There is no god... says Hawking

[Lanyap]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/09/02/hawking.god.universe/index.html

Unfortunately I agree with him...

The most common argument to prove the existence of god is the argument of design... the idea that our world is so complex, that it exhibits the qualities of having been designed rather than evolved via chaos.

The ultimate argument against that, made by Hawking is that the very nature of existence itself is that at some point there had to be SOMETHING that originated from nothing... furthermore complexity had to have been created from nothing, out of chaos. Even if you subscribe to an idea of a creator... who created that creator? Was the creator emergent from nothing? If so is that being as complex as our world? If so... why assume that being was created from nothing, and not our complex universe?

Why don't you correct the title since it is not true.

 

[WHAMPOM]

The other side of the coin that says "you cannot prove a negative" is "you must prove the positive." Diests must provide a proof of the divine creation of the Universe.

 

[Moonbeam]

I've cried and thought of a lot of people, real people, never a false god.

Sanity helps with the insanity.

I warned you about thinking, did I not?

Feel, why were the tears real?

 

[Moonbeam]

Why don't you correct the title since it is not true.

We could do that a couple of ways I guess. Just die to your ego or remember where you came from.

 

[woolfe9999]

You do realize you are guilty of the very same thing you accuse CW of? You come with the preconceived notion that one that has already come to a conclusion regarding what they believe about this subject is not credible, simply b/c of what YOU believe about the question at hand.

Actually I didn't acuse CW of anything in particular. And I'm afraid this answer suggests that you haven't carefully read what I have posted in this thread.

- wolf

 

[spittledip]

You do realize you are guilty of the very same thing you accuse CW of? You come with the preconceived notion that one that has already come to a conclusion regarding what they believe about this subject is not credible, simply b/c of what YOU believe about the question at hand.

Actually I didn't acuse CW of anything in particular. And I'm afraid this answer suggests that you haven't carefully read what I have posted in this thread.

- wolf

I see that I took what you said in the wrong context. However, my criticism stands b/c you are applying your own criticism to the supposed "colleagues" of Hawking, are you not? You can insert CW or myself or anyone else into that paragraph and it would have the same logical inconsistency. My intention is not to pick on you for this b/c you are not the only person who makes statements like this- this type of thinking is very common and it is wrong.

Also, regarding this statement:

I don't invest much credibility in criticisms coming from bible believers, which these two men clearly are, because I don't think bible belief is intellectually defensible.

You may think that Bible belief is intellectually indefensible, but how hard have you really looked into the matter? How did you come to this conclusion. Someone misquoted Jesus in one of these threads recently, but I will quote it accurately here- when asked what the greatest commandment was, Jesus replied -To love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength." What does thie mean? To love God is to not compartmentalize Him to a little "faith" section in your life. To love God means to love Him with everything you have, including your mind. True faith in Christ is something you pursue in every aspect of your life- it is not just a "faith" thing. I myself pursue God mainly with great intellectual vigor. I would say I give Him less of other parts of my life, which is something I am working on. Other Christians on this forum obviously pursue God with intellectual vigor as well, and demand that there be reason working in conjunction with their faith. I think you and others need to be a bit more honest in how you consider those who have religious views. I agree that tehre are many who hold an intellectually vacuous faith. Some, not all.

 

[Lanyap]

We could do that a couple of ways I guess. Just die to your ego or remember where you came from.

You took my request the wrong way. Hawking did not say there was no god. I don't care if someone says there is no god but certain other posts are forced to make a title correction when they are untrue.

 

[Moonbeam]

s: You may think that Bible belief is intellectually indefensible, but how hard have you really looked into the matter? How did you come to this conclusion.

M: Folk use their minds to defend or attack the Bible all the time. The Bible, for example, to those not in its thrall, logically inconsistent and historically variable in content and implication. For the true die hard literalist it is possible to rationalize anything. What the independent observer is left with, in my opinion, is that every religion is composed of just those only truth possessors who happened to have been born into that religion, for the most part. So to a rational and logical mind they all must be bull shit. There really isn't a need to look into the religion. It would just make you tired because so many of them want you to do the same. For this reason I don't let Mormons in my door. I would just waste their time.

s: Someone misquoted Jesus in one of these threads recently, but I will quote it accurately here- when asked what the greatest commandment was, Jesus replied -To love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength." What does thie mean? To love God is to not compartmentalize Him to a little "faith" section in your life. To love God means to love Him with everything you have, including your mind. True faith in Christ is something you pursue in every aspect of your life- it is not just a "faith" thing. I myself pursue God mainly with great intellectual vigor.

M: To me this just means there is only Love and if you only love you will know it. The Lover disappears in His Beloved, thought, doubt, time, fear, hate, and everything else that is ego disappears. There IS only Love and Being.

s: I would say I give Him less of other parts of my life, which is something I am working on.

M: What I do you refer to? If it is the I that loves, the journey is ended, and, if it is the I that wants to love, then it is the I that is separate and has yet to disappear. What I do you know that can will its own extinction. It's a prideful ego that thinks it is on the road to loving anything but itself, no? To me, then, the trick is not to intend to die but to surrender. You cannot kill your own ego. All struggle to become is hopeless. All there is for us is the pain of separation. Feel that. Jesus said somewhere I am told, that if you suffer you will not suffer.

s: Other Christians on this forum obviously pursue God with intellectual vigor as well, and demand that there be reason working in conjunction with their faith. I think you and others need to be a bit more honest in how you consider those who have religious views. I agree that tehre are many who hold an intellectually vacuous faith. Some, not all.

Almost all of the surviving religions of the world are Bridges that were built by folk to lead to the same place, the death of the ego. They all became antiquated with the death of the originator because only somebody free of the ego can see where you are attached to your own. This blindness to ones own attachment is our dominate concealed prejudice and it varies from time and place, so all the various bridges were for their time and place and yet still have some universals. Occasionally any of them can free the serious random traveler, but only an ego free guide can help most of us, in my opinion.

 

[nonlnear]

The Bible, for example, to those not in its thrall, logically inconsistent and historically variable in content and implication.

There are Christians who are completely comfortable with the Bible being understood as logically inconsistent and historically variable in content and implication.

 

[Moonbeam]

You took my request the wrong way. Hawking did not say there was no god. I don't care if someone says there is no god but certain other posts are forced to make a title correction when they are untrue.

It was untrue in two ways. Hawkings didn't say there is no God which is what you wanted to fix, and there IS a God which is what I wanted to fix.

 

[Moonbeam]

There are Christians who are completely comfortable with the Bible being understood as logically inconsistent and historically variable in content and implication.

Yes indeed. There are Buddhists who say we may not have the only religion or even the best religion but it is our religion. Some folk fall in love with the bridge, become attached to their religion, and some folk cross the bridge. It is a matter of seriousness and need, I would say, how conscious one is of one's pain in separation. The deeper one's sleep the less one is troubled by dreams.

 

[ericlp]

If there were no god, man would need to invent one.

 

[spittledip]

s: You may think that Bible belief is intellectually indefensible, but how hard have you really looked into the matter? How did you come to this conclusion.

M: Folk use their minds to defend or attack the Bible all the time. The Bible, for example, to those not in its thrall, logically inconsistent and historically variable in content and implication. For the true die hard literalist it is possible to rationalize anything. What the independent observer is left with, in my opinion, is that every religion is composed of just those only truth possessors who happened to have been born into that religion, for the most part. So to a rational and logical mind they all must be bull shit. There really isn't a need to look into the religion. It would just make you tired because so many of them want you to do the same. For this reason I don't let Mormons in my door. I would just waste their time.

s: Someone misquoted Jesus in one of these threads recently, but I will quote it accurately here- when asked what the greatest commandment was, Jesus replied -To love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength." What does thie mean? To love God is to not compartmentalize Him to a little "faith" section in your life. To love God means to love Him with everything you have, including your mind. True faith in Christ is something you pursue in every aspect of your life- it is not just a "faith" thing. I myself pursue God mainly with great intellectual vigor.

M: To me this just means there is only Love and if you only love you will know it. The Lover disappears in His Beloved, thought, doubt, time, fear, hate, and everything else that is ego disappears. There IS only Love and Being.

s: I would say I give Him less of other parts of my life, which is something I am working on.

M: What I do you refer to? If it is the I that loves, the journey is ended, and, if it is the I that wants to love, then it is the I that is separate and has yet to disappear. What I do you know that can will its own extinction. It's a prideful ego that thinks it is on the road to loving anything but itself, no? To me, then, the trick is not to intend to die but to surrender. You cannot kill your own ego. All struggle to become is hopeless. All there is for us is the pain of separation. Feel that. Jesus said somewhere I am told, that if you suffer you will not suffer.

s: Other Christians on this forum obviously pursue God with intellectual vigor as well, and demand that there be reason working in conjunction with their faith. I think you and others need to be a bit more honest in how you consider those who have religious views. I agree that tehre are many who hold an intellectually vacuous faith. Some, not all.

Almost all of the surviving religions of the world are Bridges that were built by folk to lead to the same place, the death of the ego. They all became antiquated with the death of the originator because only somebody free of the ego can see where you are attached to your own. This blindness to ones own attachment is our dominate concealed prejudice and it varies from time and place, so all the various bridges were for their time and place and yet still have some universals. Occasionally any of them can free the serious random traveler, but only an ego free guide can help most of us, in my opinion.

Well we disagree on a lot of fundamental issues. But we both already knew this

The only thing i will reply to is the thing about the Bible being logically inconsistent and historically variable. I am not sure what you are referring to as logically inconsistent. As far as "historically variable," people have claimed that there are inaccuracies and such, but in the case of a great many of the claims, the Bible has been shown to be accurate. The ones not yet proven I figure will be resolved eventually as alot of the others have been.

 

[LumbergTech]

Well we disagree on a lot of fundamental issues. But we both already knew this

The only thing i will reply to is the thing about the Bible being logically inconsistent and historically variable. I am not sure what you are referring to as logically inconsistent. As far as "historically variable," people have claimed that there are inaccuracies and such, but in the case of a great many of the claims, the Bible has been shown to be accurate. The ones not yet proven I figure will be resolved eventually as alot of the others have been.

except that this isn't true

some people consider them to be resolved because they will take anything for a justification

I don't want to be an asshole so I don't really have much else to say.

 

[LumbergTech]

If you want to redefine god to mean something else..why do you feel the need to call it god?

Why not use other words?

 

[sandorski]

Hitler was more like God than Jesus was.

 

[1prophet]

Most people today aren't really seeking god but rather are looking for some magic man to come and with a wave of his hand cure them of all their self inflicted ills while making them feel good about their miserable selves.

When such a person comes and proves that he is god the world will be willing to follow him straight to the gates of hell, the only holdouts would be the religious zealots who refuse to abide by proof,

after all who but religious zealots would deny verifiable scientific proof.

 

[CycloWizard]

What does supernatural creation predict? What is a prediction of supernatural creation?


Until you can demonstrate that supernatural creation actually makes a prediction, the distinction is already plain. Scientific theories make predictions and supernatural creation does not.


Its easy to be confident about your ignorance when you do not see the plain distinction described above.

So you either think that the model equation y=a+bx does not make the same predictions for y as y=bx when a=0, you think that Occam's Razor is a scientific tool which may be used to rigorously discard the prior model due to the absence of an observable effect of a on the system, or you don't understand the mathematical equivalence of transient field equations when the solution from one is used as an initial condition for the other. Whichever it is, you're still wrong. Your lack of understanding the math doesn't make me ignorant, but your emotional constipation resulting from this topic does make you an idiot.

 

[LumbergTech]

this shit is getting really old

some people believe in god

some people have discarded the old meaning of god and made a new one that is loosely tied in

some don't believe in god at all and don't wish to redefine it

that about covers it

 

[Moonbeam]

this shit is getting really old

some people believe in god

some people have discarded the old meaning of god and made a new one that is loosely tied in

some don't believe in god at all and don't wish to redefine it

that about covers it

You left out the people who are God.