I don't believe in God, gods, or a god named God...

We, as in Earth are always in the middle? Are you sure?

 

I will neeed some servants in the Kingdom. I can take my pick of this litter.

 

Who says you're going to the Kingdom?

 

The universe expands from every point in all directions - so every point in the universe is always in the middle. If you travel to the very famous planet Qrgklxtrspüfgh in the Andromeda galaxy then you will see that everything expands in the same way as if you would be on the planet earth. Everywhere it's the same. It's diffcult - or even impossible - to imagine something what has only middles and no boundary - that's all. Not to forget: Yes! - If the big bang theory is true then I'm sure that the Earth is always in the middle.

http://youtu.be/O2SR_P-_98s

 

Why should anyone accept the rule of any other individual or society, if they are only human and there is no God. One mans opinion is as good as the next mans. If I believe I should rob steal and murder, why should I listen to anyone who opposes this position. I can have any sense of morality I like. Why should we even care about future generations, or anything accept or own selfish desires. God makes sense and is perfectly rational, without God there is no reason or rational for our morality.

 

The Big Bang theory is a religious theory of creation dreamed up by a Catholic priest. It's no more valid than any other creation theory. In some respects it's even less valid.

 

no god dosent make sense your listing why you want peapole to belive in your god and to belive its threats and rewards are the basis of morality dosent make it so

 

Lol...I bet Stephen Hawking would be surprised to hear that.

 

I get what you are saying. It makes sense. You are speaking in reference of the universe as a whole.

 

In order to be able to state you are in the middle of something you need to define at least three reference points and last I checked, nobody has found a single edge of the universe let alone the three necessary to state being in the middle position.

 

I'm betting he knows who is credited with the BBT and it is you still in the dark.

 

Which part?

 

The Hawk knows, oh yes. There are more theories out there than just The Big Bang. Like the Quiescent Universe Theory. I don't understand any of it, but I don't understand why people keep birds for pets either. The Big Bang just has more evidence supporting it, presumably because people are actually looking for it.

 

That's an effect of the creation. You are a part of this universe - and although you are in the middle of this universe you can take a look to other points that are not in your middle. Nevertheless the middle of the universe is everywhere and the universe is without outside although it has a beginning. That's what the logic tells us - wether we like to believe this or not. That's perhaps a deeper reason why natural laws are everywhere the same.

http://youtu.be/o0Aa3Q1mSts

 

I never heard something about a "Quiescent Universe Theory". The big bang theory is very simple and nearly everyone is able to understand this: The universe expands. The question what leads to the big bang theory is: "What was the point where this expansion started?" A sarcast called this point "big bang" and the people idiots who took this idea serios.

http://youtu.be/MEEpavnk7Uw

 

The Big Bang Theory is a religious theory concocted by a Catholic priest. It's based on an illogical assumption.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.2823

http://www.nullphysics.com/pages_cosmology.php

 

A comment would need to much time - so: no comment.

http://youtu.be/nTCuQ5FzhYg

-----

Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment.

Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large part of mankind gladly remain minors all their lives, long after nature has freed them from external guidance. They are the reasons why it is so easy for others to set themselves up as guardians. It is so comfortable to be a minor. If I have a book that thinks for me, a pastor who acts as my conscience, a physician who prescribes my diet, and so on--then I have no need to exert myself. I have no need to think, if only I can pay; others will take care of that disagreeable business for me. Those guardians who have kindly taken supervision upon themselves see to it that the overwhelming majority of mankind--among them the entire fair sex--should consider the step to maturity, not only as hard, but as extremely dangerous. First, these guardians make their domestic cattle stupid and carefully prevent the docile creatures from taking a single step without the leading-strings to which they have fastened them. Then they show them the danger that would threaten them if they should try to walk by themselves. Now this danger is really not very great; after stumbling a few times they would, at last, learn to walk. However, examples of such failures intimidate and generally discourage all further attempts.

Thus it is very difficult for the individual to work himself out of the nonage which has become almost second nature to him. He has even grown to like it, and is at first really incapable of using his own understanding because he has never been permitted to try it. Dogmas and formulas, these mechanical tools designed for reasonable use--or rather abuse--of his natural gifts, are the fetters of an everlasting nonage. The man who casts them off would make an uncertain leap over the narrowest ditch, because he is not used to such free movement. That is why there are only a few men who walk firmly, and who have emerged from nonage by cultivating their own minds.

It is more nearly possible, however, for the public to enlighten itself; indeed, if it is only given freedom, enlightenment is almost inevitable. There will always be a few independent thinkers, even among the self-appointed guardians of the multitude. Once such men have thrown off the yoke of nonage, they will spread about them the spirit of a reasonable appreciation of man's value and of his duty to think for himself. It is especially to be noted that the public which was earlier brought under the yoke by these men afterwards forces these very guardians to remain in submission, if it is so incited by some of its guardians who are themselves incapable of any enlightenment. That shows how pernicious it is to implant prejudices: they will eventually revenge themselves upon their authors or their authors' descendants. Therefore, a public can achieve enlightenment only slowly. A revolution may bring about the end of a personal despotism or of avaricious tyrannical oppression, but never a true reform of modes of thought. New prejudices will serve, in place of the old, as guide lines for the unthinking multitude. ...

-----
Immanuel Kant