82 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

Rol82
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,""

The topics listed below are on this board are some I have posted in but it seems you want to censure input so only one side can present a position.

Interesting you claim to have had your position ignored but you have never presented any argument anywhere on anything. All you have done is mock and call names. You have never interacted with me on anything, perhaps you have nothing constructive to say and it seems like a wall to you. The discussion is on Hawking and I await your having anything resembling a discussion on at least one point.. ???

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 re

medy.

I have only personally started one topic regarding powders to create drinks and the rest of my posts have been in other health topics. I have posted also in spirituality topics started by others. I assume they are looking for input. No one has ever said otherwise. Only one topic was started by a theist.

Which religious/non-relig. Identity do you prefer?
Atheist
If God exists
Spiritually & Religion
Faith?
Atheists believe in God
is anyone here a Christian
Should religion be illegal until 18?
I hate to break it to you, but... THERE IS NO GOD!...
Easily disprove the bible’s inerrrancy
One of many readily apparent reasons to be agnostic
God is Theoretiucally possible.
Hawking on God

Just read how atheists have treated theists here and elsewhere.

which 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.

Not interested in this senseless, childish, stuff. He has not made one real point. He wants me to sink to his baseless level. No thanks.

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

[Rational Madman]

Rol82
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,""

The topics listed below are on this board are some I have posted in but it seems you want to censure input so only one side can present a position.

Interesting you claim to have had your position ignored but you have never presented any argument anywhere on anything. All you have done is mock and call names. You have never interacted with me on anything, perhaps you have nothing constructive to say and it seems like a wall to you. The discussion is on Hawking and I await your having anything resembling a discussion on at least one point.. ???

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 re

medy.

I have only personally started one topic regarding powders to create drinks and the rest of my posts have been in other health topics. I have posted also in spirituality topics started by others. I assume they are looking for input. No one has ever said otherwise. Only one topic was started by a theist.

Which religious/non-relig. Identity do you prefer?
Atheist
If God exists
Spiritually & Religion
Faith?
Atheists believe in God
is anyone here a Christian
Should religion be illegal until 18?
I hate to break it to you, but... THERE IS NO GOD!...
Easily disprove the bible's inerrrancy
One of many readily apparent reasons to be agnostic
God is Theoretiucally possible.
Hawking on God

Just read how atheists have treated theists here and elsewhere.

which 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.

Not interested in this senseless, childish, stuff. He has not made one real point. He wants me to sink to his baseless level. No thanks.

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

Okay, if you want to talk to yourself about religion, be my guest, but there are reasons why I and no one else chooses to seriously engage you. Here's a hint, it has nothing to do with the question of the existence of God. But keep it up, because I suspect within a few weeks you'll reach a reputation of -300.

Edited by Rol82, 09 November 2010 - 12:47 AM.

[N.T.M.]

I didn't really read through everything, but I recall reading an article that mentioned that Hawking claimed that god is absolutely superfluous. His argument involved no contradictions.

[shadowhawk]

Rol82
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,""

The topics listed below are on this board are some I have posted in but it seems you want to censure input so only one side can present a position.

Interesting you claim to have had your position ignored but you have never presented any argument anywhere on anything. All you have done is mock and call names. You have never interacted with me on anything, perhaps you have nothing constructive to say and it seems like a wall to you. The discussion is on Hawking and I await your having anything resembling a discussion on at least one point.. ???

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 re

medy.

I have only personally started one topic regarding powders to create drinks and the rest of my posts have been in other health topics. I have posted also in spirituality topics started by others. I assume they are looking for input. No one has ever said otherwise. Only one topic was started by a theist.

Which religious/non-relig. Identity do you prefer?
Atheist
If God exists
Spiritually & Religion
Faith?
Atheists believe in God
is anyone here a Christian
Should religion be illegal until 18?
I hate to break it to you, but... THERE IS NO GOD!...
Easily disprove the bible's inerrrancy
One of many readily apparent reasons to be agnostic
God is Theoretiucally possible.
Hawking on God

Just read how atheists have treated theists here and elsewhere.

which 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.

Not interested in this senseless, childish, stuff. He has not made one real point. He wants me to sink to his baseless level. No thanks.

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

Okay, if you want to talk to yourself about religion, be my guest, but there are reasons why I and no one else chooses to seriously engage you. Here's a hint, it has nothing to do with the question of the existence of God. But keep it up, because I suspect within a few weeks you'll reach a reputation of -300.

Same old empty flaming stuff. That is the best you’ve got. Not interested

[shadowhawk]

I didn't really read through everything, but I recall reading an article that mentioned that Hawking claimed that god is absolutely superfluous. His argument involved no contradictions.

Amazon book revikew

From Publishers Weekly
Starred Review. The three central questions of philosophy and science: Why is there something rather than nothing? Why do we exist? Why this particular set of laws and not some other? No one can make a discussion of such matters as compulsively readable as the celebrated University of Cambridge cosmologist Hawking (A Brief History of Time). Along with Caltech physicist Mlodinow (The Drunkard's Walk), Hawking deftly mixes cutting-edge physics to answer those key questions. For instance, why do we exist? Earth occupies a "Goldilocks Zone" in space: just the perfect distance from a not-too-hot star, with just the right elements to allow life to evolve. On a larger scale, in order to explain the universe, the authors write, "we need to know not only how the universe behaves, but why." While no single theory exists yet, scientists are approaching that goal with what is called "M-theory," a collection of overlapping theories (including string theory) that fill in many (but not all) the blank spots in quantum physics; this collection is known as the "Grand Unified Field Theories." This may all finally explain the mystery of the universe's creation without recourse to a divine creator. This is an amazingly concise, clear, and intriguing overview of where we stand when it comes to divining the secrets of the universe. 41 color illus. throughout, 7 b&w cartoons.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

[Cameron]

Why is there something rather than nothing? What do you have to say about that?

From the rules of chess derive all the possible chess games. From the rules of universes derive all the possible universes. If truth exists and it is eternal, if all the laws of mathematics and all the numbers exist atemporally... then the intrinsically existing possible ways to relate such to each other, their relationships exists eternally also. From such relationships you could derive all possible simulations.

Even if you introduce god, as defined by many religions, omniscience is an eternal property of god. Thus it is claimed that truth is eternal via omniscience.

[Ghostrider]

I didn't really read through everything, but I recall reading an article that mentioned that Hawking claimed that god is absolutely superfluous. His argument involved no contradictions.

I didn't read through anything at all except the title, but it's pretty simple from his perspective.

1. Most hold the belief that God is good, all powerful, with a perfect plan for the world.
2. I'm stuck in a f***ing wheel chair and can't even keep my g****** neck straight. Homeless men get more p***** than I do and this terrible condition will eventually kill me!

Conclusion: Why would a good God hate me so much? -> No Good God

It's easy to believe in God when things are going well. During the Holocaust when Jews were being thrown in the furnaces, how many of them were saying, "Well, I guess we'll just have to accept God's plan."

Sorry to use such blatant and offensively crude examples, but most psychology is pretty transparent.

Edited by Ghostrider, 19 November 2010 - 09:30 AM.

[shadowhawk]

I didn't really read through everything, but I recall reading an article that mentioned that Hawking claimed that god is absolutely superfluous. His argument involved no contradictions.

I didn't read through anything at all except the title, but it's pretty simple from his perspective.

1. Most hold the belief that God is good, all powerful, with a perfect plan for the world.
2. I'm stuck in a f***ing wheel chair and can't even keep my g****** neck straight. Homeless men get more p***** than I do and this terrible condition will eventually kill me!

Conclusion: Why would a good God hate me so much? -> No Good God

It's easy to believe in God when things are going well. During the Holocaust when Jews were being thrown in the furnaces, how many of them were saying, "Well, I guess we'll just have to accept God's plan."

Sorry to use such blatant and offensively crude examples, but most psychology is pretty transparent.

i agree with you, sounds like you have real challenges that are bad. If you believed in God people would say you did so because you were suffering which I have also heard.
Anyway, I feel bad for you. Do you think everyone who suffers should not believe in God or if they do, they need a crutch?

[Ghostrider]

i agree with you, sounds like you have real challenges that are bad. If you believed in God people would say you did so because you were suffering which I have also heard.
Anyway, I feel bad for you. Do you think everyone who suffers should not believe in God or if they do, they need a crutch?

I think the 4 most common reasons for believing in God are:

1. Security / coping. Most people think that they will not live past another x years. To others they will say, "Oh, I don't want to live here forever, God did not intend us to do that. Heaven will be much better."...or more simply, without dealing with the theological questions, "Oh, I don't want to live forever, imagine how boring that would be." (My guess is that these people live a really boring life already.)

2. Insurance - The "I'm not sure if there is a God or not, I just want to appease my family and friends, perhaps stay out of hell."

3. Tragedy - Getting the sudden news that one only has a few more months to live. How does one cope with the thought of non-existence (this point could probably be lumped under 1 above).

4. Philosophical / Theological reasoning for believing in God -- Describes someone who has really thought about the issue in depth and come to the conclusion that there must be a God -- universe / reality would not exist as it is otherwise.

People holding the 4th opinion are the only ones I really respect. The other 3 are usually just consequences of procrastination / complacency on the individual / societal level.

[mia22]

*yawn*
Hawking sure enjoys stirring the hornet's nest. he does this type of thing every so often. Guess he was getting bored or lonely or something....
I'm not really sure what his point is in the end. We don't need god? Great. whatever.

Bottom line: No one fu%king knows.
Anybody who stakes absolute claim to these territories is an idiot as far as I'm concerned.

Edited by mia22, 22 November 2010 - 10:15 PM.

[N.T.M.]

Bottom line: No one fu%king knows.
Anybody who stakes absolute claim to these territories is an idiot as far as I'm concerned.

Of course that is true, but we're interested in probability.

[mia22]

Bottom line: No one fu%king knows.
Anybody who stakes absolute claim to these territories is an idiot as far as I'm concerned.

Of course that is true, but we're interested in probability.

Agreed.
And I don't advocate not exploring the subject, I just don't see much that can be gleaned from Hawking's new book. Not really anything new there.
I also have my doubts about even being able to calculate these probabilities in the first place and how much trust we can put in them.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

[shadowhawk]

i agree with you, sounds like you have real challenges that are bad. If you believed in God people would say you did so because you were suffering which I have also heard.
Anyway, I feel bad for you. Do you think everyone who suffers should not believe in God or if they do, they need a crutch?

I think the 4 most common reasons for believing in God are:

1. Security / coping. Most people think that they will not live past another x years. To others they will say, "Oh, I don't want to live here forever, God did not intend us to do that. Heaven will be much better."...or more simply, without dealing with the theological questions, "Oh, I don't want to live forever, imagine how boring that would be." (My guess is that these people live a really boring life already.)

2. Insurance - The "I'm not sure if there is a God or not, I just want to appease my family and friends, perhaps stay out of hell."

3. Tragedy - Getting the sudden news that one only has a few more months to live. How does one cope with the thought of non-existence (this point could probably be lumped under 1 above).

4. Philosophical / Theological reasoning for believing in God -- Describes someone who has really thought about the issue in depth and come to the conclusion that there must be a God -- universe / reality would not exist as it is otherwise.

People holding the 4th opinion are the only ones I really respect. The other 3 are usually just consequences of procrastination / complacency on the individual / societal level.

[hooter]

If he can't bolster his self-esteem in any other way than believing in a cosmic babysitter, just let him. As other posters have already posted out, he is clearly mentally unstable. Not to mention you would have to be to debate against evolution... In the word's of the worst poster on this forum, "Not interested. "

Edited by hooter, 04 February 2012 - 02:51 PM.

[shadowhawk]

THE BORDE GUTH VILENKIN THEOREM, The Universe had a beginning. This defeats Hawkings view.

[shadowhawk]

If he can't bolster his self-esteem in any other way than believing in a cosmic babysitter, just let him. As other posters have already posted out, he is clearly mentally unstable. Not to mention you would have to be to debate against evolution... In the word's of the worst poster on this forum, "Not interested. "

Ad Hominem Fallacy, among others. Try again.

[DAMABO]

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.

the use of the word god is mainly because of the large inheritance of religious vocabulary. even goodbye means "god be with you".

[DAMABO]

I didn't really read through everything, but I recall reading an article that mentioned that Hawking claimed that god is absolutely superfluous. His argument involved no contradictions.

Amazon book revikew

From Publishers Weekly
Starred Review. The three central questions of philosophy and science: Why is there something rather than nothing? Why do we exist? Why this particular set of laws and not some other? No one can make a discussion of such matters as compulsively readable as the celebrated University of Cambridge cosmologist Hawking (A Brief History of Time). Along with Caltech physicist Mlodinow (The Drunkard's Walk), Hawking deftly mixes cutting-edge physics to answer those key questions. For instance, why do we exist? Earth occupies a "Goldilocks Zone" in space: just the perfect distance from a not-too-hot star, with just the right elements to allow life to evolve. On a larger scale, in order to explain the universe, the authors write, "we need to know not only how the universe behaves, but why." While no single theory exists yet, scientists are approaching that goal with what is called "M-theory," a collection of overlapping theories (including string theory) that fill in many (but not all) the blank spots in quantum physics; this collection is known as the "Grand Unified Field Theories." This may all finally explain the mystery of the universe's creation without recourse to a divine creator. This is an amazingly concise, clear, and intriguing overview of where we stand when it comes to divining the secrets of the universe. 41 color illus. throughout, 7 b&w cartoons.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Why is there something, rather than nothing? Not because of god, probably: if you think that, in order that something has to exist, there has to exist an even more special, more perfect being to have created it, than already was assumed (creation, and its imperfect beings), then that's quite a contradiction; let's deconstruct the line of thinking: 1. existence is so perfect 2. this cannot possibly be by it's own making 3. there has to be a divine, perfect creator, that created this perfection.
This is what some visions would argue. The problem is that the latter being in that case already existed before the universe/existence. If this perfect being really existed before existence, then there already was existence before existence. Not only does this make a stronger postulate to justify a weaker postulate (namely you postulate the existence of an even more perfect thing than the one you were trying explain because of its reported perfectness) - but also does this result, at least if you reason consistently with the generated rule (seemingly perfect existence can only be explained by a creator), that there is a creator to this creator, and a creator for the other creator, etc. This would be an extremely inparsimonious explanation.
Unless of course you would define god as being 'non-existent' somehow (as with your claim of "immateriality"). While of course this immateriality may be possible, it would be never be able to be detected, and more important, you would be able to justify anything with the postulate of immateriality, while providing no evidence. In this way, all unsolved problems of science can be explained by immaterial beings, which would impede any further truth seeking. For example, some scientists are seeking what happened before the big bang (are there multiple bangs?). If you then invoke an immaterial being as the solution to the problem, science stops. Greetings

[shadowhawk]

DAMABO Why is there something, rather than nothing? Not because of god, probably: if you think that, in order that something has to exist, there has to exist an even more special, more perfect being to have created it, than already was assumed (creation, and its imperfect beings), then that's quite a contradiction; let's deconstruct the line of thinking: 1. existence is so perfect 2. this cannot possibly be by it's own making 3. there has to be a divine, perfect creator, that created this perfection.

However you answer, “Why is there something, rather than nothing” you have to answer it in faith. When you say as atheists do, “not because of god...” they are speaking with faith. You are speaking of a Necessary Being Philosophers call this the Principle of Sufficient Reason. We use it every day, in common sense and in science as well as in philosophy and theology. If we saw a rabbit suddenly appear on an empty table, we would not blandly say, "Hi, rabbit. You came from nowhere, didn't you?" No, we would look for a cause, assuming there has to be one. Did the rabbit fall from the ceiling? Did a magician put it there when we weren't looking? If there seems to be no physical cause, we look for a psychological cause: perhaps someone hypnotized us. As a last resort, we look for a supernatural cause, a miracle. But there must be some cause. We never deny the Principle of Sufficient Reason itself. No one believes the Pop Theory: that things just pop into existence for no reason at all. Perhaps we will never find the cause, but there must be a cause for everything that comes into existence.

You have made some statements based on your knowledge. “Not because of God.” What is your evidence and proof? Where is the science for this?

This is what some visions would argue. The problem is that the latter being in that case already existed before the universe/existence. If this perfect being really existed before existence, then there already was existence before existence. Not only does this make a stronger postulate to justify a weaker postulate (namely you postulate the existence of an even more perfect thing than the one you were trying explain because of its reported perfectness) - but also does this result, at least if you reason consistently with the generated rule (seemingly perfect existence can only be explained by a creator), that there is a creator to this creator, and a creator for the other creator, etc. This would be an extremely inparsimonious explanation.

You have set up an infinite space time regression. See this and my earlier post on the Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem.

Unless of course you would define god as being 'non-existent' somehow (as with your claim of "immateriality"). While of course this immateriality may be possible, it would be never be able to be detected, and more important, you would be able to justify anything with the postulate of immateriality, while providing no evidence. In this way, all unsolved problems of science can be explained by immaterial beings, which would impede any further truth seeking. For example, some scientists are seeking what happened before the big bang (are there multiple bangs?). If you then invoke an immaterial being as the solution to the problem, science stops. Greetings

You have also set up quite a number of straw men. Which is it? How do you know we have no way, and can have no way, to detect the immaterial? What evidence do you have that the scientific method is the only way to detect truth.

[johnross47]

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


Who gave you the right to speak for Stephen Hawking? He said what he meant. It takes a psychotic degree of arrogance or stupidity to imagine it is OK to insert your words into Hawkings text to prove that he means the opposite of what we all know he really means. In every thread you "contribute" to, you indulge in the same toxic abuse of the argument process; the same enormous quotes of other people's material; the same abuse of other posters; the same insistence on turning every thread into your personal crusade to prove your god exists. Why don't you go and bother people on a religious forum instead of wasting time here.

[shadowhawk]

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


Who gave you the right to speak for Stephen Hawking? He said what he meant. It takes a psychotic degree of arrogance or stupidity to imagine it is OK to insert your words into Hawkings text to prove that he means the opposite of what we all know he really means. In every thread you "contribute" to, you indulge in the same toxic abuse of the argument process; the same enormous quotes of other people's material; the same abuse of other posters; the same insistence on turning every thread into your personal crusade to prove your god exists. Why don't you go and bother people on a religious forum instead of wasting time here.

You are having a perceptional problem. I am not speaking for Stephen Hawking???? Where?

You are just looking for an excuse to commit yet more logical fallacies. You must have appointed yourself guardian of what Hawking's meant. Why don't you get to it instead of all this nonsense? You have said nothing related to Hawking's.

Maybe you don't have a clue!

Edited by shadowhawk, 11 April 2012 - 11:43 PM.

[johnross47]

"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."



That is the grotesque arrogance typical of believers. What has Aquinas got to do with anything? How could Aquinas,800 or so years ago possibly illuminate what Hawking means; all of Aquinas's arguments for the existence of God are now accepted as nonsense. Some are frequently used as perfect examples of standard logical fallacies such as question begging. That by the way is a correct use of "logical fallacy" unlike your constant abuse of the term.

You cannot change someone's words to suit yourself and then claim that they really say whatever you want.

Hawking is well known to be an atheist. That is a situation that upsets dogmatic fundamentalists like you, so you try to persuade people, who you hope are ignorant, that he means something else. That is a fundamentally dishonest thing to do. In Hawking's later writings he return to the theme of the origin of the universe and finds several satisfactory explications. Unlike you he also recognises that we cannot know for certain. The basic problem is that at the singularity our present physics breaks down. There is no way of seeing beyond that point at the moment. It is arrogance to say that what lies beyond must be god. All Hawking is doing is speculating on possible mathematical extensions of the current understanding. The correct answer to all these questions is simply, "I don't know." If we could look at all the millions of times somebody has said, "It must be god," we would see a long list of predictive failures.

Edited by johnross47, 12 April 2012 - 09:27 AM.

[DAMABO]

DAMABO Why is there something, rather than nothing? Not because of god, probably: if you think that, in order that something has to exist, there has to exist an even more special, more perfect being to have created it, than already was assumed (creation, and its imperfect beings), then that's quite a contradiction; let's deconstruct the line of thinking: 1. existence is so perfect 2. this cannot possibly be by it's own making 3. there has to be a divine, perfect creator, that created this perfection.

However you answer, “Why is there something, rather than nothing” you have to answer it in faith. When you say as atheists do, “not because of god...” they are speaking with faith. You are speaking of a Necessary Being Philosophers call this the Principle of Sufficient Reason. We use it every day, in common sense and in science as well as in philosophy and theology. If we saw a rabbit suddenly appear on an empty table, we would not blandly say, "Hi, rabbit. You came from nowhere, didn't you?" No, we would look for a cause, assuming there has to be one. Did the rabbit fall from the ceiling? Did a magician put it there when we weren't looking? If there seems to be no physical cause, we look for a psychological cause: perhaps someone hypnotized us. As a last resort, we look for a supernatural cause, a miracle. But there must be some cause. We never deny the Principle of Sufficient Reason itself. No one believes the Pop Theory: that things just pop into existence for no reason at all. Perhaps we will never find the cause, but there must be a cause for everything that comes into existence.

You have made some statements based on your knowledge. “Not because of God.” What is your evidence and proof? Where is the science for this?

This is what some visions would argue. The problem is that the latter being in that case already existed before the universe/existence. If this perfect being really existed before existence, then there already was existence before existence. Not only does this make a stronger postulate to justify a weaker postulate (namely you postulate the existence of an even more perfect thing than the one you were trying explain because of its reported perfectness) - but also does this result, at least if you reason consistently with the generated rule (seemingly perfect existence can only be explained by a creator), that there is a creator to this creator, and a creator for the other creator, etc. This would be an extremely inparsimonious explanation.

You have set up an infinite space time regression. See this and my earlier post on the Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qn1pabza90E&feature=relmfu

Unless of course you would define god as being 'non-existent' somehow (as with your claim of "immateriality"). While of course this immateriality may be possible, it would be never be able to be detected, and more important, you would be able to justify anything with the postulate of immateriality, while providing no evidence. In this way, all unsolved problems of science can be explained by immaterial beings, which would impede any further truth seeking. For example, some scientists are seeking what happened before the big bang (are there multiple bangs?). If you then invoke an immaterial being as the solution to the problem, science stops. Greetings

You have also set up quite a number of straw men. Which is it? How do you know we have no way, and can have no way, to detect the immaterial? What evidence do you have that the scientific method is the only way to detect truth.

of course I can have no evidence for the absense of an immaterial being, as I explained many times. belief in something immaterial is more faith, since there can never be presented evidence for it. for materialism however, the evidence is plentiful. Nobody believes that things just pop into existence, that is correct, for every effect there must be cause. but if you postulate god, you will resort into postulating another god (etc), unless of course you think he is uncaused. If you think god is uncaused, you might as well suppose a more parsimonious explanation: the universe was not caused (this actually would be consistent with the law of conservation of matter). this way, no need for an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
Of course, I have no way of knowing that only that that which we can detect now, or will be able to detect ever with extremely advanced technology, is truth. however, to postulate the existence of immaterialism is quite inparsimonious, and impedes science itself, for explanations for what happened before, or did this event even happen, can of course always be explained by this immaterial being and never be rejected as an explanation. So whether, there really is an immaterial being would not even matter ( ), since we would not be able to abstract any useful information of it, and it would only be a strong impediment to our science.

[DAMABO]

DAMABO Why is there something, rather than nothing? Not because of god, probably: if you think that, in order that something has to exist, there has to exist an even more special, more perfect being to have created it, than already was assumed (creation, and its imperfect beings), then that's quite a contradiction; let's deconstruct the line of thinking: 1. existence is so perfect 2. this cannot possibly be by it's own making 3. there has to be a divine, perfect creator, that created this perfection.

However you answer, “Why is there something, rather than nothing” you have to answer it in faith. When you say as atheists do, “not because of god...” they are speaking with faith. You are speaking of a Necessary Being Philosophers call this the Principle of Sufficient Reason. We use it every day, in common sense and in science as well as in philosophy and theology. If we saw a rabbit suddenly appear on an empty table, we would not blandly say, "Hi, rabbit. You came from nowhere, didn't you?" No, we would look for a cause, assuming there has to be one. Did the rabbit fall from the ceiling? Did a magician put it there when we weren't looking? If there seems to be no physical cause, we look for a psychological cause: perhaps someone hypnotized us. As a last resort, we look for a supernatural cause, a miracle. But there must be some cause. We never deny the Principle of Sufficient Reason itself. No one believes the Pop Theory: that things just pop into existence for no reason at all. Perhaps we will never find the cause, but there must be a cause for everything that comes into existence.

You have made some statements based on your knowledge. “Not because of God.” What is your evidence and proof? Where is the science for this?

This is what some visions would argue. The problem is that the latter being in that case already existed before the universe/existence. If this perfect being really existed before existence, then there already was existence before existence. Not only does this make a stronger postulate to justify a weaker postulate (namely you postulate the existence of an even more perfect thing than the one you were trying explain because of its reported perfectness) - but also does this result, at least if you reason consistently with the generated rule (seemingly perfect existence can only be explained by a creator), that there is a creator to this creator, and a creator for the other creator, etc. This would be an extremely inparsimonious explanation.

You have set up an infinite space time regression. See this and my earlier post on the Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qn1pabza90E&feature=relmfu

Unless of course you would define god as being 'non-existent' somehow (as with your claim of "immateriality"). While of course this immateriality may be possible, it would be never be able to be detected, and more important, you would be able to justify anything with the postulate of immateriality, while providing no evidence. In this way, all unsolved problems of science can be explained by immaterial beings, which would impede any further truth seeking. For example, some scientists are seeking what happened before the big bang (are there multiple bangs?). If you then invoke an immaterial being as the solution to the problem, science stops. Greetings

You have also set up quite a number of straw men. Which is it? How do you know we have no way, and can have no way, to detect the immaterial? What evidence do you have that the scientific method is the only way to detect truth.

No way to detect the immaterial: if it was detectable, then it would be material. define 'immaterial': non-existant in the physical world, thus not detectable for beings in the physical world. If you do not agree with this definition, I bet you can make up a creative solution to the non-existence problem, more and more relying on delusions and having less and less basis in reality, since that is what immaterial implies anyway: no basis in reality. You could also try to make this immaterial god material, in which case you would have to conclude that the material universe had existed all along.
Another definiton:
The universe is commonly defined as the totality of everything that exists,^[1] including all matter and energy, the planets, stars, galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space.
If god, as in your opinion, existed before the universe, then that would be a contradictio in terminis. Of course, I bet you can find a way for non-existence to exist.
These are my grounds for preferring science over belief about an existing non-existance based on non-existing evidence. Again, about the big bang, I have already given my opinion 1. a theory is a theory, especially since it is in a timeframe of 13 billion years 2. if there are seemingly impossible implications in the theory, then this would indicate a shift from big bang theory to another framework, rather than trying to explain the big bang being caused by an existing non-existence or whatever untestable concept.
About the video: I haven't watched it fully, but I guess it should not be so hard to explain what his point is, and how this relates to the conversation.

[DAMABO]

"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."



That is the grotesque arrogance typical of believers. What has Aquinas got to do with anything? How could Aquinas,800 or so years ago possibly illuminate what Hawking means; all of Aquinas's arguments for the existence of God are now accepted as nonsense. Some are frequently used as perfect examples of standard logical fallacies such as question begging. That by the way is a correct use of "logical fallacy" unlike your constant abuse of the term.

You cannot change someone's words to suit yourself and then claim that they really say whatever you want.

Hawking is well known to be an atheist. That is a situation that upsets dogmatic fundamentalists like you, so you try to persuade people, who you hope are ignorant, that he means something else. That is a fundamentally dishonest thing to do. In Hawking's later writings he return to the theme of the origin of the universe and finds several satisfactory explications. Unlike you he also recognises that we cannot know for certain. The basic problem is that at the singularity our present physics breaks down. There is no way of seeing beyond that point at the moment. It is arrogance to say that what lies beyond must be god. All Hawking is doing is speculating on possible mathematical extensions of the current understanding. The correct answer to all these questions is simply, "I don't know." If we could look at all the millions of times somebody has said, "It must be god," we would see a long list of predictive failures.

exactly, very well said. we don't know for sure, but let's try to find out based on what we do know. let's not assume things we can never test, such as immateriality. we do not even understand gravity, so why should we think that there is only one 'transcendental, immaterial, ignoring the laws of physics' option left... god has always been used as an excuse to explain what couldn't be explained by science at the time.

[johnross47]

Before shadowhawk jumps in with another enraged outburst of flaming foaming at the mouth insults and irrelevance here is a little bit of Stephen Hawking. (Getting in my retaliation first). Don't take my word for Hawking's opinions; read the man himself

http://online.wsj.co...1609024244.html

[shadowhawk]

DAMABO of course I can have no evidence for the absense of an immaterial being, as I explained many times. belief in something immaterial is more faith, since there can never be presented evidence for it.

I assume you have no evidence for this statement either. How are these statements consistent? You have no evidence and yet you know for sure.

for materialism however, the evidence is plentiful. Nobody believes that things just pop into existence, that is correct, for every effect there must be cause. but if you postulate god, you will resort into postulating another god (etc), unless of course you think he is uncaused. If you think god is uncaused, you might as well suppose a more parsimonious explanation: the universe was not caused (this actually would be consistent with the law of conservation of matter). this way, no need for an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

God is uncaused and never begin to exist. We need to discuss the Kalam Argument elsewhere on topic.

How come you didn’t deal with the Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem nor Hilberts Hotel since this is about Hawking. Since I have recently posted on BGVT, I will ignore it and give information on Hilberts Hotel at the end of this post. The point is the cosmos is finite no matter what model you use and infinity is impossible. You have said nobody believes the universe just popped into existence which is what we are talking about in this thread.

Wrong, a universe that has a beginning has to have a cause, (Kalam Argument) The universe had a beginning, therefore the universe has a cause. The law of the conservation of matter does not apply here.

Consciousness is not material nor are laws. Read this paper.
http://www.pdfdownlo..._Laws_draft.pdf

Every real thing isn’t material (prove it) and the present limitations of the scientific method are causing you all kinds of errors. Let me identify at least two different kinds of real things.

THE MATERIAL WORLD. In it you find:

Matter
Energy
Physical Laws - see the paper I posted above relating to this. Laws may be immaterial.
Light
Gravity
Forces
Rocks
Water
Snowflakes
Weather
Chaos & fractals

THE IMMATERIAL WORLD OF INFORMATION. In it you find:

Symbols
Copies
Replication
Purpose
Competition
Evolution
Intent
Truth
Falsehood
Judgment
Codes
Messages
Rules (and the possibility of breaking them) (maybe Physical Laws as well)
Expectations
Language
Instructions
Meaning

Neither of these lists are exhaustive. For example where would we put consciousness and intelligence? Where would we put God? You are to simplistic and limited with your hard atheistic materialism. Saying that materialism is the only real thing is atheistic ir-rationalism.

Of course, I have no way of knowing that only that that which we can detect now, or will be able to detect ever with extremely advanced technology, is truth. however, to postulate the existence of immaterialism is quite inparsimonious, and impedes science itself, for explanations for what happened before, or did this event even happen, can of course always be explained by this immaterial being and never be rejected as an explanation. So whether, there really is an immaterial being would not even matter ( ), since we would not be able to abstract any useful information of it, and it would only be a strong impediment to our science.

You sure know a lot about what you claim you can know nothing about and if you did it would be unimportant we are assured. Some things that are real are immaterial. Science has limitations but then science never clammed it could solve all kinds of issues. No one ever proved Science was the only way to know everything. Who proved science?

[shadowhawk]

HAS HAWKING ELIMINATED GOD? MAJOR DEBATE

[mikeinnaples]

Stop posting video links. Everyone here is capable of doing a google search if they want the opinion of someone else. I am more than happy to hear 'your' opinion though as long as you can keep the hypocrisy out of them, namely crying about people being offensive towards you while being offensive towards other people.

It is borderline spamming and I am seriously hoping a moderator jumps in at some point to stop your insanity.

[johnross47]

I notice you've carefully avoided responding to my post shadowhawk. Start taking a proper part in the conversation or get out, but beware, if you plan on misquoting Hawking again you should take into account the fact that some people here have actually read his books.