 |
|
|
|
September 3rd, 2010
11:25 AM ET
Religious leaders hit back at Hawking on Godless creationReligious leaders in Britain on Friday hit back at claims by leading physicist Stephen Hawking that God had no role in the creation of the universe. In his new book "The Grand Design," Britain's most famous scientist says that given the existence of gravity, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing," according to an excerpt published in The Times of London. "Spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," he wrote. "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper [fuse] and set the universe going."
« Previous entry'My own Dad tried to kill me' survivor credits God
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
I feel Hawkings science though intriquing is incomplete on two levels. His 11 posits describes gravity forcing a "reaction/result" thru energized and random events. However, a "direction/plan" is not included nor is a co-occurring "reaction/result". A "direction/plan" is necessary in every successful result. Eg. a monkey can energize and randomly type on a keyboard and get some page of garbled info. Without a plan or a direction to go, he will never create a romantic novel. Second a co-occurrence is always necessary for a successful process. Chemical life could not be spontaneously developed with out a "cell wall" spontaneously occuring at the same time to protect this new life from the very forces that created it. Hawking has simply described a major weakness of so many scientists, they can only look at a deeply narrow view point due to the limits of time, resources and mental capacity. I enjoy science very much, but accept its limits as a God given boundary.
That Stephen Hawking is a brillant physicist who understands esoteric matters of cosmology that very few of us will ever be able to comprehend is beyond question, HIs theory that God, whatever we assume that concept to represent for those who believe, was not necessary for the creation of the Universe had the predictable outcome that would draw skepticism and harsh criticism from those whose belief system mey feel somewhat challenged by his postulations. When any believer is confronted by those who think differently either reinforcement of that belief system is engendered or anxiety produced. This may explain why the vast majority of wars and the attendant destruction and killings resulting from such have had some sort of religious component as part of their inception. However, Hawking, as pointed out by various prominent religious leaders, assumes that the Creation of the Universe is why believers accept the concept of a God as the primordial force behind its existence. Even if God did not create the Universe and it came into being on its own according to Hawking, that does not mean that no God exists for it is possible for God to have designed all of this that we see and let it come into its own as a result of the laws of physics. Believers see the order of the cosmos and the unbelievable interconnection of many thngs throughout it and conclude this did not happen by random chance but by some sort of intelligent force or design. That conclusion by believers ,which represent about 95% of the USA , is the question which Hawking does not answer and can never answer. For if you assume that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent it is sheer folly of human beings to ever believe that we could or can be capable of fathoming the thought process or processes of one whose intelligence and powers are far beyond our abiility to ever understand. Dr. Robert John Davis
@Dr. Robert John Davis
You said..."For if you assume that god is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent it is sheer folly of human beings to ever believe that we could or can be capable of fathoming the thought process or processes of one whose intelligence and powers are far beyond our ability to ever understand."
There are quite a few (assumptions) there Dr. Bob. Your assertion seems to me to be very 'self-sealing.' And your use of 95% being believers means.... what exactly...? Majority are right...?
Your whole assertion seems to be biased and lays out no *proof* or evidence of anything. More If/then reasoning... more fallacious thinking.
Peace to you....
@"Dr. Robert John Davis"
You mistake complexity as being proof of conscious design.
Using physics and scientific methods of inquiry to examine the complexity of everything that we can perceive and / or guess at, tends to reduce the observable complexity to the simple rules of physics that are being developed and refined by the scientific community.
My dear sir, you are laboring under your misapprehensions just like any superst!tious "witch-doctor".
If your "complexity" is nothing more than vast mountain of proven physical simplicities, then you are mistaking the quant!ty of same for the "quality of conscious design" that you allude to in your post.
Perhaps your god created the rules of physics and laid them within the matrix of our dimensional space.
If "he" did, then "he" apparently did nothing beyond that.
Life is possible because of physical laws and statistical likelihoods. If your god made the laws, then he did not create life, just the possibility that life could arise.
And there is no rhyme nor reason to be found in day-to-day events. The sheer amount of statistical randomness lights up the whole universe, "doctor". I'm surprised you felt the need to post.
@Fast Eddie
@"Dr. Robert John Davis"
You said, "You mistake complexity as being proof of conscious design."
Dude! You silver tongued devil! I loved what you said!!
I think I'll have another beer to celebrate!
Dr. Robert wrote: For if you assume that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent it is sheer folly of human beings to ever believe that we could or can be capable of fathoming the thought process or processes of one whose intelligence and powers are far beyond our abiility to ever understand.
... ...
I respond:
Why quantify some power or knowledge as having the quality of being beyond our ability to understand when no evidence has ever been produced to show that such qualities are possessed by any supreme being? Such platitudes are introduced simply to end all discussion and debate.
Science = man’s understanding
Just 200 years ago, we didn’t have cars, and we only recently (relatively) began space exploration. It seems we are merely trying to catch up with whatever intelligent being, whom I call YHWH, created the universe. Since none of us, including Hawking, have come close to replicating the creation of a universe or even a human, we have to somehow trust that someone somewhere, whom I call YHWH, is much smarter than anything we can even fathom. He or it is looking at us saying, “Those poor fools are still trying to understand or misunderstand me with their limited understanding.” God help all those on this blog and everywhere who think they can thoroughly explain or understand creation.
@Annette
Just because science has not done something or proven something as of yet does not= that it will never happen. As you can see from the incredible leap in our scientific understanding of the world, the universe, and creation that, one can be lead to the conclusion that ... in time, we will come to understand more of who we are and our world.
However, to insert god or allah or yhwh into every possible 'gap' that science does not understand...(yet.).. is very misleading, and a common religious argument.
Peace to you...
@Annette
Before you start praying God help anyone else, you should consider praying God help you first to check your attitude about Hawking being disabled.
Just sayin'
If Stephen is smart enough to figure out how the world was created, why can't he cure his own medical condition?
@Annette
Because there is no God....
Peace...
The two are unrelated. Hawking is a theoretical physicist, not a medical doctor.
Pretty obvious really. He's not a biomedical researcher.
@Anette
I know PhD people get called Doctor just like those with an MD, but they're kind of different – your comment is kind of daft.
OK, not "kinda". And "daft" seems too mild ... but the word I'm looking for wouldn't get past the filters here.
I know, let's try ... "You semi-evolved pseudo-simian putrescent sack of protoplasmic slime"
It's even nice and techy to go with the thread 🙂
Just sayin'
@Kate
The 'exact' description I was looking for.... 🙂
Peace....
@peace2all
You know, when I woke up yesterday morning, the one thing I never expected to be in a position to say on the CNN Belief Blogs was that.
I guess some things are just destined to happen regardless. How's that for pre-ordination?
Hey, how come you already got a "Like" vote on my site?? You bribe a Jehovah's Witless to vote for you or something? 🙂
Just preenin'
One more thing. If you use god to explain the universe... then you still need to explain where god came from! Or you are just explaining one unknown with another even bigger unknown.
@RPR
Pretty well said...
Peace.......
I don't think anyone here is writing a term paper on how everything came into being. It is just impossible to put forth a strong argument for creation coming from itself and not from any God. Did my mother come before me? No, that's silly.
NO ONE has seen God, has spoken with God on a daily basis, can explain exactly how God works. The Lord God is simply above and beyond our comprehension... That's what the Bible claims. Christians will (and should) agree with you on this one.
@Peter F
Oh no.... Not the old ....'everything just makes sense that there is a god that created everything argument'.... that really makes more sense..
And... because the bible said so.... as a 'reference'.... Not this again....
Peace....
When you think about it, it really does make sense. SIMPLY PUT: SOMETHING CANNOT COME FROM NOTHING. Wasn't this proven in science somewhere? lol
I have a problem getting my head around "something out of nothing" but I have a *much* bigger problem with "a god did it." The former I can aceppt as an incomplete answer, not unlike my ability to fully understand many complex scientific matters – the latter is simply foolishness (yes, in my opinion but noone who disagrees with me has any proof to the contrary... do you?). THERE IS(ARE) NO GOD(S) – Look, I've changed because of a believer!
@HotAirAce
SO let me make sure I have this straight ... you can believe in something out of nothing, despite there being absolutely no proof of it, and you have to take one guy's word on it that it probably happened that way – but you can't use the exact same faith to believe in a different reason behind "something out of nothing"?
You realize the two are pretty much the same thing, essentially under your logic, right?
You're already practicing a religion, you're just cloaking it in scientific mumbo-jumbo 🙂
I do appreciate your more precise declaration, incidentally – although I must point out you're missing a few words from it for it to count ...
Just sayin'
@Kate
I agree that to some extent, belief in science and beleif in mumbo jumbo books requires some amount of faith. The difference is that science proposes theories and then proceeds to pile the results of reproducible experiments upon on top of previous knowledge to expand our total understanding and prove, or dispose, propositions, while religion does not. I do not have complete faith in everything that scientists say, but I do have complete faith that the scientific method will continuously revise and refine our knowledge. I have zero faith that religion will do the same. The reason that I care is because, as I said above, I beleive their is resurgence of the "let's get with god" crowd in the USA. If a group says "we must govern this country as god wants us to," I think it's perfectly proper to ask them to defend their rationale. If they can't defend it with a better argument thant "because it's written in this book," then they should go away.
@HotAirAce
I can respect that position, but I agree with you on the governing part – that's what the first amendment was designed to stop.
@Peter F
"When you think about it, it really does make sense. SIMPLY PUT: SOMETHING CANNOT COME FROM NOTHING. Wasn't this proven in science somewhere? lol"
Why do you insist everything must be caused by something? How do you know this? Maybe some things are infinite and uncaused. But if you are right, and everything requires a cause then that means someone or something must have created your god as well.
If you claim an exception to the rule and your god can exist without anything having caused Him, then so can the universe.
Science doesn't know where the material of the singularity came from or what exactly caused the Big Bang. But once the Bang occurred, only gravity and inertia were required to form the entire universe. No god required.
If Air Supply made love out of nothing at all, certainly something half as powerful could have brought all of time and creation into being.
It's about time we widened the debate on religion to the front page! Politicians (and the religious in general) need to be held responsible for their beliefs when their beliefs in fairy tales and nonsense guide their public decisions! They need to be held up to the light and show how silly the whole religious thing is. Religious influences has been dwindling since the enlightenment! God use to explain everything! He/she/it has been replaced by rational scientific thought until now he is only used to explain the supernatural that people mistakenly perceive (ghosts, goblins, angels...). Just a little more and perhaps we can rid ourselves of this social cancer once and for all. Most of the hate in the world is brought about by religious differences.
Yes! I could not agree more!! I hope ('cause I do not pray to invisble beings or for anything) for the day that religious people fall into the same category as believers in astrology, human sacrifice and other beliefs now clearly seen as foolish and danerous, and people with significant mental illness – that it becomes embarassing for them to declare their silly believes in public.
I don't understand why non-believers dislike believers so much. I don't care what you believe as long as you aren't cramming it down my throat every chance you get. That includes the religious and the atheists.
@HotAirAce...
Ever been in a fox hole with bullets flying overhead? I'd be willing to bet you'd throw a "prayer" out to some sort of creator at that point.
Think about this... if I'm wrong, I just turn into dirt. If you're wrong, it's an eternity in hell. Take your chances if you like.
@Scott
Re: foxhole believers, no, I fortunately have not had to duck bullets, so cannot claim firsthand knowledge of my or other's behaviour in such a situation. But! You may be surprised to read that I suspect you might be right – in times of danger or stress, I might utter something resembling a prayer. But I would like to believe that this behaviour would merely be an involuntary action caused by a terrible childhood (my parents forced me to go to many years of Sunday School, something I did not inflict upon my sons...) and the numerous instances of religion-based phrases that the English language is laced with (Bless You, Thank God, There but for the grace of god go I, you get the idea). Despite my atheist believes, I sometimes almost use these phrases – bad habits are hard to eliminate. Holding on to pre-historic or medival superstitions, even in the most casual manner, does not give those superst-itions any credibility.
@Scott
Re: foxhole believers, no, I fortunately have not had to duck bullets, so cannot claim firsthand knowledge of my or other's behaviour in such a situation. But! You may be surprised to read that I suspect you might be right – in times of danger or stress, I might utter something resembling a prayer. But I would like to believe that this behaviour would merely be an involuntary action caused by a terrible childhood (my parents forced me to go to many years of Sunday School, something I did not inflict upon my sons...) and the numerous instances of religion-based phrases that the English language is laced with (Bless You, Thank God, There but for the grace of god go I, you get the idea). Despite my atheist believes, I sometimes almost use these phrases – bad habits are hard to eliminate. Holding on to pre-historic or medival superst-itions, even in the most casual manner, does not give those superst-itions any credibility.
And how was the law of gravity came to existence?...some simple examples are- If you take a tallest tree, the roots carry water from the ground to the tip of the tree without a pump.It is thru capilary action.Can a man design a long tall trunk like that?
Next is- Has any discovery revaled the growth of a baby inside a womb?...It begins to grow as a well planned orchestra..where as it does not grow fully outside the wom!..
If we exist on our own wthout a preplanned orderliness then how did all things in this world which is natural is so well synchronised. the scientist has to think more.As it is written, The thing has not been thought by the mind of man.Nor his ear hasnt heared those which God has kept for his own people.
Why do you assume that nature is incapable of complex creation?
In the fairest logical terms, you are making an argument from ignorance. Your lack of understanding of botany, biology and hydrodynamics does not logically permit you to insert your god where your understanding ends. You have created a plethora of logical problems. First, you will need to prove your god exists. Then, you will need to prove that your god created everything. After that, you will need to prove that your god created everything intentionally. Or, if you cannot provide the logical support necessary for your statement and argument, we can just admit that your position and comments are not worthy of my 6th grade sons debate class.
Even if a belief in intelligent design is semi-logical (it still lacks evidence, but then so does atheism), it is NOT logical to assume that the Intelligent Designer must be the God of the Bible, or another known deity. People are not religious for logical or scientific reasons. That is why religion requires faith.
@Eric G.
Darn! I wish I could express myself as well as you. You really nailed that. Cheers!
"Religous Leaders" == people with significant mental illness, conscious charlatans and/or child molesters . THERE ARE NO GODS and those that "truly believe" have no credibility – on anything, not even the religion they claim to know.
@HotAirAce
You're quite correct in that diatribe, there are no Gods
As in plural.
Follow the thought through to its logical conclusion and you'll be well on your way 🙂
Just sayin'
THERE ARE NO GODS – NOT EVEN JUST 1!
Nice try at trickery though...
@kate
Found ya'..... O.K.... Play nice... 🙂 We have been over in the 'How xtians spoil s* e * x" article....
Again, play nice I can see you got something going here with @HotAirAce...
Peace.....
@HotAirAce
Really? Aw shucks, you say the nicest things!
Only, if it were tricky, how come you came to the logical conclusion?
Just sayin'
@kate
Oh my, here we go..... 🙂 Well, I tried......
Peace....
@peace2all
Oh come on, it wasn't that good ... I still think the can Einstein Count one was my best to date.
I haven't been paying attention to my feedreader this morning and missed seeing new threads kick open, that whole working thing keeps me distracted unless I see names pop up in peripheral vision.
Wait, Christians ruin s3x? That's an actual thread??
Just laughin'
@Kate
Yeah.... the "can Einstein count" was definitely a good one. However, I thought you "giving Reality a ....'dose' of himself was right up there too... LOL...! 🙂
Yep.... there are so many comments being posted on the 'xtians spoil s** article' that all my one-liners are being missed.
Oh well.... talk soon.
Peace....
@Kate
You said, "You're quite correct in that diatribe, there are no Gods
As in plural."
Actually some Christians believe there are 3 Christian god.
The Hindu religion has many gods.
Just sayin'
Sometimes it is acceptable to sacrifice rationality for emotional stability. Religious beliefs are fine as long as they don't seriously impair anyone's daily functioning.
Don't assume that people who think differently from you are "mentally ill" – especially if those people are in the majority. Religion is perfectly normal for humans.
@David Johnson
Damn, you caught me! Onoes, I'm becoming a fundie!!
Just whimperin'
In the midst of incontrovertible evidence that man has—somewhere, sometime, somehow—grossly erred, this ingrate freak finally overthrows the role of a functioning brain, the one surviving human tool in this birth, and the only thing that has allowed same access to the public eye. Without the existence of God’s mercy, society could not have tolerated even the appearance of this mockery of humankind; and now the repulsive lump has rewarded ignorant evil for even that good.
And thank you for your mercy. Let me guess – your're a so-called Christian?
OMG! I have a hard time following this but I get the idea. Could you be more cruel? Does your god approve of such hate?
Mary,
Thank you for making other Christians, like me, look like horrible people. It sure isn't God's love makes you spew that nastiness. That sounds more like someone who has red skin, horns and likes it hot!!!!!
@pete- just remember Mary when you start thinking all nonbelievers are arrogant, hostile and dismissive. All camps have people like this among them. The internet is a breeding ground for 'em.
Hopefully, nothing will ever happen to you (accident or disease) where you become confined to a wheelchair, or cannot speak clearly, or have to be hooked up to machines, or some other thing that would set you apart from "healthy" people. If it does, I hope that no one calls you a "lump" or is cruel to you about your malady. Also, what religion do you practice? I want to make sure I stay as far away from that particular church so as not to have your kind of values rub off on me. I'm afraid if they did, I'd have to kill myself.
-_-
once again eh
apparently everybody once again knows what god thinks
@Mary
When they invent time travel, I will gladly pay for you to take a package tour of the days of the Inquisition – and you can even be the lucky one picked from the crowd for an up close demonstration.
Or, maybe you should try praying much harder to whatever God you think you follow proudly and see what they think.
Just sayin'
Mary,
You didn't need to pull out the thesaurus to prove to us that Christians are nasty people hating hypocrites. How evil and confused you are!
Ah sweet Mary! You must be a joy to wake to each morning. Cheers!
I've always believed that the only reasonable position is that of an Agnostic, unless one has had the direct experience of God.
Reading about God, hearing about God, talking with someone who has experienced God is not the same as the direct personal experience.
And since it's impossible to prove a negative, the atheist is as dogmatic as the religious fundamentalist.
BTW – it was Huxley's grandfather who coined the term Agnostic, as an attempt to refine the vocabulary of discussions about science and religion.
It is not the responsility of atheists to "prove a negative." It is the responsility of believers to prove their argument. They have had 2000+ years to do so, and have not, so should shut up and seek help for their mental health issues.
@HotAirAce
Umm, why is it the responsibility of anyone to prove anything? Sounds like you want to though ...
Just sayin'
You are right that I can't prove a negative. But, if you are making the extraorinary claim (God is Real) then you should produce extraordinary proof. The burden is on you.
You said, "Reading about God, hearing about God, talking with someone who has experienced God is not the same as the direct personal experience."
So, you have had this god experience. You and the Muslims, and the Hindus and the Buddhists and the >1000 different Christian denominations.
So what proof do you have that you had your experience with the one true god?
@Kate
I don't want to prove anthing. I want believers to prove their case or shut up and go away, because my sense is that there is a resurgence of religious belief in the USA, at least as measured by the volume of crap from the likes of Glenn Beck and the good pastor that wants to burn Korans (I say "burn 'em all – every bible, Koran, book of mumbo jumbo), and an American theocracy scares me hugely. When the stupid get control, stupid things will happen!!!
@HotAirAce
Why should religious people have to prove their beliefs? That defeats the purpose of "faith." The main purpose of religion, unlike that of science, is not to inform. Religion is therefore not a real opponent of science and there is no reason for the two to clash (especially from a scientific standpoint). What would anyone gain from trying to disprove a religion?
@HotAirAce
Why is it so important to you that believers "prove their case or shut up and go away" – what difference does it make to you? Do you want them to make their case?
Need them to?
Just askin'
Amen brother! If the Religious Right gains enough political power, they will make this a Christian Nation. That means they say what is moral. We will dance to their tune. I hate to dance, man.
I salute you!
God is needed to explain the existence of supernatural souls. The evidence for human souls is all around us. it is called free will. Scientists and atheists agree that free will by definition cannot now or ever be explained as a natural phenomenon. see quotes by Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrodinger, Charles Darwin, William Provine and others in the book "The Science of the Soul: Scientific Evidence of Human Souls." If a human choice can be explained by the laws of science, it would not be free. Either humans have free will and souls or humans are biological robots. But look at the free choices you make every day. you are not a robot.
Ah, but that leads into an interesting debate into the nature of free will. First off, what is it, I mean truly? And how would I know, or any of us know, that any choice I made was free. I had a steak sandwich for lunch today. Free choice, or a confluence of forces determining the decision for me? How would I know the difference? I'm not necessarily arguing one side or the other, just offering another perspective.
Ummmm Wrong. As an athiest I know that man does not have free will any more then a rock does! We are all determined by our nature and nurture! Free will is just an idea that the church gave to the unbelievers so they could justify the torturing of others into believing that god existed, thereby controlling their free will. Ironic isn't it!
RPR
If god is all knowing, then free will does not exist. Everything is predestined.
Look at it this way: everything that happens happens for a multitude of reasons. For every effect, there are a nearly infinite number of factors that cause the event to happen EXACTLY as it did – and since all of those causes occur before the event, they are constant. If the causes are constant, everything that happens is inevitable. This includes decisions – you decide as you do according to the specific situation, and according to your personality/identity – which is, in turn, a result of biology and environment. Any and all environmental factors may affect who you are (directly, indirectly, butterfly effect, etc), so your identity may be constantly changing – usually insignificant changes, but still changes nonetheless. The decision you make at any given point in time depends on the culmination of all previous factors (your personality), and on all the present factors in the situation itself. Therefore, you MUST choose as you do, even if you think you could have chosen differently.
If true randomness exists, perhaps not everything is inevitable, but there is still no "free will."
So yes, if all of the above is true, then all life forms are "biological robots."
Of course, even if the above IS true (which it may not be), life must proceed as if there is free will. Determinism cannot mix with daily life, or society would completely fall apart.
Bill the Science Guy wrote:
Either humans have free will and souls or humans are biological robots. But look at the free choices you make every day. you are not a robot.
... ...
I respond:
Either Australopithecus afarensis has free will or Australopiths are biological robots. But look at the free choices Australopiths make every day. Australopiths are not robots.
There is a common misconseption about religion. Religion is not an entity which is seperate, it is not some form of social tumor which can be easily removed. Religion is a manifestation of a number of factors of humanity and the human condition.
It is very difficult for humans to admit that they are wrong, or accept any form of change for that matter. Wether it is religion, a scientific principle, or a socio-political opinion, most people will hold an ideal aloft regadless of the evidence against it.
Religion and faith is a manifestation of the human condition, a symptom that is not easily treated. You cannot fully remove the idea of a belief in a higher being or purpose for humanity, wether it be a god or a desire for man to aquire as much knowledge as possible, all of these higher ideals are reflected in the human condition. Attempting to state that something is unncessary will only end up being rebuked. Instead, it should be argued that a gradual change from an anthropormorphic deitey which will bring salvation to a belief that man can alter his own destiny to eventually be as a god is neccesary.
Eventually there will be no need to believe in a god, this process will be slow, but it will eventually happen, and god will be replaced with another aspiration which may be as equally unatainable.
I am not threatened by anyone's philosophy. But our faith in a creator should not rest on science alone. I applaud most scientific
pursuits as a search for truth, but when science decides that God is irrevelant, or to play God with life, then we people of faith need
to decde where we fall– for God or for man's foolish attempts to replace Him.
Science brings us closer to Truth Himself.
Science is chasing god about the universe, with an iron chariot! Soon He will have no place to hide!
It is good Jesus has his carpentry skills to fall back on!
DJ,
It is as if you are hoping there is no God. I find that fascinating. And I see it repeated again and again in these comments. Most atheists not only refuse to believe in God, but refuse to want an all knowing, all powerful, completely loving being in their lives.
@Peter F
You said "It is as if you are hoping there is no God. I find that fascinating. And I see it repeated again and again in these comments. Most atheists not only refuse to believe in God, but refuse to want an all knowing, all powerful, completely loving being in their lives."
Who would not want a god, that would take care of them for eternity? But the evidence says there is a low probability of that god existing. I am not hoping god does not exist. I am open to the possibility
If you fundies produce any proof that god exists, I would listen.
Fundies don't produce proof. Instead they make unfounded claims. Like:
Prayer works – No proof for that. The bible, Jesus, makes many claims about prayer. They are bogus.
My god is the real god – Yeah, except there are a lot of Chrisian denominations, followers of Islam, Buddhists, Jews (Judaism)
all believe their god is the one true god. Let's see, they cannot all be right. But they can all be wrong.
My King James proves my god is real, and my bible is inspired by god. Well everybody else has holy text or a bible. Why is yours any better than theirs? I have read the King James, and it is hard to believe. It is said to be inerrant, yet it contains errors.
I can feel god in my heart – Yep so can the other candidates for true god.
If the fundies grew up in Iran, they would all be squawking Allahu Akbar. There is no special "Jesus Gene".
The fault doesn't lie with the atheists. All the atheists ask is that you back up your claims with proof.
Show some proof Peter and I will be receptive. Most of the evidence is to the contrary.
A) Take a look at your previous comment and explain to me how that shows your willingness to listen to/seek God.
B) Define proof. I could say "the fact that the universe exists." But you wouldn't take that. What believers see as obvious indicators of God's existence, non-believers scoff at.
@Peter F
You said, "Take a look at your previous comment and explain to me how that shows your willingness to listen to/seek God."
I said, "If you fundies produce any proof that god exists, I would listen"
If by willingness to listen/seek God, you mean to stop thinking and just accept your beliefs? What good is a belief you cannot challenge? Would you have me go through life afraid/unwilling to consider that the god I worship is fiction? Is god so fragile?
You said, "Define proof. I could say "the fact that the universe exists." But you wouldn't take that. What believers see as obvious indicators of God's existence, non-believers scoff at."
People tend to see what they want to see. A rainbow is an indicator of god. Except it isn't. Science has learned what makes rainbows. Once science learns how something is done, the magic dies. God moves on. In the last 300 years, he must have felt
like a gypsy, alway wandering... kinda sad really.
You have no proof Peter. All you have is a feeling in your heart and a flawed bible that you believe is the word of god.
I am always up for a challenge! Get with your god and the two of you come up with the greatest argument ever for His existence.
Cheers! Leaving work now.
@David Johnson
Basically you want to see a babel fish 😛
Just hitch-hikin'
Very well put Pete. How we treat others is what is most important. Differences in opinion coupled with respect for others make our world a more interesting and better place.
So very true. I point to the intolerance of other views by the church as not "Faith", but hatred.
A religion is sometime a source of happiness, and I would not deprive anyone of happiness. But it is a comfort appropriate for the weak, not for the strong. The great trouble with religion – any religion – is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm fire of faith or choose to live in the bleak certainty of reason- but one cannot have both. [Robert A. Heinlein, from "Friday"]
@Doc
And shortly thereafter Kettle Belly fell over dead
Just sayin'
The certainty of reason is what strengthens a weak faith in God.
Another point is:
Faith is believing in order to know.
Mystical experiences are outside the realm of our day to day experiences, but do not, by their nature, contradict anything described by science.
Huston Smith likes to describe that we live in the middle of three realms:
The micro – the world of quantum physics
The macro – where we mostly do our day to day existence
The mega – the realm of light speed and galaxies
Newtonian physics does a good job of describing the macro, our world as we experience it. But to understand and be able to predict behavior in the other two realms requires a technical language: mathematics. Nothing in our limited experience can provide us with a competent mental model of how things work in the two adjacent realms. Neils Bohr acknowledged this after struggling for decades about the implications of quantum physics.
But, the mystical realm is even further outside our day to day experience – and also requires a technical language to make it intelligible: the myths, parables, and analogies that point to the experience – but are not the experience itself. These are the subjects that Joseph Campbell, Huston Smith, and Aldous Huxley talk about – which does not conflict with science, and even embarrasses it.
Sorry – a Freudian slip in my last post.
I said, "These are the subjects that Joseph Campbell, Huston Smith, and Aldous Huxley talk about – which does not conflict with science, and even embarrasses it."
I should have said, "These are the subjects that Joseph Campbell, Huston Smith, and Aldous Huxley talk about – which does not conflict with science, and even embrace it."
So much for spell checkers...
Doc,
I would be careful in saying that those who subscribe to religion are weak of mind. You could easily go the other way and say that those who do not believe want to take the easy way out (which i believe is true).
I don't believe that it is true that if you don't believe/have faith, you're taking the easy way out. Not the way i originally put it. Sorry.
The only reason/time religion embraces science is to maintain its control over beleivers. "OK, it looks like we were wrong about that, but don't worry, you can/should beleive our other b*llsh*t...", repeat too often... THERE ARE NO GODS...
Reposted 'cause earlier I must have used a naughty word, triggering a "your post is awaiting moderation" status...
The only reason/time religion embraces science is to maintain its control over beleivers. "OK, it looks like we were wrong about that, but don't worry, you can/should still beleive our other "revealed truths"...", repeat way too often... THERE ARE NO GODS...
This is not a revolutionary idea. Darwin's Theory of Evolution dates back to 1859 and is now accepted by most rational people as a fact. Is it such a leap to think that if God did not create Man, maybe there is no God? That is not to say that the idea of God is not a valuable aspect of human society and considered necessary to many. Those that find comfort in their belief that there is a God need not be threatened by his belief. Religion is based on what you believe not what you can prove so why get so upset if someone else has a different point of view. Live and let Live.
I think to true believers, we are not threatened by Mr. Hawkings' belief. God/Jesus/Holy Spirit teaches love, respect, and carring for others. Espeically those who are "different" (different races, ethnicities, views, religions). Its through conversations together about our differences that we can come to an understanding and common ground.
Along with that I would say a willingness to listen. Listening is so hard for people in this day and age... (myself included). It's all about what I know, what I have to say, but there is a lot to learn (from others as well as that 'still, small voice') 🙂
I love the quote from Gerald Heard (the man who introduced Aldous Huxley to Vedanta):
"Faith is not believing something which our intelligence denies. Faith is the resolve to place the highest meaning on the facts which we observe."
I actually think that David or Frogist mentioned something similar in yesterdays post, that science help explain what happended and religion gives us an understanding or meaning. I
This story reminds me of the old joke about a scientist who comes to God and says, "We don't need you anymore, we figured out how to create life without you."
God looks puzzled and says, "OK – show me how you do it."
The scientist starts, "First you take a little dirt..."
God interrupts and says, "Hey, wait a minute – get your own dirt."
Science can give us very good details about what happened after the moment of creation, but can tell us nothing of the cause of creation.
When the definition of God includes being eternal it becomes absudly simple to attack science because they cannot provied the 1st event. If Hawkings were to say gravity was eternal he would be ridiculed. The same reasoning should apply to God.
Except God is a supernatural being who, by his very nature, existed before everything. Gravity is a fundamental part of this universe, which cannot exist without a creator... i.e. God. Where do planets, stars, asteroids and all this other cosmic debris come from? It just popped out of thin air into this particular template? I'm sorry, I just struggle to understand how people refuse to believe in a creator when there is so much STUFF around that didn't put itself into existence.
@ Peter. Why do you have an easier time accepting God as eternal than you do anything else?
Jon- love the aphorism. So relevant.
All- God (the Christian God)...Alpha Omega, beginning and end, Creator of all, Master, Lord, Trinity...all these "titles" are simply that. The true absolute is only in a personal relationship with the Father, which is only through acceptance of His Son. Trying to argue it away by name calling doesn't make a true believer any more apt to put their belief aside. When you have that "personal relationship" there is an absolute that what you know and what you have experienced is true AND you NEVER want to be without that peace again. Arguing or debating with a believer is like trying to make your point with a wall. There is nothing that anyone can ever say that will change my mind about WHO created this universe. If you will just for one second ask Him to come into your life and believe for 30 seconds while you ask....your life will be changed forever.
Because God is defined by his all-encompassingness... haha. In other words, God is the only one that CAN come before everything. Everyone talks about logic in articles like these – so where is the logic in something coming before God?
there are no gods, singular or plural, and there is earth and the universe. Will we still be speaking about mythology in another 1000 years?!?
@kd
No, we won't still be talking about mythology in 1000 years.
We'll be dead by then.
On the bright side, CNN may have discovered a better comments system in the meantime.
Just prophesyin'
@Peter F
You said, "Except God is a supernatural being who, by his very nature, existed before everything"
How do you know that? What proof can you possibly have that what you are saying has an ounce of truth in it.
You assume there is a god and then you drape him with whatever attributes you choose, without offering any proof that god even exists. Sheesh!
Jon, I fully agree with you. To say that given gravity the rest of the creation will follow and things will get made out of nothing is ridiculous, and smacks of the "self importance' the scientific community has attached to itself. Surely, many will argue that there is nothing wrong in starting from a premise and then concluding something, which is probably what Hawking may be doing.
Hawking should get his own dirt first, or else his claim is akin to "I figured out how to go from London to New York. You book yourself on a British Airways flight."
We have made Black Holes and Antimatter at CERN, we don't need this "dirt"
When scientists get to the place that they can figure out where life comes from they'll find clergymen there waiting for them.
When clergymen get to the place that they can figure out where life comes from they'll find a basic high-school Biology textbook there waiting for them
Where does life come from? Mud? Cosmic dust? Volcanic ash? Hmmm... when anyone can give me a well supported answer that does not include God I would surely love to read it.
Where does life come from? Mud? Cosmic dust? Volcanic ash? Hmmm... when anyone can give me a WELL SUPPORTED answer that DOES INCLUDE god I would surely love to read it.
The idea that god "owns" anything comes from the greed of the church. The CHURCHES that are owend by the church represent BILLIONS of dollars in prime real estate.
God is just a tool to run the world with fear.
Hey "genius"
the scientist Francesco Redi disproved the theory of spontaneous generation in 1668
Ok, but isn't it possible we've learned a little more in 350 years?
Sorry, but this has a lot more to do that proving that maggots don't simply grow out of meat. THAT is what Redi proved... Redi proved that spontaneous generation, that is, life can come from unliving matter (maggots grow out of dead animals), is false. Really, living things come from other living things (maggots come from flies). This is COMPLETELY different from abiogenesis, which is what we're talking about here. Abiogenesis is concerned with how life originated. And by the way, Louis Pasteur is the one credited with disproving spontaneous generation.
Someone who doesn’t even know If chicken was first or egg, which we should know a lot more about it and easier to confirm, how does he know about the all universe?, first he should explain the most sample question about chicken or egg (which come first), than talk about the all universe
@john- because he's a physicist, not a biologist?
Stephen Hawking has simply defined the nature of God in it's most basic form. God IS Life, with the capital L, an endlessly creative power that is self-propagating and self-sustaining and never-ending. The problem lies with how men interpret what they read about God in the scriptures or other holy books; msn likes to create God in his own image, subject to his own understanding. "God" needs to be taught differently, in many cases. Human language simply lacks capacity to really name God in a way that describes that indescribable phenomenon. I daresay Hawking is reacting to how what he may have been exposed to in religious teaching doesn't make sense with what he understands as the truth of physics. In his way he is right, and it's because of man-taught religion. God is something one experiences to understand, period. I for one stay away from church – God is so much bigger than all that.
I will say again-The heavens are full of fools -poor little man he is struggling and he is trying to prove to him self that his butt just came into being. maybe in the dark corners of his mind there are more deeper issues ,like why he came out the way he did and blames God and hates God, if only one could start to intrude into the mine of a great mad man! I have said again!
How very sad, the Being that Hawkins denies, is the very one who will remedy all earth's woes in the near future, including all the diseases that have ravaged mankind. He still has a problem with his theory. Were did gravity come from and the laws of phsyics that govern the universe, known and unknown. If there are laws there is a lawgiver. That is an indisputable fact, no supposed theory needed.
But does spontaneous generation explain this prophecy
Revelations5:14 The Faithful and True Witness. The Beginning of the 'Creation' of God.
Of course the Church will argue thier is a god. If thier is no god, they are exposed for the lying,fearmongering,pedophiles they really are. To me, the murdering scum that the church is proves he CANNOT exsist or he would smite those who make a buck off of his name.