Jump to content



Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

Stephen Hawking and God


  • Please log in to reply
82 replies to this topic

#1 shadowhawk

  • Member
  • 2,923 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.

Posted 28 October 2010 - 12:34 AM



http://www.youtube.c...h?v=g8fI8wdvteU

A must watch for life extension enthusiasts. Touches on life extension, transhumanism, interstellar/galactic travel and multiverse.


It ends with Hawking saying: When we finally unravel the whole cosmic puzzle, we will become masters not just of our universe, but of the universe next door.

How remarkable is it that you and I might be at the brink of having the opportunity- no- the utmost honor, of witnessing this next step in the universe's and of our own evolution. To cure aging and live on to answer these questions.

The excitement within me just boils and makes my eyes tear, and makes my stomach do backflips.... What if...what if we're finally the generation that gets to see it all... what are the chances that we're finally the ones to make it into the greatest revolution that mankind ever launched. Might we be the ones? I mean, SERIOUSLY? Am I really living in this time, where I can get to see something that happens billions of years from now? Can I be that lucky? Wouldn't that be like winning the lottery 50,000 times over or something?

Man, how I wish to see it all happen. My deepest wish....

Thank you for that. It was mind-numbingly beautiful.

An interesting take by Frank Tipler on thisProving the Existence of God

Is it possible to postulate the "Uncaused Cause" in physics to explain the beginning of the universe, thus proving the existence of a personal God? September 14, 2010 - by Frank J. Tipler Posted Image

In 1966, Stephen Hawking published his first — completely valid — proof for the existence of God. Over the next seven years, he followed this with even more powerful valid theorems proving God’s existence.

So how did Hawking, who successfully proved God’s existence, remain an atheist? Simple. He simply denied that the assumptions he used in his proofs were true. As a matter of logic, if the assumptions in a proof are not true, then the conclusions need not be true. What assumptions did the young Hawking make? He assumed that the laws of physics, mainly Einstein’s theory of gravity, were true. In the summary of his early research, namely his book The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, Hawking wrote:

It seems to be a good principle that the prediction of [God] by a physical theory indicates that the theory has broken down, i.e. it no longer provides a correct description of observations.

Hawking then began working on quantum gravity, in hopes that God would be at last eliminated from the equations. Alas, it was not to be: God was even more prominent — and unavoidable — in quantum gravity than in Einstein’s theory of gravity. In his latest book, The Grand Design, Hawking has pinned his hope of eliminating God on M-theory, a theory with no experimental support whatsoever, hence not a theory of physics at all. Nor has it been proven that M-theory is mathematically consistent. Nor has it been proven that God has been eliminated from M-theory. There are disquieting signs (for Hawking and company) that He is also unavoidable in M-theory, as He is in Einstein’s gravity, and in quantum gravity.

In spite of what the atheist press is telling you, it’s looking bad for atheism today. And it is extraordinary the lengths an atheist like Hawking will go to avoid the obvious: God exists.

The alert reader will have noticed that in the above quote, Hawking did not actually use the word “God.” But this is what he really meant. To see this, let us recall just what the word “God” means.

Consider the opening words of the (original) Nicene Creed: “We believe in one God, the omnipotent Father, Maker of all things visible and invisible.” These words give the basic definition of “God” used by Christians and Jews: God is the Cause of everything, but He Himself has no cause. God is the Uncaused First Cause. In his Second Way, Thomas Aquinas proves the existence of the Uncaused First (efficient) Cause, and Aquinas concludes, “to which all give the name ‘God’ (quam omnes Deum nominant).”

So now let us return to the theorems of the young Hawking. By following the history of the universe back into time — in other words, by following the causes of the current universe back into time — Hawking proved that all of these causes had a common cause; a common cause that did not itself have a cause. This common cause was an Uncaused Cause that was beyond the control of the laws of physics, beyond the control of any possible laws of physics. Rather, the entire universe began at this Uncaused First Cause.

In exactly the same way that Aquinas used the word “create,” we can say that the Uncaused First Cause, whose existence was proven decades ago by Hawking, “created” the universe.

Hawking called this Uncaused First Cause a “singularity.”

But given the properties of this “singularity,” it is God. So I have replaced the word “singularity,” which Hawking actually used in the above quote, with what it really means according to Aquinas.

To show how this Cosmological Singularity — the Uncaused First Cause — can manifest itself as a personal God would require a book, which I have written. Indeed, the personal nature of God is not obvious in Hawking’s proof of His existence. But neither is it obvious in the proof of Aquinas, and Aquinas also required a book to establish God’s personal nature.

The interesting thing about Hawking’s existence proof for God is that it can be tested experimentally, since it is based on experimentally confirmed physical law. I published a paper in a refereed physics journal a few years ago pointing this out. Eventually the experiment will be done, but it will require tens of thousands of dollars for equipment.

So don’t despair, my fellow theists! The recent slew of best-selling books by atheists attacking religion, supposedly using science, is their last gasp. Remember the great words of Gandhi: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

We theists are now at stage three.

Frank J. Tipler is Professor of Mathematical Physics at Tulane University. He is the co-author of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford University Press) and the author of The Physics of Immortality and The Physics of Christianity both published by Doubleday.


  • 0

#2 Elus

  • Registered User
  • 756 posts
  • 717
  • Location:Interdimensional Space

Posted 28 October 2010 - 12:42 AM



http://www.youtube.c...h?v=g8fI8wdvteU

A must watch for life extension enthusiasts. Touches on life extension, transhumanism, interstellar/galactic travel and multiverse.


It ends with Hawking saying: When we finally unravel the whole cosmic puzzle, we will become masters not just of our universe, but of the universe next door.

How remarkable is it that you and I might be at the brink of having the opportunity- no- the utmost honor, of witnessing this next step in the universe's and of our own evolution. To cure aging and live on to answer these questions.

The excitement within me just boils and makes my eyes tear, and makes my stomach do backflips.... What if...what if we're finally the generation that gets to see it all... what are the chances that we're finally the ones to make it into the greatest revolution that mankind ever launched. Might we be the ones? I mean, SERIOUSLY? Am I really living in this time, where I can get to see something that happens billions of years from now? Can I be that lucky? Wouldn't that be like winning the lottery 50,000 times over or something?

Man, how I wish to see it all happen. My deepest wish....

Thank you for that. It was mind-numbingly beautiful.

An interesting take by Frank Tipler on thisProving the Existence of God

Is it possible to postulate the "Uncaused Cause" in physics to explain the beginning of the universe, thus proving the existence of a personal God? September 14, 2010 - by Frank J. Tipler Posted Image

In 1966, Stephen Hawking published his first — completely valid — proof for the existence of God. Over the next seven years, he followed this with even more powerful valid theorems proving God's existence.

So how did Hawking, who successfully proved God's existence, remain an atheist? Simple. He simply denied that the assumptions he used in his proofs were true. As a matter of logic, if the assumptions in a proof are not true, then the conclusions need not be true. What assumptions did the young Hawking make? He assumed that the laws of physics, mainly Einstein's theory of gravity, were true. In the summary of his early research, namely his book The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, Hawking wrote:

It seems to be a good principle that the prediction of [God] by a physical theory indicates that the theory has broken down, i.e. it no longer provides a correct description of observations.

Hawking then began working on quantum gravity, in hopes that God would be at last eliminated from the equations. Alas, it was not to be: God was even more prominent — and unavoidable — in quantum gravity than in Einstein's theory of gravity. In his latest book, The Grand Design, Hawking has pinned his hope of eliminating God on M-theory, a theory with no experimental support whatsoever, hence not a theory of physics at all. Nor has it been proven that M-theory is mathematically consistent. Nor has it been proven that God has been eliminated from M-theory. There are disquieting signs (for Hawking and company) that He is also unavoidable in M-theory, as He is in Einstein's gravity, and in quantum gravity.

In spite of what the atheist press is telling you, it's looking bad for atheism today. And it is extraordinary the lengths an atheist like Hawking will go to avoid the obvious: God exists.

The alert reader will have noticed that in the above quote, Hawking did not actually use the word "God." But this is what he really meant. To see this, let us recall just what the word "God" means.

Consider the opening words of the (original) Nicene Creed: "We believe in one God, the omnipotent Father, Maker of all things visible and invisible." These words give the basic definition of "God" used by Christians and Jews: God is the Cause of everything, but He Himself has no cause. God is the Uncaused First Cause. In his Second Way, Thomas Aquinas proves the existence of the Uncaused First (efficient) Cause, and Aquinas concludes, "to which all give the name 'God' (quam omnes Deum nominant)."

So now let us return to the theorems of the young Hawking. By following the history of the universe back into time — in other words, by following the causes of the current universe back into time — Hawking proved that all of these causes had a common cause; a common cause that did not itself have a cause. This common cause was an Uncaused Cause that was beyond the control of the laws of physics, beyond the control of any possible laws of physics. Rather, the entire universe began at this Uncaused First Cause.

In exactly the same way that Aquinas used the word "create," we can say that the Uncaused First Cause, whose existence was proven decades ago by Hawking, "created" the universe.

Hawking called this Uncaused First Cause a "singularity."

But given the properties of this "singularity," it is God. So I have replaced the word "singularity," which Hawking actually used in the above quote, with what it really means according to Aquinas.

To show how this Cosmological Singularity — the Uncaused First Cause — can manifest itself as a personal God would require a book, which I have written. Indeed, the personal nature of God is not obvious in Hawking's proof of His existence. But neither is it obvious in the proof of Aquinas, and Aquinas also required a book to establish God's personal nature.

The interesting thing about Hawking's existence proof for God is that it can be tested experimentally, since it is based on experimentally confirmed physical law. I published a paper in a refereed physics journal a few years ago pointing this out. Eventually the experiment will be done, but it will require tens of thousands of dollars for equipment.

So don't despair, my fellow theists! The recent slew of best-selling books by atheists attacking religion, supposedly using science, is their last gasp. Remember the great words of Gandhi: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

We theists are now at stage three.

Frank J. Tipler is Professor of Mathematical Physics at Tulane University. He is the co-author of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford University Press) and the author of The Physics of Immortality and The Physics of Christianity both published by Doubleday.





Can you please keep your posts on religion and god in the correct section of the forum?

Not everyone thinks the way you do. You and I have clear and defined differences about what reality is, so let's keep that debate out of here and to the religion section.

This is not the place to preach your religion.


  • 0

#3 chris w

  • Registered User
  • 740 posts
  • 261
  • Location:Cracow, Poland

Posted 28 October 2010 - 03:10 PM

If God exists, he's an insensitive prick to say the least.


And better yet, if he exists - he would surely smack your ass for saying this loud. Yep, a nice guy.
  • 0

#4 Elus

  • Registered User
  • 756 posts
  • 717
  • Location:Interdimensional Space

Posted 28 October 2010 - 03:43 PM

Yeah, let's not turn this into a religious debate thread. Just a suggestion - I'd hate to see this thread degenerate into that.
  • 0

#5 chris w

  • Registered User
  • 740 posts
  • 261
  • Location:Cracow, Poland

Posted 28 October 2010 - 04:09 PM

Haha, chill, chill, I won't preach God hating. That's for other threads.
  • 0

#6 shadowhawk

  • Member
  • 2,923 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.

Posted 28 October 2010 - 08:10 PM




http://www.youtube.c...h?v=g8fI8wdvteU

A must watch for life extension enthusiasts. Touches on life extension, transhumanism, interstellar/galactic travel and multiverse.


It ends with Hawking saying: When we finally unravel the whole cosmic puzzle, we will become masters not just of our universe, but of the universe next door.

How remarkable is it that you and I might be at the brink of having the opportunity- no- the utmost honor, of witnessing this next step in the universe's and of our own evolution. To cure aging and live on to answer these questions.

The excitement within me just boils and makes my eyes tear, and makes my stomach do backflips.... What if...what if we're finally the generation that gets to see it all... what are the chances that we're finally the ones to make it into the greatest revolution that mankind ever launched. Might we be the ones? I mean, SERIOUSLY? Am I really living in this time, where I can get to see something that happens billions of years from now? Can I be that lucky? Wouldn't that be like winning the lottery 50,000 times over or something?

Man, how I wish to see it all happen. My deepest wish....

Thank you for that. It was mind-numbingly beautiful.

An interesting take by Frank Tipler on thisProving the Existence of God

Is it possible to postulate the "Uncaused Cause" in physics to explain the beginning of the universe, thus proving the existence of a personal God? September 14, 2010 - by Frank J. Tipler Posted Image

In 1966, Stephen Hawking published his first — completely valid — proof for the existence of God. Over the next seven years, he followed this with even more powerful valid theorems proving God's existence.

So how did Hawking, who successfully proved God's existence, remain an atheist? Simple. He simply denied that the assumptions he used in his proofs were true. As a matter of logic, if the assumptions in a proof are not true, then the conclusions need not be true. What assumptions did the young Hawking make? He assumed that the laws of physics, mainly Einstein's theory of gravity, were true. In the summary of his early research, namely his book The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, Hawking wrote:

It seems to be a good principle that the prediction of [God] by a physical theory indicates that the theory has broken down, i.e. it no longer provides a correct description of observations.

Hawking then began working on quantum gravity, in hopes that God would be at last eliminated from the equations. Alas, it was not to be: God was even more prominent — and unavoidable — in quantum gravity than in Einstein's theory of gravity. In his latest book, The Grand Design, Hawking has pinned his hope of eliminating God on M-theory, a theory with no experimental support whatsoever, hence not a theory of physics at all. Nor has it been proven that M-theory is mathematically consistent. Nor has it been proven that God has been eliminated from M-theory. There are disquieting signs (for Hawking and company) that He is also unavoidable in M-theory, as He is in Einstein's gravity, and in quantum gravity.

In spite of what the atheist press is telling you, it's looking bad for atheism today. And it is extraordinary the lengths an atheist like Hawking will go to avoid the obvious: God exists.

The alert reader will have noticed that in the above quote, Hawking did not actually use the word "God." But this is what he really meant. To see this, let us recall just what the word "God" means.

Consider the opening words of the (original) Nicene Creed: "We believe in one God, the omnipotent Father, Maker of all things visible and invisible." These words give the basic definition of "God" used by Christians and Jews: God is the Cause of everything, but He Himself has no cause. God is the Uncaused First Cause. In his Second Way, Thomas Aquinas proves the existence of the Uncaused First (efficient) Cause, and Aquinas concludes, "to which all give the name 'God' (quam omnes Deum nominant)."

So now let us return to the theorems of the young Hawking. By following the history of the universe back into time — in other words, by following the causes of the current universe back into time — Hawking proved that all of these causes had a common cause; a common cause that did not itself have a cause. This common cause was an Uncaused Cause that was beyond the control of the laws of physics, beyond the control of any possible laws of physics. Rather, the entire universe began at this Uncaused First Cause.

In exactly the same way that Aquinas used the word "create," we can say that the Uncaused First Cause, whose existence was proven decades ago by Hawking, "created" the universe.

Hawking called this Uncaused First Cause a "singularity."

But given the properties of this "singularity," it is God. So I have replaced the word "singularity," which Hawking actually used in the above quote, with what it really means according to Aquinas.

To show how this Cosmological Singularity — the Uncaused First Cause — can manifest itself as a personal God would require a book, which I have written. Indeed, the personal nature of God is not obvious in Hawking's proof of His existence. But neither is it obvious in the proof of Aquinas, and Aquinas also required a book to establish God's personal nature.

The interesting thing about Hawking's existence proof for God is that it can be tested experimentally, since it is based on experimentally confirmed physical law. I published a paper in a refereed physics journal a few years ago pointing this out. Eventually the experiment will be done, but it will require tens of thousands of dollars for equipment.

So don't despair, my fellow theists! The recent slew of best-selling books by atheists attacking religion, supposedly using science, is their last gasp. Remember the great words of Gandhi: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

We theists are now at stage three.

Frank J. Tipler is Professor of Mathematical Physics at Tulane University. He is the co-author of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford University Press) and the author of The Physics of Immortality and The Physics of Christianity both published by Doubleday.





Can you please keep your posts on religion and god in the correct section of the forum?

Not everyone thinks the way you do. You and I have clear and defined differences about what reality is, so let's keep that debate out of here and to the religion section.

This is not the place to preach your religion.


Obviously it is about Hawking’s and origins. :) I quoted a well known scientist and allmost all of my post was Tipler on Hawkings.. They disagree regarding the origins of the cosmos.

No two people in the forum think alike but who gave you the right to speak for every one? Nothing clear about this.

You think you have clear and defined differences with me? If so, how could you get it so wrong? We must disagree over the nature of Hawking’s book because I think my post was right on and about the topic of the book and the forum. Multi-media! So far a book and a book review. Are you on topic?
  • 1

#7 Elus

  • Registered User
  • 756 posts
  • 717
  • Location:Interdimensional Space

Posted 28 October 2010 - 08:43 PM


Obviously it is about Hawking's and origins. :) I quoted a well known scientist and allmost all of my post was Tipler on Hawkings.. They disagree regarding the origins of the cosmos.

No two people in the forum think alike but who gave you the right to speak for every one? Nothing clear about this.

You think you have clear and defined differences with me? If so, how could you get it so wrong? We must disagree over the nature of Hawking's book because I think my post was right on and about the topic of the book and the forum. Multi-media! So far a book and a book review. Are you on topic?



I quote you: So don't despair, my fellow theists! The recent slew of best-selling books by atheists attacking religion, supposedly using science, is their last gasp. Remember the great words of Gandhi: First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. We theists are now at stage three."

You advocated the existence of god. In fact, you used the word 'god' 23 times in your post. Furthermore, you went on to advocate against atheism in your post.

I'll say it again: Keep your religious posts in the correct section of the forum. I'm contacting a moderator.


Edited by Elus, 28 October 2010 - 08:52 PM.

  • 0

#8 Forever21

  • Registered User
  • 1,687 posts
  • 126

Posted 29 October 2010 - 05:52 PM

I like to think that the Universe is my God and Hawkings is Jesus Christ. (Sorry Obama)
  • 0

#9 firespin

  • Registered User
  • 116 posts
  • 49
  • Location:The Future

Posted 29 October 2010 - 06:21 PM

I think my post was right on and about the topic of the book and the forum.

Shadowhawk you clearly was going off topic with your post. If you want to talk about religion or your beliefs then post about it in the religious forums.

Edited by firespin, 29 October 2010 - 06:26 PM.

  • 0

#10 shadowhawk

  • Member
  • 2,923 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.

Posted 30 October 2010 - 12:12 AM


Obviously it is about Hawking's and origins. :) I quoted a well known scientist and allmost all of my post was Tipler on Hawkings.. They disagree regarding the origins of the cosmos.

No two people in the forum think alike but who gave you the right to speak for every one? Nothing clear about this.

You think you have clear and defined differences with me? If so, how could you get it so wrong? We must disagree over the nature of Hawking's book because I think my post was right on and about the topic of the book and the forum. Multi-media! So far a book and a book review. Are you on topic?



I quote you: So don't despair, my fellow theists! The recent slew of best-selling books by atheists attacking religion, supposedly using science, is their last gasp. Remember the great words of Gandhi: First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. We theists are now at stage three."
You advocated the existence of god. In fact, you used the word 'god' 23 times in your post. Furthermore, you went on to advocate against atheism in your post.

I'll say it again: Keep your religious posts in the correct section of the forum. I'm contacting a moderator.


Sorry but the only thing I said in my post was,"An interesting take by Frank Tipler on this:" This is found at the beginning of my post. All the rest of the comments you quote are Tiplers. See the source. http://pajamasmedia....istence-of-god/

You are quoting nothing I said though I do not disagree with Tipler. :) Tipler used the forbidden word "God" in his article and I will take your word for it being 23. What other words or books do you want to ban?

As for advocating for "God," I have no problem doing that. I just didn't do it here. I notice you have no problem posting in forums dealing with spirituality and are against anyone who defends or advocates for God.. Are you going to also report that? How do you get to threaten anyone who crosses your Atheism?

Steven Hawkings Book dealt with God. I noticed it even brought you to tears. I should be more sensitive and misjudged this was not really about Hawkings book. Sorry.

Tipler is joined by another scientist John Lennox in this criticism of Hawking attempt to find a theory of everything. Warning he uses the word "God."
http://johnlennox.or...awking_and_god/

Even Hawking uses the word "God." What do you think, should he be told, "Keep your religious posts in the correct section of the forum?" I am going to tell he is using the word God!..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU5djjeySzk&feature=related

Edited by shadowhawk, 30 October 2010 - 12:19 AM.

  • 0

#11 thughes

  • Registered User
  • 261 posts
  • 120
  • Location:Raleigh, North Carolina

Posted 30 October 2010 - 01:17 AM

Sorry but the only thing I said in my post was,"An interesting take by Frank Tipler on this:"


I have to say, reposting someone else's religious argument is roughly the same as making your own. Suggesting otherwise is disingenuous.

I'd have to agree, that qualified as preaching and should be in the religious forum. No one will get mad at it there, why not repost it there?

- Tracy
  • 0

#12 shadowhawk

  • Member
  • 2,923 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.

Posted 31 October 2010 - 12:28 AM


Sorry but the only thing I said in my post was,"An interesting take by Frank Tipler on this:"


I have to say, reposting someone else's religious argument is roughly the same as making your own. Suggesting otherwise is disingenuous.

I'd have to agree, that qualified as preaching and should be in the religious forum. No one will get mad at it there, why not repost it there?

- Tracy

Tracy, where did I suggest “otherwise?” I clearly said my quote was from a well known physicist and scientist Tipler, and that I agreed with Him. That was “disingenuous” and “preaching?” I also posted Hawkings himself on the subject of “God” in the book he wrote. Did he write a book on religion? I also referenced another scientist who disagreed with Hawkings. .

Finally just look at the never ending putdowns of religious people and subjects all over the Immnst and in every subject area. It has been going on since I joined. Now add to that censorship except the atheists can post in religious subjects..

The entire Hawking’s thread was about God or atheism and a theory of everything. Philosophers, not just scientists, also disagree with Hawkings. Here is also a very good review of the book from a philosopher.






  • 0

#13 Rational Madman

  • Registered User
  • 1,295 posts
  • 489
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 31 October 2010 - 03:27 PM



Sorry but the only thing I said in my post was,"An interesting take by Frank Tipler on this:"


I have to say, reposting someone else's religious argument is roughly the same as making your own. Suggesting otherwise is disingenuous.

I'd have to agree, that qualified as preaching and should be in the religious forum. No one will get mad at it there, why not repost it there?

- Tracy

Tracy, where did I suggest "otherwise?" I clearly said my quote was from a well known physicist and scientist Tipler, and that I agreed with Him. That was "disingenuous" and "preaching?" I also posted Hawkings himself on the subject of "God" in the book he wrote. Did he write a book on religion? I also referenced another scientist who disagreed with Hawkings. .

Finally just look at the never ending putdowns of religious people and subjects all over the Immnst and in every subject area. It has been going on since I joined. Now add to that censorship except the atheists can post in religious subjects..

The entire Hawking's thread was about God or atheism and a theory of everything. Philosophers, not just scientists, also disagree with Hawkings. Here is also a very good review of the book from a philosopher.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSYmBsGIeT8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZwlghaO5UA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWEuUmkntn0&feature=related


You've convinced me, so where can I go to enlist, and become a soldier of God?
  • 0

#14 shadowhawk

  • Member
  • 2,923 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.

Posted 01 November 2010 - 10:51 PM

Rol82
You've convinced me, so where can I go to enlist, and become a soldier of God?


Hawkings can do that to you. :)
  • 0

#15 Rational Madman

  • Registered User
  • 1,295 posts
  • 489
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 02 November 2010 - 01:02 AM

Rol82
You've convinced me, so where can I go to enlist, and become a soldier of God?


Hawkings can do that to you. :)


I was commenting on your evangelical campaign as a whole.
  • 0

#16 shadowhawk

  • Member
  • 2,923 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.

Posted 02 November 2010 - 09:27 PM


Rol82
You've convinced me, so where can I go to enlist, and become a soldier of God?


Hawkings can do that to you. :)


I was commenting on your evangelical campaign as a whole.


The topic is Hawking’s, “The Grand Design.” And your response is you want to join some army? Then you claim this was commenting on some evangelical campaign. I haven’t a clue what you are talking about and it sounds like a thought disorder. I am not an Evangelical but William Craig is. Perhaps you will comment on what he said about Hawkings?
  • 0

#17 Rational Madman

  • Registered User
  • 1,295 posts
  • 489
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 03 November 2010 - 12:31 AM



Rol82
You've convinced me, so where can I go to enlist, and become a soldier of God?


Hawkings can do that to you. :)


I was commenting on your evangelical campaign as a whole.


The topic is Hawking's, "The Grand Design." And your response is you want to join some army? Then you claim this was commenting on some evangelical campaign. I haven't a clue what you are talking about and it sounds like a thought disorder. I am not an Evangelical but William Craig is. Perhaps you will comment on what he said about Hawkings?


You're thinking of a different connotation of "evangelical," you evidently have limited a grasp of devices of humor, and my sentiments on your stance on this polemic are certainly not isolated. But it has one again become clear that I'm wasting my time, so why bother?

Edited by Rol82, 03 November 2010 - 12:33 AM.

  • -2

#18 shadowhawk

  • Member
  • 2,923 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.

Posted 03 November 2010 - 06:31 PM




Rol82
You've convinced me, so where can I go to enlist, and become a soldier of God?


Hawkings can do that to you. :)


I was commenting on your evangelical campaign as a whole.


The topic is Hawking's, "The Grand Design." And your response is you want to join some army? Then you claim this was commenting on some evangelical campaign. I haven't a clue what you are talking about and it sounds like a thought disorder. I am not an Evangelical but William Craig is. Perhaps you will comment on what he said about Hawkings?


You're thinking of a different connotation of "evangelical," you evidently have limited a grasp of devices of humor, and my sentiments on your stance on this polemic are certainly not isolated. But it has one again become clear that I'm wasting my time, so why bother?

Oh, now I get it. This is a joke. :) Why should I miss the point and expect some rationality? It is a joke that looks like a thought disorder. OK, now I get it. You will have to admit your humor is pretty obscure and could be seen as a put down as much as a joke. Now you exit without making even one serious point. :) I am joking too.
  • 0

#19 Rational Madman

  • Registered User
  • 1,295 posts
  • 489
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 03 November 2010 - 06:50 PM





Rol82
You've convinced me, so where can I go to enlist, and become a soldier of God?


Hawkings can do that to you. :)


I was commenting on your evangelical campaign as a whole.


The topic is Hawking's, "The Grand Design." And your response is you want to join some army? Then you claim this was commenting on some evangelical campaign. I haven't a clue what you are talking about and it sounds like a thought disorder. I am not an Evangelical but William Craig is. Perhaps you will comment on what he said about Hawkings?


You're thinking of a different connotation of "evangelical," you evidently have limited a grasp of devices of humor, and my sentiments on your stance on this polemic are certainly not isolated. But it has one again become clear that I'm wasting my time, so why bother?

Oh, now I get it. This is a joke. :) Why should I miss the point and expect some rationality? It is a joke that looks like a thought disorder. OK, now I get it. You will have to admit your humor is pretty obscure and could be seen as a put down as much as a joke. Now you exit without making even one serious point. :) I am joking too.


I have to say, in spite of your palpable limitations, you are quite amusing. A thought disorder, that's certainly a first. However, as is probably clear to everyone, I'm mocking both you, and the evangelical movement as a whole. But If you find it comforting to dismiss my commentary as something stemming from a thought disorder, then so be it. Seriously, though, try to reconcile your -198 reputation with your unmistakably futile campaign, and embark on an extended period of self-reflection. Indeed, if I was so inclined, I could whip out the DSM-IV, and run wild with your postings. But I won't, because I suspect you're like a porcelain doll.

Your campaign is so utterly pointless, and much to the chagrin of everyone, you persist. That's where the hostility, the sarcasm, and the contempt is seeding from. Because it's like watching a multi-fatality car wreck. No one wants to engage a hopelessly fanatical zealot, so consider taking your campaign elsewhere.

Edited by Rol82, 04 November 2010 - 12:14 AM.

  • -3

#20 shadowhawk

  • Member
  • 2,923 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.

Posted 03 November 2010 - 08:09 PM






Rol82
You've convinced me, so where can I go to enlist, and become a soldier of God?


Hawkings can do that to you. :)


I was commenting on your evangelical campaign as a whole.


The topic is Hawking's, "The Grand Design." And your response is you want to join some army? Then you claim this was commenting on some evangelical campaign. I haven't a clue what you are talking about and it sounds like a thought disorder. I am not an Evangelical but William Craig is. Perhaps you will comment on what he said about Hawkings?


You're thinking of a different connotation of "evangelical," you evidently have limited a grasp of devices of humor, and my sentiments on your stance on this polemic are certainly not isolated. But it has one again become clear that I'm wasting my time, so why bother?

Oh, now I get it. This is a joke. :) Why should I miss the point and expect some rationality? It is a joke that looks like a thought disorder. OK, now I get it. You will have to admit your humor is pretty obscure and could be seen as a put down as much as a joke. Now you exit without making even one serious point. :) I am joking too.


I have to say, in spite of your palpable limitations, you are quite amusing. A thought disorder, that's certainly a first. However, as is probably clear to everyone, I'm mocking both you, and the evangelical movement as a whole. But If you find it comforting to dismiss my commentary as something stemming from a thought disorder, then so be it. Seriously, though, try to reconcile you -198 reputation with your unmistakably futile campaign, and embark on an extended period of self-reflection. Indeed, if I was so inclined, I could whip out the DSM-IV, and run wild with your postings. But I won't, because I suspect you're like a porcelain doll.

Your campaign is so utterly pointless, and much to the chagrin of everyone, you persist. That's where the hostility, the sarcasm, and the contempt is seeding from. Because it's like watching a multi-fatality car wreck. No one wants to engage a hopelessly fanatical zealot, so consider taking your campaign elsewhere.


It may come as a supprise to you but I know you are trying to mock me. The only problem is it has no substance to it and indeed empty. You called it humor, All you can do is call names. I was a member of Imminst for over a year and said nothing about faith. I thought this was about life extension something I am very interested in. I did not recognize the toxic atmosphere in the Imminst for people of faith. Then I answered a topic regarding “faith?” and it went on from there. I found out there are quite a group of Atheists here that can’t accept anyone who answers “Christian,” to the question of faith. Not only that but they are willing to gang up on someone and try to put down their reputation. Take your mocking for example. Just another example. Then you want me to go away. And I am supposed to take this seriously?

This thread got separated because Hawkings in “The Grand Design,” took the position that God was not necessary to explain creation. That is what this topic is about and what I am addressing. I am a theist and that calls for a different answer than Hawkings. Then along comes the mockers, like you, that can’t stand the discussion. I don’t expect anything different from bigots. If you want to discuss the topic than I welcome that but I am not interested in a pissing contest.
  • 0

#21 Rational Madman

  • Registered User
  • 1,295 posts
  • 489
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 03 November 2010 - 08:25 PM







Rol82
You've convinced me, so where can I go to enlist, and become a soldier of God?


Hawkings can do that to you. :)


I was commenting on your evangelical campaign as a whole.


The topic is Hawking's, "The Grand Design." And your response is you want to join some army? Then you claim this was commenting on some evangelical campaign. I haven't a clue what you are talking about and it sounds like a thought disorder. I am not an Evangelical but William Craig is. Perhaps you will comment on what he said about Hawkings?


You're thinking of a different connotation of "evangelical," you evidently have limited a grasp of devices of humor, and my sentiments on your stance on this polemic are certainly not isolated. But it has one again become clear that I'm wasting my time, so why bother?

Oh, now I get it. This is a joke. :) Why should I miss the point and expect some rationality? It is a joke that looks like a thought disorder. OK, now I get it. You will have to admit your humor is pretty obscure and could be seen as a put down as much as a joke. Now you exit without making even one serious point. :) I am joking too.


I have to say, in spite of your palpable limitations, you are quite amusing. A thought disorder, that's certainly a first. However, as is probably clear to everyone, I'm mocking both you, and the evangelical movement as a whole. But If you find it comforting to dismiss my commentary as something stemming from a thought disorder, then so be it. Seriously, though, try to reconcile you -198 reputation with your unmistakably futile campaign, and embark on an extended period of self-reflection. Indeed, if I was so inclined, I could whip out the DSM-IV, and run wild with your postings. But I won't, because I suspect you're like a porcelain doll.

Your campaign is so utterly pointless, and much to the chagrin of everyone, you persist. That's where the hostility, the sarcasm, and the contempt is seeding from. Because it's like watching a multi-fatality car wreck. No one wants to engage a hopelessly fanatical zealot, so consider taking your campaign elsewhere.


It may come as a supprise to you but I know you are trying to mock me. The only problem is it has no substance to it and indeed empty. You called it humor, All you can do is call names. I was a member of Imminst for over a year and said nothing about faith. I thought this was about life extension something I am very interested in. I did not recognize the toxic atmosphere in the Imminst for people of faith. Then I answered a topic regarding "faith?" and it went on from there. I found out there are quite a group of Atheists here that can't accept anyone who answers "Christian," to the question of faith. Not only that but they are willing to gang up on someone and try to put down their reputation. Take your mocking for example. Just another example. Then you want me to go away. And I am supposed to take this seriously?

This thread got separated because Hawkings in "The Grand Design," took the position that God was not necessary to explain creation. That is what this topic is about and what I am addressing. I am a theist and that calls for a different answer than Hawkings. Then along comes the mockers, like you, that can't stand the discussion. I don't expect anything different from bigots. If you want to discuss the topic than I welcome that but I am not interested in a pissing contest.


Yes, I do confess that my reliably tolerable nature does have its limits, and I must say, you do an exceedingly great job in testing these limits.

Edited by Rol82, 03 November 2010 - 08:25 PM.

  • -2

#22 shadowhawk

  • Member
  • 2,923 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.

Posted 04 November 2010 - 12:46 AM








Rol82
You've convinced me, so where can I go to enlist, and become a soldier of God?


Hawkings can do that to you. :)


I was commenting on your evangelical campaign as a whole.


The topic is Hawking's, "The Grand Design." And your response is you want to join some army? Then you claim this was commenting on some evangelical campaign. I haven't a clue what you are talking about and it sounds like a thought disorder. I am not an Evangelical but William Craig is. Perhaps you will comment on what he said about Hawkings?


You're thinking of a different connotation of "evangelical," you evidently have limited a grasp of devices of humor, and my sentiments on your stance on this polemic are certainly not isolated. But it has one again become clear that I'm wasting my time, so why bother?

Oh, now I get it. This is a joke. :) Why should I miss the point and expect some rationality? It is a joke that looks like a thought disorder. OK, now I get it. You will have to admit your humor is pretty obscure and could be seen as a put down as much as a joke. Now you exit without making even one serious point. :) I am joking too.


I have to say, in spite of your palpable limitations, you are quite amusing. A thought disorder, that's certainly a first. However, as is probably clear to everyone, I'm mocking both you, and the evangelical movement as a whole. But If you find it comforting to dismiss my commentary as something stemming from a thought disorder, then so be it. Seriously, though, try to reconcile you -198 reputation with your unmistakably futile campaign, and embark on an extended period of self-reflection. Indeed, if I was so inclined, I could whip out the DSM-IV, and run wild with your postings. But I won't, because I suspect you're like a porcelain doll.

Your campaign is so utterly pointless, and much to the chagrin of everyone, you persist. That's where the hostility, the sarcasm, and the contempt is seeding from. Because it's like watching a multi-fatality car wreck. No one wants to engage a hopelessly fanatical zealot, so consider taking your campaign elsewhere.


It may come as a supprise to you but I know you are trying to mock me. The only problem is it has no substance to it and indeed empty. You called it humor, All you can do is call names. I was a member of Imminst for over a year and said nothing about faith. I thought this was about life extension something I am very interested in. I did not recognize the toxic atmosphere in the Imminst for people of faith. Then I answered a topic regarding "faith?" and it went on from there. I found out there are quite a group of Atheists here that can't accept anyone who answers "Christian," to the question of faith. Not only that but they are willing to gang up on someone and try to put down their reputation. Take your mocking for example. Just another example. Then you want me to go away. And I am supposed to take this seriously?

This thread got separated because Hawkings in "The Grand Design," took the position that God was not necessary to explain creation. That is what this topic is about and what I am addressing. I am a theist and that calls for a different answer than Hawkings. Then along comes the mockers, like you, that can't stand the discussion. I don't expect anything different from bigots. If you want to discuss the topic than I welcome that but I am not interested in a pissing contest.


Yes, I do confess that my reliably tolerable nature does have its limits, and I must say, you do an exceedingly great job in testing these limits.


Hawking is an Atheist. He claims the cosmos came from “nothing.” I quoted two scientists and one philosopher regarding Hawking’s position. Why is there something rather than nothing? What do you have to say about that?



Such issues and questions are also issues for theists. Get used to tolerating such “big” questions because your intolerance will keeep you from considering much.


Hawking says “nothing” is gravity. Do you agree?
  • 0

#23 Rational Madman

  • Registered User
  • 1,295 posts
  • 489
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 04 November 2010 - 01:05 AM









Rol82
You've convinced me, so where can I go to enlist, and become a soldier of God?


Hawkings can do that to you. :)


I was commenting on your evangelical campaign as a whole.


The topic is Hawking's, "The Grand Design." And your response is you want to join some army? Then you claim this was commenting on some evangelical campaign. I haven't a clue what you are talking about and it sounds like a thought disorder. I am not an Evangelical but William Craig is. Perhaps you will comment on what he said about Hawkings?


You're thinking of a different connotation of "evangelical," you evidently have limited a grasp of devices of humor, and my sentiments on your stance on this polemic are certainly not isolated. But it has one again become clear that I'm wasting my time, so why bother?

Oh, now I get it. This is a joke. :) Why should I miss the point and expect some rationality? It is a joke that looks like a thought disorder. OK, now I get it. You will have to admit your humor is pretty obscure and could be seen as a put down as much as a joke. Now you exit without making even one serious point. :) I am joking too.


I have to say, in spite of your palpable limitations, you are quite amusing. A thought disorder, that's certainly a first. However, as is probably clear to everyone, I'm mocking both you, and the evangelical movement as a whole. But If you find it comforting to dismiss my commentary as something stemming from a thought disorder, then so be it. Seriously, though, try to reconcile you -198 reputation with your unmistakably futile campaign, and embark on an extended period of self-reflection. Indeed, if I was so inclined, I could whip out the DSM-IV, and run wild with your postings. But I won't, because I suspect you're like a porcelain doll.

Your campaign is so utterly pointless, and much to the chagrin of everyone, you persist. That's where the hostility, the sarcasm, and the contempt is seeding from. Because it's like watching a multi-fatality car wreck. No one wants to engage a hopelessly fanatical zealot, so consider taking your campaign elsewhere.


It may come as a supprise to you but I know you are trying to mock me. The only problem is it has no substance to it and indeed empty. You called it humor, All you can do is call names. I was a member of Imminst for over a year and said nothing about faith. I thought this was about life extension something I am very interested in. I did not recognize the toxic atmosphere in the Imminst for people of faith. Then I answered a topic regarding "faith?" and it went on from there. I found out there are quite a group of Atheists here that can't accept anyone who answers "Christian," to the question of faith. Not only that but they are willing to gang up on someone and try to put down their reputation. Take your mocking for example. Just another example. Then you want me to go away. And I am supposed to take this seriously?

This thread got separated because Hawkings in "The Grand Design," took the position that God was not necessary to explain creation. That is what this topic is about and what I am addressing. I am a theist and that calls for a different answer than Hawkings. Then along comes the mockers, like you, that can't stand the discussion. I don't expect anything different from bigots. If you want to discuss the topic than I welcome that but I am not interested in a pissing contest.


Yes, I do confess that my reliably tolerable nature does have its limits, and I must say, you do an exceedingly great job in testing these limits.


Hawking is an Atheist. He claims the cosmos came from "nothing." I quoted two scientists and one philosopher regarding Hawking's position. Why is there something rather than nothing? What do you have to say about that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4I-XT5nH7g&feature=related

Such issues and questions are also issues for theists. Get used to tolerating such "big" questions because your intolerance will keeep you from considering much.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjBIsp8mS-c&p=27A75FC67F9BE4E3&playnext=1&index=5

Hawking says "nothing" is gravity. Do you agree?


You know, there are plenty of theists on this board, and very few of them have a reputation in negative figures. So that's something to consider. I mean, -213, that must require special qualities. Could you quite possibly be the least popular member in this community?

Edited by Rol82, 04 November 2010 - 01:20 AM.

  • -2

#24 shadowhawk

  • Member
  • 2,923 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.

Posted 04 November 2010 - 11:04 PM










Rol82
You've convinced me, so where can I go to enlist, and become a soldier of God?


Hawkings can do that to you. :)


I was commenting on your evangelical campaign as a whole.


The topic is Hawking's, "The Grand Design." And your response is you want to join some army? Then you claim this was commenting on some evangelical campaign. I haven't a clue what you are talking about and it sounds like a thought disorder. I am not an Evangelical but William Craig is. Perhaps you will comment on what he said about Hawkings?


You're thinking of a different connotation of "evangelical," you evidently have limited a grasp of devices of humor, and my sentiments on your stance on this polemic are certainly not isolated. But it has one again become clear that I'm wasting my time, so why bother?

Oh, now I get it. This is a joke. :) Why should I miss the point and expect some rationality? It is a joke that looks like a thought disorder. OK, now I get it. You will have to admit your humor is pretty obscure and could be seen as a put down as much as a joke. Now you exit without making even one serious point. :) I am joking too.


I have to say, in spite of your palpable limitations, you are quite amusing. A thought disorder, that's certainly a first. However, as is probably clear to everyone, I'm mocking both you, and the evangelical movement as a whole. But If you find it comforting to dismiss my commentary as something stemming from a thought disorder, then so be it. Seriously, though, try to reconcile you -198 reputation with your unmistakably futile campaign, and embark on an extended period of self-reflection. Indeed, if I was so inclined, I could whip out the DSM-IV, and run wild with your postings. But I won't, because I suspect you're like a porcelain doll.

Your campaign is so utterly pointless, and much to the chagrin of everyone, you persist. That's where the hostility, the sarcasm, and the contempt is seeding from. Because it's like watching a multi-fatality car wreck. No one wants to engage a hopelessly fanatical zealot, so consider taking your campaign elsewhere.


It may come as a supprise to you but I know you are trying to mock me. The only problem is it has no substance to it and indeed empty. You called it humor, All you can do is call names. I was a member of Imminst for over a year and said nothing about faith. I thought this was about life extension something I am very interested in. I did not recognize the toxic atmosphere in the Imminst for people of faith. Then I answered a topic regarding "faith?" and it went on from there. I found out there are quite a group of Atheists here that can't accept anyone who answers "Christian," to the question of faith. Not only that but they are willing to gang up on someone and try to put down their reputation. Take your mocking for example. Just another example. Then you want me to go away. And I am supposed to take this seriously?

This thread got separated because Hawkings in "The Grand Design," took the position that God was not necessary to explain creation. That is what this topic is about and what I am addressing. I am a theist and that calls for a different answer than Hawkings. Then along comes the mockers, like you, that can't stand the discussion. I don't expect anything different from bigots. If you want to discuss the topic than I welcome that but I am not interested in a pissing contest.


Yes, I do confess that my reliably tolerable nature does have its limits, and I must say, you do an exceedingly great job in testing these limits.


Hawking is an Atheist. He claims the cosmos came from "nothing." I quoted two scientists and one philosopher regarding Hawking's position. Why is there something rather than nothing? What do you have to say about that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4I-XT5nH7g&feature=related

Such issues and questions are also issues for theists. Get used to tolerating such "big" questions because your intolerance will keeep you from considering much.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjBIsp8mS-c&p=27A75FC67F9BE4E3&playnext=1&index=5

Hawking says "nothing" is gravity. Do you agree?


You know, there are plenty of theists on this board, and very few of them have a reputation in negative figures. So that's something to consider. I mean, -213, that must require special qualities. Could you quite possibly be the least popular member in this community?


Typical response. You offer nothing. You are a right, it is a joke. Not interested. As for my posts they are all available for anyone to read, and I have copies of them all, anyone who does will see, I have never treated anyone poorly. Again I am willing to talk about real issues but not this childish stuff.

I asked you what “Nothing,” is. If "nothing" gives rise to the human desire for meaning, how can’t meaning be meaningless? If the universe operates randomly, and this randomness created human brains that do all kinds of non-random things (such as writing Shakespeare and saying "I love you"), how can the purposeless give birth to the purposeful?

Hawking fails to address Gödel's incompleteness theorem, which I have posted about at length elsewhere, that categorically implies that no mathematical model of cosmos can ever be complete. Ultimately, Hawking contends that our source cannot be fully known by the rational mind, and his version of M-theory offers so many alternate universes -- far more than the stars in the known universe -- that it must be out of reach of the rational mind – (except his?) it's like explaining glass by counting every grain of sand on the beach. Humans are trapped in one universe alone out of billions upon billions upon billions, confined by the particular laws of nature that created us.

It seems to me Atheism, if it is going to find comfort in Hawking, faces many deep questions before they have a satisfying model. Surely they can’t call this, “science.”
  • -1

#25 shadowhawk

  • Member
  • 2,923 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.

Posted 05 November 2010 - 11:43 PM

Great article on Hawking and Flew.
http://blog.epsociet...ents-about.html

Stephen Hawking's Recent Comments About God
I am personally convinced, to borrow the title of the ‘last will and testament’[1] by recently deceased philosopher Antony Flew (1923-2010), that There is a God. Flew, ‘a legendary British philosopher and atheist [who was] an icon and champion for unbelievers for decades’[2], publically renounced atheism in 2004 after coming to the conclusion that ‘the case for an Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence, is now much stronger than it ever was before.’[3] Interestingly, Flew stated that ‘the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries . . .’[4]

Flew’s conclusion is at odds with the recent headline-grabbing but philosophically naïve assertion by physicist Stephen Hawking that ‘Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing’[5], and hence that ‘God did not create [the] Universe.’[6]

Hawking opines that while fundamental questions about the nature of reality and the need for a creator have traditionally been questions for philosophers, ‘philosophy is dead’ because ‘Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.’[7]

Of course, it was precisely keeping up with modern science that Flew testified led to his change of mind on the question of God! Moreover, as Professor George Ellis, President of the International Society for Science and Religion argues: ‘Philosophy is not dead. Every point of view is imbued with philosophy. Why is science worth doing? The answer is philosophical... Science can’t answer that question about itself.’[8] Professor Chris Isham, a philosopher and theoretical physicist at Imperial College London, is similarly unimpressed: ‘I groaned when I read this. Stephen’s always saying this sort of thing... but I suspect he’s never read a philosophy book in his life.’[9]

On the one hand, one needn’t know anything about cosmology to see that it’s logically impossible for anything to literally ‘create itself from nothing’ since things can only have causal effects if they exist and ‘nothing’ is by definition the absence of anything capable of doing anything whatsoever. As theologian and Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams dryly observed in response to Hawking: ‘Physical laws... are about the regular relations between actual realities. I cannot see how they explain the bare fact that there is any reality at all.’[10]

On the other hand, for many contemporary scientists and scientifically informed philosophers (contra Hawking, they do exist!) the discoveries of modern science have actually served to strengthen the case for theism.[11]

[1] Antony Flew, ‘Exclusive Flew Interview’ www.tothesource.org/10_30_2007/10_30_2007.htm
[2] Craig J. Hazen, ‘My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism: An Exclusive Interview with Former British Atheist Professor Antony Flew’ www.biola.edu/antonyflew/flew-interview.pdf
[3] Flew, ibid.
[4] ibid.
[5] Stephen Hawking, ‘The Grand Design’ in Eureka/The Times, September 2010, p. 25.
[6] The Times, Thursday September 2nd, 2010, Front Page Headline.
[7] Hawking, ‘The Grand Design’, op cit, p. 18.
[8] George Ellis, The Times, Friday September 3rd, 2010, p. 8.
[9] Chris Isham, ibid.
[10] Rowan Williams, ibid, p. 9. cf. Craig, William Lane, ‘Why Does Anything At All Exist?’ http://rfmedia.org/a...st-wake-forest/
[11] cf. William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, third edition (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2008); William Lane Craig & J.P. Moreland, ed. The Blackwell Companion To Natural Theology (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009); Dean L. Overman, A Case for the Existence of God (Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009); Robert J. Spitzer, New Proofs For The Existence Of God: Contributions Of Contemporary Physics And Philosophy (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2010).

Labels: antony flew, arguments for the existence of God, peter williams”

:)
  • 1

#26 Nostromo

  • Registered User
  • 5 posts
  • 52

Posted 06 November 2010 - 08:18 PM



http://www.youtube.c...h?v=g8fI8wdvteU

A must watch for life extension enthusiasts. Touches on life extension, transhumanism, interstellar/galactic travel and multiverse.


It ends with Hawking saying: When we finally unravel the whole cosmic puzzle, we will become masters not just of our universe, but of the universe next door.

How remarkable is it that you and I might be at the brink of having the opportunity- no- the utmost honor, of witnessing this next step in the universe's and of our own evolution. To cure aging and live on to answer these questions.

The excitement within me just boils and makes my eyes tear, and makes my stomach do backflips.... What if...what if we're finally the generation that gets to see it all... what are the chances that we're finally the ones to make it into the greatest revolution that mankind ever launched. Might we be the ones? I mean, SERIOUSLY? Am I really living in this time, where I can get to see something that happens billions of years from now? Can I be that lucky? Wouldn't that be like winning the lottery 50,000 times over or something?

Man, how I wish to see it all happen. My deepest wish....

Thank you for that. It was mind-numbingly beautiful.

An interesting take by Frank Tipler on thisProving the Existence of God

Is it possible to postulate the "Uncaused Cause" in physics to explain the beginning of the universe, thus proving the existence of a personal God? September 14, 2010 - by Frank J. Tipler Posted Image

In 1966, Stephen Hawking published his first — completely valid — proof for the existence of God. Over the next seven years, he followed this with even more powerful valid theorems proving God’s existence.

So how did Hawking, who successfully proved God’s existence, remain an atheist? Simple. He simply denied that the assumptions he used in his proofs were true. As a matter of logic, if the assumptions in a proof are not true, then the conclusions need not be true. What assumptions did the young Hawking make? He assumed that the laws of physics, mainly Einstein’s theory of gravity, were true. In the summary of his early research, namely his book The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, Hawking wrote:

It seems to be a good principle that the prediction of [God] by a physical theory indicates that the theory has broken down, i.e. it no longer provides a correct description of observations.

Hawking then began working on quantum gravity, in hopes that God would be at last eliminated from the equations. Alas, it was not to be: God was even more prominent — and unavoidable — in quantum gravity than in Einstein’s theory of gravity. In his latest book, The Grand Design, Hawking has pinned his hope of eliminating God on M-theory, a theory with no experimental support whatsoever, hence not a theory of physics at all. Nor has it been proven that M-theory is mathematically consistent. Nor has it been proven that God has been eliminated from M-theory. There are disquieting signs (for Hawking and company) that He is also unavoidable in M-theory, as He is in Einstein’s gravity, and in quantum gravity.

In spite of what the atheist press is telling you, it’s looking bad for atheism today. And it is extraordinary the lengths an atheist like Hawking will go to avoid the obvious: God exists.

The alert reader will have noticed that in the above quote, Hawking did not actually use the word “God.” But this is what he really meant. To see this, let us recall just what the word “God” means.

Consider the opening words of the (original) Nicene Creed: “We believe in one God, the omnipotent Father, Maker of all things visible and invisible.” These words give the basic definition of “God” used by Christians and Jews: God is the Cause of everything, but He Himself has no cause. God is the Uncaused First Cause. In his Second Way, Thomas Aquinas proves the existence of the Uncaused First (efficient) Cause, and Aquinas concludes, “to which all give the name ‘God’ (quam omnes Deum nominant).”

So now let us return to the theorems of the young Hawking. By following the history of the universe back into time — in other words, by following the causes of the current universe back into time — Hawking proved that all of these causes had a common cause; a common cause that did not itself have a cause. This common cause was an Uncaused Cause that was beyond the control of the laws of physics, beyond the control of any possible laws of physics. Rather, the entire universe began at this Uncaused First Cause.

In exactly the same way that Aquinas used the word “create,” we can say that the Uncaused First Cause, whose existence was proven decades ago by Hawking, “created” the universe.

Hawking called this Uncaused First Cause a “singularity.”

But given the properties of this “singularity,” it is God. So I have replaced the word “singularity,” which Hawking actually used in the above quote, with what it really means according to Aquinas.

To show how this Cosmological Singularity — the Uncaused First Cause — can manifest itself as a personal God would require a book, which I have written. Indeed, the personal nature of God is not obvious in Hawking’s proof of His existence. But neither is it obvious in the proof of Aquinas, and Aquinas also required a book to establish God’s personal nature.

The interesting thing about Hawking’s existence proof for God is that it can be tested experimentally, since it is based on experimentally confirmed physical law. I published a paper in a refereed physics journal a few years ago pointing this out. Eventually the experiment will be done, but it will require tens of thousands of dollars for equipment.

So don’t despair, my fellow theists! The recent slew of best-selling books by atheists attacking religion, supposedly using science, is their last gasp. Remember the great words of Gandhi: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

We theists are now at stage three.

Frank J. Tipler is Professor of Mathematical Physics at Tulane University. He is the co-author of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford University Press) and the author of The Physics of Immortality and The Physics of Christianity both published by Doubleday.





Why don't you fuck off. Everyone here hates you. This is my first post and I've already contributed more than you ever will, you retarded fucking bible basher.
  • -2

#27 chris w

  • Registered User
  • 740 posts
  • 261
  • Location:Cracow, Poland

Posted 06 November 2010 - 10:04 PM

This was just mean. I don't agree with what he believes, but since this is "spirituality" section, what did you expect ? No need for such language.
  • 2

#28 Rational Madman

  • Registered User
  • 1,295 posts
  • 489
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 07 November 2010 - 02:28 AM

This was just mean. I don't agree with what he believes, but since this is "spirituality" section, what did you expect ? No need for such language.

It was a bit over the top, but I can understand where the frustration is seeding from, because having a conversation about religion is one thing, and talking to a wall is quite another thing entirely. Most of us already have to contend with LDS and Jehovah's Witness types on a more than a desired basis, and view forums like this as one of several refuges from the unending insanity. So to see this message board infiltrated by a religious dogmatist on a messianic mission to spread the Lord's word, and without regard for countervailing arguments, the positions of others, or responses like "no,""I'm not interested,""please stop,""I don't care," is dismaying to say the least. If Shadowhawk just arrived here, and if only a small portion of his existence at this forum was devoted to theological debates, he might have my sympathy, but this has gone on longer than necessary. Indeed, it's an exercise in narcissistic torture, with no apparent end or remedy. Although he relishes the role of martyr, and cries in anguish over the ostensibly abusive treatment that he's subjected to, do you see anyone attacking Connor MacLeod---or any of the other theists? Of course not, because conduct, and the state of the mind of the subject determines the community's treatment. With all of this in mind, I'm left to conclude that he's either socially retarded, irretrievably lonely, or terribly insecure with his beliefs---coming here, of all places, to bolster them. I don't care which explanation is correct, and anybody that is familiar with me already knows that I don't shy away from debates, but I see no possible point or advantage to taking him seriously, which is what he yearns most, of course. So for everyone's sake---and not because I fear the subject, or want a cessation of religious discussions---I wish he would just pick up his briefcase and leave, because what he's doing is not in anyone's interest.

Anyway, it's off to the bars I go, whistling and skipping merrily to an Irish ballad.

Edited by Rol82, 07 November 2010 - 02:31 AM.

  • -2

#29 Rational Madman

  • Registered User
  • 1,295 posts
  • 489
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 07 November 2010 - 07:52 AM


This was just mean. I don't agree with what he believes, but since this is "spirituality" section, what did you expect ? No need for such language.

It was a bit over the top, but I can understand where the frustration is seeding from, because having a conversation about religion is one thing, and talking to a wall is quite another thing entirely. Most of us already have to contend with LDS and Jehovah's Witness types on a more than a desired basis, and view forums like this as one of several refuges from the unending insanity. So to see this message board infiltrated by a religious dogmatist on a messianic mission to spread the Lord's word, and without regard for countervailing arguments, the positions of others, or responses like "no,""I'm not interested,""please stop,""I don't care," is dismaying to say the least. If Shadowhawk just arrived here, and if only a small portion of his existence at this forum was devoted to theological debates, he might have my sympathy, but this has gone on longer than necessary. Indeed, it's an exercise in narcissistic torture, with no apparent end or remedy. Although he relishes the role of martyr, and cries in anguish over the ostensibly abusive treatment that he's subjected to, do you see anyone attacking Connor MacLeod---or any of the other theists? Of course not, because conduct, and the state of the mind of the subject determines the community's treatment. With all of this in mind, I'm left to conclude that he's either socially retarded, irretrievably lonely, or terribly insecure with his beliefs---coming here, of all places, to bolster them. I don't care which explanation is correct, and anybody that is familiar with me already knows that I don't shy away from debates, but I see no possible point or advantage to taking him seriously, which is what he yearns most, of course. So for everyone's sake---and not because I fear the subject, or want a cessation of religious discussions---I wish he would just pick up his briefcase and leave, because what he's doing is not in anyone's interest.

Anyway, it's off to the bars I go, whistling and skipping merrily to an Irish ballad.


I only wish I went through with my original plan to enjoy a night of drinking. Oh well....
  • -2

#30 Connor MacLeod

  • Registered User
  • 615 posts
  • 46

Posted 07 November 2010 - 08:35 AM

Most of us already have to contend with LDS and Jehovah's Witness types on a more than a desired basis...

I found that "I'm not interested, but thank you very much for stopping by" is very effective.

Although he relishes the role of martyr, and cries in anguish over the ostensibly abusive treatment that he's subjected to, do you see anyone attacking Connor MacLeod---or any of the other theists?

I'm probably closer to a pantheist or panentheist, but I'm not going to split hairs.
  • 3




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users