Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 351
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the UniversePage 15 of 19    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)

we are feeble humans with feeble science [it can decipher very little empirically].
and nothing outside of this materialistic universe.
so whats magic?
the big bang, so far, is magic. [unguided, that is].
any unguided constructive improvement is magic.
relying on the man made definition, ''natural laws'' is a cop out, as is believing randomness did it.

All of that ^ ^ ^ is either untrue, not relevant, or vaguely misrepresents reality.


oh, and a natural law implies a causer.

No it doesn't.

It's interesting that the alleged necessity for this 'causer' equates to the requirement alleged by the another prominent poster for an 'initiator'.

One suspects you are both getting your information from here -

The universe obeys certain rules—laws to which all things must adhere. These laws are precise, and many of them are mathematical in nature. Natural laws are hierarchical in nature; secondary laws of nature are based on primary laws of nature, which have to be just right in order for our universe to be possible. But, where did these laws come from, and why do they exist? If the universe were merely the accidental by-product of a big bang, then why should it obey orderly principles—or any principles at all for that matter? Such laws are consistent with biblical creation. Natural laws exist because the universe has a Creator God who is logical and has imposed order on His universe (Genesis 1:1).

The Word of God
Everything in the universe, every plant and animal, every rock, every particle of matter or light wave, is bound by laws which it has no choice but to obey. The Bible tells us that there are laws of nature—“ordinances of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:25). These laws describe the way God normally accomplishes His will in the universe.

God’s logic is built into the universe, and so the universe is not haphazard or arbitrary. It obeys laws of chemistry that are logically derived from the laws of physics, many of which can be logically derived from other laws of physics and laws of mathematics. The most fundamental laws of nature exist only because God wills them to; they are the logical, orderly way that the Lord upholds and sustains the universe He has created. The atheist is unable to account for the logical, orderly state of the universe. Why should the universe obey laws if there is no law-giver? But laws of nature are perfectly consistent with biblical creation. In fact, the Bible is the foundation for natural laws.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/god-natural-law


For some balance, check this out -


Some of the more famous laws of nature are found in Isaac Newton's theories of (now) classical mechanics, presented in his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, and in Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. Other examples of laws of nature include Boyle's law of gases, conservation laws, the four laws of thermodynamics, etc.

Compared to pre-modern accounts of causality, laws of nature fill the role played by divine causality on the one hand, and accounts such as Plato's theory of forms on the other.

In all accounts of causality, the idea that there are underlying regularities in nature dates to prehistoric times, since even the recognition of cause-and-effect relationships is an implicit recognition that there are laws of nature.

Progress in identifying laws per se, though, was limited by the belief in animism, and by the attribution of many effects that do not have readily obvious causes—such as meteorological, astronomical and biological phenomena— to the actions of various gods, spirits, supernatural beings, etc.
Early attempts to formulate laws in material terms were made by ancient philosophers, including Aristotle, but suffered both from lack of definitions and lack of accurate observations (experimenting), and hence had various misconceptions - such as the assumption that observed effects were due to intrinsic properties of objects, e.g. "heaviness," "lightness," "wetness," etc. - which were results lacking accurate supporting experimental data.

The precise formulation of what are today recognized as correct statements of the laws of nature did not begin until the 17th century in Europe, with the beginning of accurate experimentation and development of advanced form of mathematics (see scientific method).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
 Kevin554
Joined: 3/20/2012
Msg: 352
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/22/2012 3:01:14 PM
Your personifying an initiator, you need to get over that brick wall and see how something can initiate without the judgement to do so.

Ahhh... I'm not the one who wrote this -



In a rational point of view, God is the most likely candidate to fill the void of the unknown answer/source. In science, we observe 2 effects, and deduce a cause. But what if there is no appearent cause, yet with the existence of effects, otherwise? Even if the big bang is true (not saying it is or isnt), then what initiated that? What started the initiation of the Big bang? God? In reality, from rationale to science and math, there must always be something. And when it is impossible to come up with a something for such a cause, God is all that is left.

Or this -


Lets call it 'X'. I call 'X' god since everything else seems to be shackled by space-time, which the initiator, a life or not, was not bound to. And God is an above all being.
...and for the sake of common communication, I will call 'x1', god.

Or this -


If you deny the existence of a religious god because he was not founded upon physical sources, then you cannot deny that physical existence itself was created by something that had the power to do so. And sure, you can say multiple entities took a part if it makes you happy, but those entities would be spurs of the first one, existence happened without time, and multiple instances of it would be impossible because there was no dimension. Much like a singularity. You take away every dimension in existence, youre left without even a measurement or distance or event. You have but the idea a human is capable of, a singularity. A dimensionless point of nothing. Because singularities exist, I do have support. Because we exist, we are the *result* of a material creation, whether you want to believe in creation or not.

Though I did write the first part of this -


It's easy to generate endless 'explanations' that all lead to the same conclusion, because they all amount to no more than 'The Universe, therefore god' or 'The Universe, therefore pixies' or 'The Universe, therefore thousands of gods' or 'The Universe, therefore X1'.
What they all have in common is a complete lack of rational foundation.


What they all have in common is an answer.

-Your right, you didn't say those things, you couldn't, or didn't, seperate a thing from personification like I did.

And the answer is? God / the initiator/ X? pfft.

-Your questioning your own argument finally? Good. I see progression here.


It's transparently disingenuous to pretend it's me who is trying to 'personify' the great 'initiator' when you've used 'god', 'the initiator', and 'X' interchangeably in a thread inspired by a well known scientists dismissal of 'GOD' as being necessary to explain the existence of the universe.

-Interchangably? I've clearly seperated them. Besides, here's even a quote from the link regarding Mr. Hawking, """As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.""" And following, """It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.""" A statement that clearly shows *even* God is still an option. Unfortunately, there is a discrepancy. The lack of time (relative dimension of motion), did not exist before the time of creation, but if the higgs boson doesn't exist, then the higgs field did exist before creation. Mr. Hawking has idealized creation based off of the existence of the higgs boson, which will be confirmed later this year to be false if not then found, every range of energy being analyzed almost to the point of the plank energy, where the higgs boson couldn't function anyway. Scientific confidence in the particle is currently at 5% cf. Unfortunately, there is a second (extreme) discrepency. The electroweak nuclear force. It existed since the time a quark came to be, it is intrinsic to matter itself. So, if the universe had been infinite in time, we would not exist, nor would there be symmetry in matter because of it, contridictory to the force itself. If you went back in time in a classical sense, every single particle would reverse-decay to the point where nothing ever had decayed at all. You couldn't go further back then that, otherwise the force would reverse in a classical sense, which would break symmetry with time itself, breaking down everything that existed. So in other words, going back in time, to the point of no decay, would stop at a dead end. This was creation. In order to start time, you must break symmetry, and the electroweak force cannot operate with out matter, which also depends on time. So there are 2 options here. If the higgs boson exists, nothing existed before the big bang, nothing could start creation, therefore creation didn't start since matter depends on a cause in every way shape or form, and we dont exist..... Perhaps why they cannot find the higgs boson yet. If the particle does not exist, then there was a so-to-speak 1 dimensional field of energy, a singularity, called a higgs scalar field, that had an attribute to it that caused the breakdown of itself.



I'm not saying the universe doesn't exist, I'm not saying we understand the format it took before the big bang, I'm just saying, as Hawking did, that there's no implied requirement in the universe for a god, or an initiator called god, or a god called X.


What hawking was implying based off of incomplete scientific data, is that creation didn't need a start to be started. I feel he makes wonderful, meaningful reasoning and logic. But his idea of spontaneity is based off of the electroweak nuclear force in a classical sense that it 'just happens out of nowhere', which it isn't even truely spontaneous, the attribute is used as a probability shortcut regarding the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics. Like the Soviet Union, his Ideas grow too large too fast for him to mend every hole and contingency, despite how perfect the end result may seem. It's quite simple. Quantum mechanics had no application, no existence before matter and time itself, therefore it doesn't apply to creation, itself.

Edit: I would like to add that if only a singulrity existed before the universe, consisting of higgs field energy, then ultimately, anything was possible regarding the 'period' before time. Only an imagination could fill in the blanks during singularity.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 353
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/22/2012 6:58:52 PM

It's transparently disingenuous to pretend it's me who is trying to 'personify' the great 'initiator' when you've used 'god', 'the initiator', and 'X' interchangeably in a thread inspired by a well known scientists dismissal of 'GOD' as being necessary to explain the existence of the universe.


Interchangably? I've clearly seperated them.

You think? These following statements are all yours, though admittedly out of context and taken from various posts on the preceding page, they show the continuous attempts to establish the link between 'God', 'X', and an 'initiator'.


In reality, from rationale to science and math, there must always be something. And when it is impossible to come up with a something for such a cause, God is all that is left.

In a rational point of view, God is the most likely candidate to fill the void of the unknown answer/source.

Lets call it 'X'. I call 'X' god since everything else seems to be shackled by space-time, which the initiator, a life or not, was not bound to. And God is an above all being.

I'm not sure which 'x' from whatever religion, if there is a relevent one, you may want to consider, perhaps the one that initiated time. There for we will call it 'x1'.

Certainly, 'x' is responsible for the initiation of time.

But names dont matter, they dont change anything. It doesnt matter how many 'x's, 'y's, or even 'abc's, there are to figure out which one did it. It was 'x1'.

Until there is a rational answer, a reason without doubt as to what caused the effects that led to the birth of our universe, I will continue to blame 'x1', and for the sake of common communication, I will call 'x1', god.

Perhaps there are a thousand religions with 10 thousand gods. They could all be 'x1'.

Time has initiated, there for it was initiated.
All I know is that 'x' did it.

Naming doesnt make a difference. 'x' is not a name. Philosophically, it is a thing. When you put every thing into math, the entity in question becomes a variable, correct? Therefor it is 'x', further, 'x1' to distinguish it from anything related.

Well, you could say the universe was not created. But then we would not exist.

If you deny the existence of a religious god because he was not founded upon physical sources, then you cannot deny that physical existence itself was created by something that had the power to do so.

There is no evidence that god made you. That's because, clearly, he didn't. Something more earthly did. 'X' started the universe, he didnt start you.

Initiation is not a magical occurance, its very natural. It involves the physical foundations of existence.

Why does an initiator have to be shackled to the fabric of spacetime?


As I said, it's disingenuous to pretend, in the context of a thread titled "Stephen Hawking - God Did Not Create the Universe", while knowing the associations that word "God" invokes, that you are not trying to insert a deity (the initiator = X = god) into a beginning/creation/initiation scenario that you imagine fits only 'Him'.



So, if the universe had been infinite in time, we would not exist, nor would there be symmetry in matter because of it, contridictory to the force itself. If you went back in time in a classical sense, every single particle would reverse-decay to the point where nothing ever had decayed at all. You couldn't go further back then that, otherwise the force would reverse in a classical sense, which would break symmetry with time itself, breaking down everything that existed. So in other words, going back in time, to the point of no decay, would stop at a dead end. This was creation. In order to start time, you must break symmetry, and the electroweak force cannot operate with out matter, which also depends on time. So there are 2 options here. If the higgs boson exists, nothing existed before the big bang, nothing could start creation, therefore creation didn't start since matter depends on a cause in every way shape or form, and we dont exist..... Perhaps why they cannot find the higgs boson yet. If the particle does not exist, then there was a so-to-speak 1 dimensional field of energy, a singularity, called a higgs scalar field, that had an attribute to it that caused the breakdown of itself.


Gosh, it sounds scary. But luckily, according to you, we have a 'saviour particle' called 'X' that can exist outside space and time, is comfortable residing in a singularity, and handily knows the trick of 'initiating' time. Remember Him? He is called 'X', or 'x1', or 'the initiator', or that old familiar name 'God'.

Creationism dressed up in a new pseudo-science outfit is still creationism.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 354
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/23/2012 12:29:23 AM
well, the universe WAS created, either spontaneously or by a cause.

nothing in the physical world begins without a cause, so it must have been a non physical causer.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 355
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/23/2012 1:10:22 AM

well, the universe WAS created, either spontaneously or by a cause.

False dichotomy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma


nothing in the physical world begins without a cause, so it must have been a non physical causer.

Non sequitur.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)
 Kevin554
Joined: 3/20/2012
Msg: 356
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/23/2012 5:17:23 AM

well, the universe WAS created, either spontaneously or by a cause.


False dichotomy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma




nothing in the physical world begins without a cause, so it must have been a non physical causer.


Non sequitur.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
 Kevin554
Joined: 3/20/2012
Msg: 357
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/23/2012 5:37:30 AM
You think? These following statements are all yours, though admittedly out of context and taken from various posts on the preceding page, they show the continuous attempts to establish the link between 'God', 'X', and an 'initiator'.
Whether a link establishes in a reason or not, you the one personifying it. If i establish a link at all, then god would be a mere object correct? And?


As I said, it's disingenuous to pretend, in the context of a thread titled "Stephen Hawking - God Did Not Create the Universe", while knowing the associations that word "God" invokes, that you are not trying to insert a deity (the initiator = X = god) into a beginning/creation/initiation scenario that you imagine fits only 'Him'.
I didn't imagine it fits only him. Where did you come up with this conclusion? I said *even* god is still an *option*. Whether you want it to be your magical pixie or not is up to you. I did not mention any limitations on the creator. How is this pretending, if what is said before is pretty clear, here you go:
A statement that clearly shows *even* God is still an option.
Here maybe you should remind yourself the context of the thread: this link is on this first post http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704206804575467921609024244.html.
Read, because I was quoting from this. The context Im using is the context established from the first post. Still see no pretending here.


Gosh, it sounds scary. But luckily, according to you, we have a 'saviour particle' called 'X' that can exist outside space and time, is comfortable residing in a singularity, and handily knows the trick of 'initiating' time. Remember Him? He is called 'X', or 'x1', or 'the initiator', or that old familiar name 'God'.

-Saviour particle? What? 'x' would not be limited to being a particle... your always defining 'x'. You would have to reside along singularity, theres no where else to be since location does not exist. I dont think the preservation of information was necessary to initiate time, your relating your own function with the creator.


Creationism dressed up in a new pseudo-science outfit is still creationism.

Creationism is science, science itself can create. In order to make science, you must create in some way. Infinite universes or a non-created universe is what you call psuedo-science, because it has no scientific support, defys logic, and athiests seem to champion it anyway.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 358
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/23/2012 7:19:06 AM

Whether a link establishes in a reason or not, you the one personifying it. If i establish a link at all, then god would be a mere object correct?

If 'X' is an 'object' why are you calling it 'god'? Are you trying to re-define religion?
If 'X' is a 'god' why are you calling it an 'object'? Are you trying to re-define science?


I didn't imagine it fits only him. Where did you come up with this conclusion?

I think I've already quoted it twice, but here it is again...

In reality, from rationale to science and math, there must always be something. And when it is impossible to come up with a something for such a cause, God is all that is left.

In a rational point of view, God is the most likely candidate to fill the void of the unknown answer/source.

Lets call it 'X'. I call 'X' god since everything else seems to be shackled by space-time, which the initiator, a life or not, was not bound to. And God is an above all being.

I'm beginning to wonder if you're really paying attention.


Gosh, it sounds scary. But luckily, according to you, we have a 'saviour particle' called 'X' that can exist outside space and time, is comfortable residing in a singularity, and handily knows the trick of 'initiating' time. Remember Him? He is called 'X', or 'x1', or 'the initiator', or that old familiar name 'God'.

Saviour particle? What? 'x' would not be limited to being a particle... your always defining 'x'.

I didn't introduce 'X' into the conversation and I'm not the one offering definitions by setting conditions in which only 'X', who/which you defined as equating to 'god' and/or the 'initiator', can possibly exist.
The term 'saviour particle' was actually a joke because I found the image of 'the initiator / X / god' (who is usually portrayed as a grandfatherly figure with a long beard), parked beyond space and time reduced to a singularity just waiting to kick off time kind of... amusing.


Creationism dressed up in a new pseudo-science outfit is still creationism.


Creationism is science, science itself can create. In order to make science, you must create in some way. Infinite universes or a non-created universe is what you call psuedo-science, because it has no scientific support, defys logic, and athiests seem to champion it anyway.

Creationism is the antithesis of science because it starts from an unchallengeable answer and works backwards from there.

Backwards being the operative word.

 Kevin554
Joined: 3/20/2012
Msg: 359
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/23/2012 8:07:39 AM
"If 'X' is an 'object' why are you calling it 'god'?"
-Because I'm not using god according to anyones view of him/it. I'm reffering to 'x' which could be god in any fashion.

"Are you trying to re-define religion?"
-No, religion has nothing to do with this, nor have I related to it.
Religion is an establishment based of faith, not science.

"If 'X' is a 'god' why are you calling it an 'object'? Are you trying to re-define science?"
-Redefine science? You just showed right there I'm being scientific about it. Science is about being objective. Perhaps you have yet to understand the differences between an object and subject, which incorporates dualism.

"I think I've already quoted it twice, but here it is again..."
"I'm beginning to wonder if you're really paying attention."
Here you go:


And *when it is impossible* to come up with a something for such a cause




In a rational point of view, God is the *most likely candidate* to fill the void of the unknown answer/source.



Lets call it 'X'. I call 'X' god since everything else seems to be shackled by space-time, 'which the initiator', *a life or not*, was not bound to. And God is an above all being.

So can you show me where I said it fits only god? Again, your personifying the initiator. I dont think you are paying attention.

" didn't introduce 'X' into the conversation and I'm not the one offering definitions by setting conditions in which only 'X',"
-I never defined 'x'. That is what you have been doing. This is the number one point I have been making, that 'x' is a variable. You argued that before, you personified it, then you come back and accuse me of setting limitations on it where:
"who/which you defined as equating to 'god' and/or the 'initiator', can possibly exist. "....You even show that I have pointed out that the maximal possible state he can exist in, is the complete opposite of defining or setting limitation.
You just contradicted youself, and proved my point correct. Thank you.

"The term 'saviour particle' was actually a joke because I found the image of 'the initiator / X / god' (who is usually portrayed as a grandfatherly figure with a long beard), parked beyond space and time reduced to a singularity just waiting to kick off time kind of... amusing."
-Amusment is in the eye of the beholder. Either way, the common protrayal of god to people could be nothing more than a manifestation. Don't you find the miracle of your own existance amusing? I mean after all, there is no reason material, time or even life had to exist in the first place. Nor the evolution of a planetary nebula to advanced, concious life forms that can hear, smell, taste, see, feel, think, judge, argue, read, enjoy, and even choose whether they want to be rational or irrational. When you put it into perspective, your existance as anyones, is a miracle, from the point of nothing, it just kind of happened regardless, you could've even been a difference person with the same body. You have no less miraculous leverage than even a god would when it comes to existing. You are nothing more than a pile of connected atoms, am I wrong? Or is the whole greater than the sum of its parts in this case?
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 360
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/23/2012 9:14:18 AM

If 'X' is an 'object' why are you calling it 'god'?"

Because I'm not using god according to anyones view of him/it. I'm reffering to 'x' which could be god in any fashion.

R i g h t . . .
So we forget what 'god' formerly meant, and all the associations the word has, and accept your novel interpretation of 'god'. Totally novel, like, as 'the initiator' who/which got things started, which is completely unlike 'the creator' who... ummm... got things started.


Are you trying to re-define religion?"

No, religion has nothing to do with this, nor have I related to it.

This may come as a surprise... but that 'god' word you're using is already being used by, of all things, lots of religions. There you are trying soooo hard to keep religion completely out of this and just by sheer bad luck the word you use just happens to be at the center of religious movements worldwide. Don't ya hate it when that happens!



If 'X' is a 'god' why are you calling it an 'object'? Are you trying to re-define science?"

Redefine science? You just showed right there I'm being scientific about it.

I didn't 'show' anything, I asked you a question relating to your persistent attempts to insert 'god / X / the initiator' at the beginning of space/time/the universe.


I didn't imagine it fits only him. Where did you come up with this conclusion?
/snip/
So can you show me where I said it fits only god?

How many times do you need to be reminded?

In reality, from rationale to science and math, there must always be something. And when it is impossible to come up with a something for such a cause, God is all that is left.

In a rational point of view, God is the most likely candidate to fill the void of the unknown answer/source.

Lets call it 'X'. I call 'X' god since everything else seems to be shackled by space-time, which the initiator, a life or not, was not bound to. And God is an above all being.

I'm not sure which 'x' from whatever religion, if there is a relevent one, you may want to consider, perhaps the one that initiated time. There for we will call it 'x1'.

Certainly, 'x' is responsible for the initiation of time.

But names dont matter, they dont change anything. It doesnt matter how many 'x's, 'y's, or even 'abc's, there are to figure out which one did it. It was 'x1'.

Until there is a rational answer, a reason without doubt as to what caused the effects that led to the birth of our universe, I will continue to blame 'x1', and for the sake of common communication, I will call 'x1', god.

Perhaps there are a thousand religions with 10 thousand gods. They could all be 'x1'.

Time has initiated, there for it was initiated.
All I know is that 'x' did it.


Naming doesnt make a difference. 'x' is not a name. Philosophically, it is a thing. When you put every thing into math, the entity in question becomes a variable, correct? Therefor it is 'x', further, 'x1' to distinguish it from anything related.

Well, you could say the universe was not created. But then we would not exist.

If you deny the existence of a religious god because he was not founded upon physical sources, then you cannot deny that physical existence itself was created by something that had the power to do so.

There is no evidence that god made you. That's because, clearly, he didn't. Something more earthly did. 'X' started the universe, he didnt start you.

Initiation is not a magical occurance, its very natural. It involves the physical foundations of existence.

Why does an initiator have to be shackled to the fabric of spacetime?

All of which ^ ^ ^ makes this statement just plain bizarre -

I never defined 'x'. That is what you have been doing.




The term 'saviour particle' was actually a joke because I found the image of 'the initiator / X / god' (who is usually portrayed as a grandfatherly figure with a long beard), parked beyond space and time reduced to a singularity just waiting to kick off time kind of... amusing.


Amusment is in the eye of the beholder. Either way, the common protrayal of god to people could be nothing more than a manifestation. Don't you find the miracle of your own existance amusing?
{my emphasis)
Gosh, for someone who is trying to keep religion out of the discussion you sure use a lot of words with well known religious connotations and religious implications.

Say, as a sideline to 'initiating' universes and stuff, does 'X' perform miracles too?
 Kevin554
Joined: 3/20/2012
Msg: 361
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/23/2012 11:02:35 AM
Everything you have tried to point out here (^^^^^) has showed one large flaw with you. Your confusing context with definition. Definition is the limitations or bounds that shape and give meaning to something. Context is supplying the idea to support a notion. When you say something 'can' be or do something, you arent defining it. When you say God is defined after attaching a *variable* (even more so an unknown variable) to him, for example 'x', you are replacing *that* context with the definition of 'x' or god. That is entirely incorrect. I dont mean to sound rude here but, there is a reason why we need to conserve ration and logic. If you don't, you will always fail to understand the truth. Your connecting too many irrelevent things, that doesnt mean anything at all. This is because, as you just showed: context, defintion, and even idea mean, and are the same thing to you, which will only have you make bizzare connections with things. I cant even further explain to you how your misinterpreting my reply, because so long as you think that:

Time has initiated, there for it was initiated.All I know is that 'x' did it.
negates

I never defined 'x'. That is what you have been doing.
its like talking to a rock.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 362
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/23/2012 7:17:29 PM

If you don't, you will always fail to understand the truth. Your connecting too many irrelevent things, that doesnt mean anything at all. This is because, as you just showed: context, defintion, and even idea mean, and are the same thing to you, which will only have you make bizzare connections with things.

Heh heh ^ ^ ^ Irony meter overload.
http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb129/beautifulcaptive/irony.jpg


its like talking to a rock.

That reminds me of a cartoon I once saw... a person says to a rock, "Rock, do you believe in god?"
And the rock replies, "No, I don't follow transient fads".
 Kevin554
Joined: 3/20/2012
Msg: 363
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/23/2012 8:21:07 PM
Heh heh ^ ^ ^ Irony meter overload.
http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb129/beautifulcaptive/irony.jpg

That reminds me of a cartoon I once saw... a person says to a rock, "Rock, do you believe in god?"
And the rock replies, "No, I don't follow transient fads"."


-Wow. Ever thought there may be 'certain' people out there who scare people away from athiesm with very good reason? Probably why christianity is the dominant religion in our society. Transient def: Lasting only for a short time; impermanent. Fad: An intense and widely shared enthusiasm for something, esp. one that is short-lived; a craze. Appearently your rock was being sarcastic. It was following 2 very good rules: ""never argue with a fool - onlookers may not be able to tell the difference" -Mark Twain, and "never argue with an idiot, he'll drag you down to his level then beat you with experience" -Bob Smith. Your cartoon would've been an athiest.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 364
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/23/2012 9:12:30 PM
This may come as a surprise... but that 'god' word you're using is already being used by, of all things, lots of religions. There you are trying soooo hard to keep religion completely out of this and just by sheer bad luck the word you use just happens to be at the center of religious movements worldwide. Don't ya hate it when that happens!

the creator of whom I speak has almost nothing to do with pretty much all of organized religion.

can you accept that?
cheat.

there are laws of physics.
the word natural was put there by us, those who don't want god.

[NATURAL laws of physics]
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 365
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/24/2012 12:07:23 AM

the creator of whom I speak has almost nothing to do with pretty much all of organized religion.

can you accept that?
cheat.

Sure, I understand that each persons approach is different. But the concept of some kind of 'creation' event, featuring only their favoured deity of course, is fundamental to almost all the organised religions. So, in practice it's impossible to abstract the concept of 'creation' from that of 'religion' due to the relentless activities of the organised religions as they try to stake out, or capture, responsibility for 'In The Beginning...'

Personally, I reject both concepts for slightly different, though closely related, reasons.


there are laws of physics.
the word natural was put there by us, those who don't want god.
(NATURAL laws of physics)

You may be confusing 'physical' and 'natural' here... but taking your point, the word 'natural' may be used because they derive from the circumstances in which they are found to apply.
That they apply invariably only reinforces the conclusion that they are 'natural', or consequential.
Natural is being used here in the same sense as in 'natural justice' where just consequences automatically follow from a set of circumstances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law

None of it has anything to do with 'wanting', or 'not wanting' a god.


_______________________________________________________________________________________

Wow. Ever thought there may be 'certain' people out there who scare people away from athiesm with very good reason? Probably why christianity is the dominant religion in our society.

Your logic is, apparently characteristically, flawed.
Christianity isn't "the dominant religion in our society".

This is a global forum. It's estimated that christians (all denominations) number about 2.2 billion worldwide. As a percentage of world population that isn't a 'dominant' number, nor is it a 'dominant' number when compared to the numbers of people worldwide who follow 'religion', but who aren't christian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations

Christianity doesn't appear to be the fastest growing religion either. There are a number of more likely candidates such as Hinduism (through population growth) and Islam (through conversion).
The fastest growing 'religious' group in the US is 'no religion'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_to_be_the_fastest-growing_religion
http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2009/03/fastest-growing-religion-no-re.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-03-09-american-religion-ARIS_N.htm?AID=4992781&PID=4003003&SID=u9sw1qh7ogdz



its like talking to a rock.


That reminds me of a cartoon I once saw... a person says to a rock, "Rock, do you believe in god?"
And the rock replies, "No, I don't follow transient fads".


Transient def: Lasting only for a short time; impermanent. Fad: An intense and widely shared enthusiasm for something, esp. one that is short-lived; a craze. Appearently your rock was being sarcastic. It was following 2 very good rules: ""never argue with a fool - onlookers may not be able to tell the difference" -Mark Twain, and "never argue with an idiot, he'll drag you down to his level then beat you with experience" -Bob Smith. Your cartoon would've been an athiest.

No, not sarcasm, but satire.
A pebble you might trip over in the street, or a stone you might toss into a lake, could be billions of years old. Your christian 'god' is a few thousand at most.

No doubt, a couple of thousand years is a long time, but compared to a billion or two it's the definition of transient.

 Kevin554
Joined: 3/20/2012
Msg: 366
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/24/2012 3:14:33 AM

Your logic is, apparently characteristically, flawed.
Christianity isn't "the dominant religion in our society".


-Really? Let's take a look, we'll use what you even pointed out:


This is a global forum.
Check. Although many countries such as but not limited to China and Iran do not part-take in this 'global' forum, nor our society.

It's estimated that christians (all denominations) number about 2.2 billion worldwide.
Check (even though this is by majority and not dominance, but it works.)

As a percentage of world population that isn't a 'dominant' number,
Hmm, did you mean to say, perhaps, 'the largest participating majority'? Even though dominance isn't even a *mathematical term, i'm curious as to what other word you would use to describe that.

nor is it a 'dominant' number when compared to the numbers of people worldwide who follow 'religion', but who aren't christian.
I like this statement, its got a kick to it. What happens when you take the second largest religion, and compare it in numbers with those religious who dont participate in that one religion? It becomes a minority is what your saying correct? So every religion is a/the minority? So either way, religion is a catagory, right? So what's the largest thing (im not even going to say dominant) in that catagory? Christianity right? So christianity is the largest religion in the catagory of religion... right? So, ya.... "If religous but not x religion".... doesn't catagorize them in a particular religion. If religions by numbers were labeled x1...x10 starting with the largest, than 'not x1' is actually smaller (or smallest) than 'not x2..x10'. That still places christianity as the largest no matter which way you want to look at it. Funny how math works huh?
*Christianity doesn't appear to be the fastest growing religion either. There are a number of more likely candidates such as Hinduism (through population growth) and Islam (through conversion). Fastest growing doesn't mean anything. In fact I will still make up something to give some dort of credit for that statement. Even though Hinduism and Islam is still smaller, growing faster makes them more a majority or dominant? Well they seem to be outpacing Athiesm... do you know why that is? Have an idea? I find that an intriguing relationship. Good point sir!


The fastest growing 'religious' group in the US is 'no religion'.

Nice for you to point that out for me! Here, I'll finish it! (It appears you rely on wiki so I used a couple for you.)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_happiness
"There is now extensive research suggesting that religious people are happier and less stressed."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_disaffiliation#Factors_affecting_psychological_and_social_aspects
"than are dissatisfied persons, who may perceive their unhappiness as evidence that no deity exists (as in atheism) or that whatever deity exists is less than omnibenevolent "
....just had to point that one out *smiles*.


http://www.webmd.com/depression/news/20101206/depression-rising-psychotherapy-declines
"Overall, the number of Americans who received outpatient treatment for depression increased from about 6.5 million to 8.7 million between 1998 and 2007."


Hmm... shall I go on? That truly was a great point you grought up!


No, not sarcasm, but satire.

Well your person didn't so the answering, so your rock appearently held the satire. So your rock was being sarcastic.


A pebble you might trip over in the street, or a stone you might toss into a lake, could be billions of years old. Your christian 'god' is a few thousand at most.
No doubt, a couple of thousand years is a long time, but compared to a billion or two it's the definition of transient.

Well, assuming here that god is real, either he supernaturally, or scientifically exists, what was he going to do before people developed intellegent thought and communication? Skip rocks? As far as I understand, Religion has been around since man had the capacity to maintain one. Again assuming that God exists, he would've been older than this Earth, older than human existance, therefor there was a period before humans where no one could record his being. Not until intelligent writing was developed. A couple (which is actually more than just a couple) thousand years sounds like a long time to me.... longer than athiesm. Odd epiphany eh? People went from unintelligably agnostic, to religious, and later on there was a developed athiesm, since athiesm depends on other religions to exist. So whats the better time scale here? The duration of the Earth? Or the duration of intellegent man?

Moral of this story: Dont confuse majority (largest/fastest growing number) with dominance (most succesful in a group or place/ most success over others.).
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 367
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/24/2012 5:27:50 AM

Wow. Ever thought there may be 'certain' people out there who scare people away from athiesm with very good reason? Probably why christianity is the dominant religion in our society.


This is a global forum. It's estimated that christians (all denominations) number about 2.2 billion worldwide. As a percentage of world population that isn't a 'dominant' number...


Hmm, did you mean to say, perhaps, 'the largest participating majority'? Even though dominance isn't even a *mathematical term, i'm curious as to what other word you would use to describe that.

It was you that described christianity as 'dominant'. I was merely exploring what that might mean.
I presumed you meant in number, rather than say... aggression, or in the sense of subjugating it's flock.
Are you saying you didn't mean 'in number'?


...nor is it a 'dominant' number when compared to the numbers of people worldwide who follow 'religion', but who aren't christian.


I like this statement, its got a kick to it. What happens when you take the second largest religion, and compare it in numbers with those religious who dont participate in that one religion? It becomes a minority is what your saying correct? So every religion is a/the minority? So either way, religion is a catagory, right? So what's the largest thing (im not even going to say dominant) in that catagory? Christianity right? So christianity is the largest religion in the catagory of religion... right?

Sure, but that isn't what you said the first time. You've back-pedalled, used different terminology, and turned it into a statement that is now almost accurate.


A pebble you might trip over in the street, or a stone you might toss into a lake, could be billions of years old. Your christian 'god' is a few thousand at most.
No doubt, a couple of thousand years is a long time, but compared to a billion or two it's the definition of transient.


Well, assuming here that god is real, either he supernaturally, or scientifically exists, what was he going to do before people developed intellegent thought and communication? Skip rocks? As far as I understand, Religion has been around since man had the capacity to maintain one. Again assuming that God exists, he would've been older than this Earth, older than human existance, therefor there was a period before humans where no one could record his being. Not until intelligent writing was developed.
(my emphasis)
You first assume a god exists, then assume he/she/it must be "older than the earth".Then explain why no one mentioned him/her/it for the first 4 billion years or so by noting there was no one around smart enough to write down the news.
It's all just question begging and assumptions ending with a ludicrous flourish.

The fact is no one mentioned the christian god, you know, the inspiration for the 'dominant' religion, until a few thousand years ago, which is long after writing was developed and even longer after humans developed the ability to communicate.
So the 'god' you assume to be older than the hills is not likely to be the christian one I guess... considering that hundreds of others were 'communicated' about and had stuff written about them aeons before Abraham 'The Impostor' showed up.

Doh!
Perhaps all those 'dominant' christians have been sold a lemon?
 Kevin554
Joined: 3/20/2012
Msg: 368
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/24/2012 8:19:45 AM
I want everyone to read this^^^^^ before I even, reply. I would like to see what other people think :).
 lagoda
Joined: 11/20/2009
Msg: 369
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/24/2012 9:03:15 AM
One does end up reading a lot of $hit but eventually gives up trying to figure out the rantings of some people.

It may be sad to see someone trapped inside their belief, but to watch someone who's trapped inside their poorly assembled logic trying to beat their way out, when what they think they're doing is redrawing the lines of their imaginary box for those who just aren't getting it, is pathetic. Every now and then they catch a glimpse of the futility and you hear the sounds of ridicule and mockery, which is somehow supposed to make the other guy look foolish. If the logic was sound it wouldn't need continual reinforcement.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 370
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/24/2012 9:45:11 AM

I would like to see what other people think :).

Looks like holy gospel to me, if not divinely inspired. But then... I'm biased.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 371
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/25/2012 8:46:21 PM
first of all, I don't give a shitt what anyone else thinks, hope that's obvious by now.

I don't follow trends, hope that's obvious too.


'''Sure, I understand that each persons approach is different. But the concept of some kind of 'creation' event, featuring only their favoured deity of course, is fundamental to almost all the organised religions.'''

for me it's THE deity, who or whatever the hell it is!
do you get that?

it, he, or what ever the hell you want to call the creator, wins by default.

if you think the organized universe and cells and dna, [of which we understand almost NOTHING] [some paid scientists actually still think there exists junk dna!] came about by no planing whatsoever, you are behind the times.

''
''That they apply invariably only reinforces the conclusion that they are 'natural', or consequential.''

what do they mean by that, that it's the only way it COULD be in this universe?
that's back to taking multiverse for granted!

the electromagnetic force is about 10 to the 40th stronger than gravity, because it has to be.

the thousands of sequential flukes are not even close to being explained naturally, even if Hawking eludes that they are.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 372
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/26/2012 8:21:53 AM

if you think the organized universe and cells and dna, (of which we understand almost NOTHING)...

Consider the vast body of knowledge that has been gathered on those topics over just the past 200 years. It's too much for any one person to fully appreciate, which is why people now specialise in narrow areas, so saying that we know "almost NOTHING" about those things isn't true.
It may be true for you, but in general, it isn't.


....came about by no planing whatsoever, you are behind the times.

On the contrary, if you believe things based on guesses and think scientific explanations for scientific issues are inferior to personal intuition it's you who is "behind the times" because that method was abandoned, for obvious reasons, looooong ago.


You may be confusing 'physical' and 'natural' here... but taking your point, the word 'natural' may be used because they derive from the circumstances in which they are found to apply.
That they apply invariably only reinforces the conclusion that they are 'natural', or consequential.
Natural is being used here in the same sense as in 'natural justice' where just consequences automatically follow from a set of circumstances.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law


what do they mean by that, that it's the only way it COULD be in this universe?
that's back to taking multiverse for granted!

Huh? You aren't making sense. Did you read the links?
'Natural' or physical laws say nothing about 'would' or 'could', they don't reflect what someone 'hoped' or 'wished' was the case, they describe what is.


the electromagnetic force is about 10 to the 40th stronger than gravity, because it has to be.

So?


the thousands of sequential flukes are not even close to being explained naturally, even if Hawking eludes that they are.

What "thousands of sequential flukes" is Hawking alleging are explainable naturally, that actually aren't?
 justoutcruisin
Joined: 3/28/2011
Msg: 373
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/26/2012 3:00:20 PM
Hi guys,

Just felt like throwing my two cents in.

I find peoples "christain" god to be brutal dictator. Can anyone suggest different after reading the bible?

ALso. so far not a single person has offered a good explanation of what good praying does.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 374
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/26/2012 3:02:32 PM

ALso. so far not a single person has offered a good explanation of what good praying does


Because as far as I can tell not a single person has ever claimed that praying created the universe :) The value of prayer would be a different topic.
 Kohmelo
Joined: 9/20/2011
Msg: 375
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/26/2012 7:13:20 PM


-Wow. Ever thought there may be 'certain' people out there who scare people away from athiesm with very good reason? Probably why christianity is the dominant religion in our society.

wow... so scaring people away from atheism causes one particular religion to be more popular that another? If I start scaring people away from beer, does that mean Mountain Dew sales will go up? or Dr Pepper?



I want everyone to read this^^^^^ before I even, reply. I would like to see what other people think :).

the above quote suggests it is a good idea for you to seek council before replying. A positive step indeed



One does end up reading a lot of $hit but eventually gives up trying to figure out the rantings of some people.

case in point, the paragraph that followed



first of all, I don't give a shitt what anyone else thinks, hope that's obvious by now.

The best part of your post. Which is sad because it's such a grand statement with no worthy competition



Consider the vast body of knowledge that has been gathered on those topics over just the past 200 years. It's too much for any one person to fully appreciate, which is why people now specialise in narrow areas, so saying that we know "almost NOTHING" about those things isn't true.
It may be true for you, but in general, it isn't.

Too true
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe