are supporting Trump, the Name of Jesus is dragged through the mud.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

That's a good start, but I'm afraid it's short by multiples, considering that we are talking about a leader of a political party in this country vs the 2000 year old teachings of the bible.
Trump also encourages violence, and will pay for any legal costs as a consequence. Ban all Muslims from this country. Discriminated against blacks by not renting to them. Build a wall that will cost tens of thousands of dollars. My own estimate is that it'll cost much more than that! Many of the terrain on the border are difficult to build walls because of sand.

Why it's not feasible to build Trump's wall.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/an-engineer-explains-why-trumps-wall-is-so-implausible/

Proves once again why Trump has no knowledge about most things.

0 Replies

@Angelgz2,

from Angelz2 on the point about derailing the thread topic/not sticking to the main topic

Quote:

Yeah, that's what i say. All I wanted was to reconcile the contradiction issue here but people man, people nowadays just love to bash religion whenever they get a chance.

But then..Angelz2's new derail:

Quote:

If US hasn't meddle with Middle East's business, there may not be a 9/11 and there probably wouldn't be an ISIS and we won't need to worry about refugees. It was my long term view that we should just leave everyone alone. They wanna fight, then they fight -- it's not our business. If they want to sell oil to us then fine, we pay for it, but if they refuse, then that's fine too, we'll do our own frackling and clean energy. Unfortunately, the US majority has a knack to meddle with other people's business.

I agree, what a derail, bringing religion into it, next they'll be bringing in politics!..lol..you are a trip angelz2, are you for real?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Max, if Angelz2 cannot see the correlative hypocrisy between what you posted, you are, to quote someone, throwing your pearls before swine..

Then again, what did they have against swine? And why did Jesus command a buncha them to run off a cliff? Couldn't he just have kicked out the baddies like he did with others and saved the porcus? I mean, that seems pretty evil to kill a buncha pigs in that way..Thank god they weren't seals or dolphins or kittens..imagine what we'd think now..?

0 Replies

@Smileyrius,

said- "Romeo was not all bad..but he unwittingly did more to discredit theism than he did to aide it"
----------------------------------------------------------

If by "theism" you mean Organised Religion, yes he goes around the religious boards cracking the heads of xian fundies and fairy worshippers together, so whose side are you on, his or theirs?.. Wink

PS- I notice this line which you say in your profile- "I have been known to be wrong before, but am happy to continue to learn by each and every mistake"
Good luck with that, and one day you- "..may stand firm in all the will of God, mature and fully assured" (Col 4:12)".. Wink

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Stephen Hawking is a human being. He doesn't claim to be divine. He never claims that he is always correct or doesn't make mistakes. Disproving something that Stephen Hawking says doesn't disprove all of science, it just means that Stephen Hawking is human.

Wow, there it is..... If you had said that, the debate would have been over. No body is discrediting all science. So if he's wrong or whatever, he made a mistake, then there's still a chance that new science can be discovered in the future that allows time travel. Is that so hard? You are waaaaay to sensitive to this science vs religion topic.

1 Reply

@catbeasy,

Quote:

I agree, what a derail, bringing religion into it, next they'll be bringing in politics!..lol..you are a trip angelz2, are you for real?

That's not my fault. You guys kept derailing and I fell for it.

0 Replies

@Angelgz2,

Actually... you are discrediting science. Science is a process. The ideas that are tested and backed by evidence are accepted. The ideas that are contradicted by experiment are discarded. When there is enough evidence, and enough experiments have been done that all support a hypothesis, then it becomes an accepted scientific theory.

The scientific community accepts these proven theories (proven meaning tested by experiment until it is the only conceivable explanation) until they are disproved (and only a very few are ever disproved).

More than that, these scientific theories are then used to build semiconductors, stealth airplanes, GPS systems, new lifesaving medicines.

Science has succeeded where religion has failed. Science has had direct measurable improvements in the quality of human life. Science has cured diseases. Science has doubled the human life expectancy. Science has allowed us to feed a growing human population. It has allowed us to travel to the other side of the world in days. Allowed us to communicate around the world in milliseconds.

That is why religion has no right to intrude on the questions that are best answered by science. When it comes to the origin of the Universe, or the evolution of the human species, religion us completely unable to make intelligent claims.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

That is why religion has no right to intrude on the questions that are best answered by science. When it comes to the origin of the Universe, or the evolution of the human species, religion us completely unable to make intelligent claims.

I think to claim religion as "completely" unable to make intelligent claims on scientific matters is naïve.

Perhaps you find fault in some of its claims, and we have no way of proving others, but consider Solomon for instance, who in the 11th century B.C.E who wrote about the water cycling from the mountains, down to the sea through rivers, and returning to the mountains again. Amos in the 8th Century B.C.E spoke of the water being called up from the sea to rain upon the land. These men were bible writers who seemed to have a grasp of how the water cycle worked.
If you might consider this an intelligent claim, perhaps you may consider reducing your charge from completely to mostly unable to make intelligent claims on scientific matters? I wouldn't ask any more than that my friend.

2 Replies

@Smileyrius,

Were those claims based on religion, or were they scientific claims spoken by men who were associated with religion?

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

From the perspective of theism, there is no difference. Science is merely reverse engineering.

2 Replies

@Smileyrius,

Sure Smiley.

I have never taken a day of flight school. I can tell you confidently (and I am pretty sure that I am correct) that in an airplane if you pull back on the yoke thingy, the plane will go up. Even if I am correct, that doesn't mean I have any ability to fly the plane.

Sure, the Bible gets a couple of things correct. It gets a bunch of things wrong as well. For example, a character in the Bible got animals to be spotted by having them mated in front of spotted sticks.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

That doesn't make sense Leadfoot. Science is creating new things that Nature never imagined. There is no Internet in Nature... humans came up with that on their own.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

As you have previously pointed out, it was understanding the underlying principles of 'nature' that make those things possible.

But I agree, God will not deny man his measure of glory.

1 Reply

Did anyone notice Stephen Hawking contradicted himself?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know