# Curiosity/ Create the universe Stephen Hawking

by jam 153 Replies latest jw friends

• ##### AGuest
Alternatively, we can make a test: I write a number on a piece of paper between 1 and 10^6, and your Lord try to guess it?

Sigh. He doesn't work that way, dear Bohm. He is not at your beck and call to answer trivial games due to YOUR lack of faith.

BUT... he has said that I should say to you: go to him... directly. You. And ask about anything that you wish. ANYTHING. And he will answer you. It is upon YOU, however, to LISTEN... and put faith in what he says... and as well as that it is him saying it.

So, there you go. You now have the same opportunity as I. I would exhort you to use it... and wisely.

Again, peace to you!

YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

SA

• ##### wobble

BOHM's test above, let him write a number on a piece of paper, or better still perhaps, in a PM to me, and your lord tell us what it is ? O.K ?

But it gives me no confidence in your messages from your lord, you will say that BOHM or me not hearing is our lack of faith, just as the faith-healer does when the person he has exhorted to throw away his crutches falls over !

• ##### jam

One point that both agreed on (scientist and religion).

Gen.1;2 The earth was without form and viod.

• ##### AGuest

See above, dear Wobs (again, peace to you!). That is the reply I received from my Lord for dear Bohm. I have received nothing as to you, sorry. I would say, though, that you could do the exact same thing. I mean, it works for me... and apparently will work for dear Bohm. I see no reason why it won't work for you, too. Try it; you might surprised. Might actually "like" it. Who knows...

Again, peace to you!

A slave of Christ,

SA

• ##### wobble

See my edited post above, dear Shelby, I think you have side-stepped the question of testing the originality of your words from your lord

• ##### bohm

Indeed, that's why I saw the "holes" in the good Dr.'s theory.

but which holes!?! do you understand his theory (that you claimed to be a layperson earlier testify against that!) or is the holes holes in a presentation you saw in the tv? do you believe "the presentation on tv" = "his theory"? if not, the above is wildly inaccurate and misleading...

But you missed the point, of course, which is that BOTH state as "truth"... or, at least try to get others to believe it is... things that aren't necessarily true. Heck, drug companies do it all the time ("Take this drug and it'll cure such and so!" Only to find out later it kills as much, if not more, than it cures. But, hey, it's "science"...).

I have missed the point?

science is a method to make valid inference on observations. Specifically, its a way to ensure one does not draw overconfident conclusions based on the evidence.

And quite frankly i have a very hard time imagining you have read many papers on modern cosmology and come away from the experience with the understanding these are people who state things as absolute truth.

On the contrary, the conclusions are full of "assuming that .. then this may point towards... we believe it is plausible that... one cannot rule out... on one hand..." and so on and on. dont take my word for it! just try to download any paper from Witten, Hawkin or Weinberg, dont care you dont understand the details, just look at how they state their conclusions. Specifically with regards to black holes where our laws break down I have a very hard time you run into "truths" they somehow try to get you to believe in in a suspicious process..

• ##### bohm

Alternatively, we can make a test: I write a number on a piece of paper between 1 and 10^6, and your Lord try to guess it?

Sigh. He doesn't work that way, dear Bohm.

This illustrate my point very nice: When you are confronted with a scientific statement, you are full of question to the effect of "could it be.." and happily make blanket statements comparing science to cults.

When you hear a voice and see something --an event all human experience indicate is only taking place inside your head-- and the voice deny to be tested objectively (exactly the reaction which one would expect were it only in your head!), you simply accept that with what seem to be no further questions.

I dont think your dishonest in your questions about science. But i think you should apply sceptisism more evenly and not stop questioning even if they may lead you to the conclusion it is not a given thing (or even likely conclusion) you are in telepathic communication with a god.

• ##### moshe

Paradoxes- our world/universe contains paradoxes and this in itself would be anathema to a God of logic, ergo, God (as humans define the word) doesn't exist.

• ##### james_woods

Could someone here (who is a fan of Steven hAWKING) EXPLAIN EXACTLY WHAT GREAT SCIENTIFIC CONTRIBUTION HE HAS MADE?

I was king of a fan maybe 40 years ago, but I think he became a sort of Carl Sagan-like media science personality quite some time ago.

• ##### Shrek

I too thought it was interesting, but too dogmatic in its approach. No positive proof, just theories. Which is okay, just don't act like "this is the way it had to have happened because we can't think of any other way it could have happened." That's just another religeon to me.