Stephen Hawking: God Didn't Create Universe

[Dementia_Madness]

Its fine for him (and you) to believe what ever he wishes....fact is, there have been plenty of people as intelligent as Hawking who believed that the after life was real and that God was real but not only that, in fact he stands on the shoulders of many such giants of truth and science, that they were sinners who needed salvation, and it had nothing to do with FEAR of DEATH or of God's judgement, but great JOY and happiness that such a wonderful loving God could love one such as they, and even save them despite the imperfections and limitations.

Once again Hawkins posits much opinion here, but also once again these statements are little on fact or even science.... I agree however that people DO NEED TO REALIZE their FULL POTENTIAL here on earth, in the here and now, but that also means that we should also consider our eternal potential.

Hawking said that our existence is down to pure chance, and that one's goal should be to "seek the greatest value of our action."

Hmmmmm, value in chance, a roll of the dice can define all we need to know about that, fact is intent is never chance, though sometimes our intentions can be affected by chance and things beyond our control, and there is more evidence of intent in creation than most people care to even admit.

Thank you for this interesting topic. (FYI I merged these two threads since in truth they are the same.)

Fairy tales....Hawkins speaks from experience I guess...

http://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2010/09/04/stephen-hawkings-new-book-falls-into-anti-realism/

Take life. We are lucky to be alive. Imagine all the ways physics might have precluded life: gravity could have been stronger, electrons could have been as big as basketballs and so on. Does this intuitive “luck” warrant the postulation of God? No. Does it warrant the postulation of an infinity of universes? The authors and many others think so. In the absence of theory, though, this is nothing more than a hunch doomed – until we start watching universes come into being – to remain untested and untestable. The lesson isn’t that we face a dilemma between God and the multiverse, but that we shouldn’t go off the rails at the first sign of coincidences.

This review is refreshing and more realistic than other publications that I have seen. The Grand Design falls into anti-realism where there are multiple independent views of reality which are considered possible, each one model-dependent without providing an example of reality. A theory for everything could also fit into anti-realism as well. This is what I call storytelling or science fiction!

There is no way that secular scientists or other people in general would believe that thunderstorms are created out of nothing with zero energy popping out of empty spaces, nor mountains, nor the grass that grows on our lawns! Stephen Hawking and Krauss alike are fools professing himself to be wise as they sink deeper into anti-realism of absurdity which defies natural laws which they profess to believe in while also denying the ever growing evidence for a Universe created by God which we as Christians rejoice in!

[roustabout]

Hawking said, "I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail,"

Since you agree with Hawking, I assume you agree with this statement. It is interesting that he compares the human brain with a computer. What if I showed you my new laptop. And then I told you that this laptop had no programmer. No softward designer, and no manufacturer. That it was the result of chance processes and time.

I also agree that people need to reach their full potential. But it is nothing short of fallacious to state that materialistic atheism is the means to do such. In fact, it is contradiction. Because if materialism and chance are all we have, then Hawking's thoughts are simply the by-product of it. In fact, that is his worldview. Determinsim. And so there is no inherent quality in fullfilling one's potential. It is a determined view due to his chance programming. So his view is no more valid than someone who would wish to supress potential. It's just how you are wired.

There is nothing beyond this life and religion (with its corollary belief system of "heaven" and "hell") is a way for humans to cope with death, which is inevitable.

This is an arbitrary statement. Its not provable, and impossible to dispute. I could just as easily say, atheism is a way for humans to cope with death, which is inevitible.

Again, this is all philosophy, not science.

Take life. We are lucky to be alive. Imagine all the ways physics might have precluded life: gravity could have been stronger, electrons could have been as big as basketballs and so on. Does this intuitive “luck” warrant the postulation of God? No. Does it warrant the postulation of an infinity of universes?

This is also fallacious. It substitutes luck as a cause. I haven't seen the symbol for luck in scientific equations? The reason Hawking says this is because he knows how ridiculous the odds are that life actually exists. This apparently is some sort of response to the fine tuning argument. It isn't quite as simple as Hawking implies. I am curious FL as to whether you have considered the interpretations of the evidence in the fine tuning argument. This says that if there is a designer to the universe, that we should be able to see evidence of fine-tuning that permits conditions favorable for intelligent life.

[roustabout]

Well FL, you started this thread, and as of yet you have not answered one specific to anything brought up. Simply pasting quotes from Hawking is not answering any of these questions. In fact, not to be mean, but it is pretty weak minded of you. In fact how are any different than those you call narrow minded fundies, who quote scripture. You are simply quoting Hawking as if his words were God breathed.

Come on FL answer this question. How do you deal with the fact that Hawkings philosophy is self-defeating and violates the law of non-contradiction.
Life can not be meaningless and have meaning at the same time. Yet Hawking states that one's goal should be to "seek the greatest value of our action."
How can Hawking make such a claim? If there is no inherent meaning in life. If we are just products of material processes, as well as our thoughts and beliefs, then on what ground can he make such a claim? 

[Flummoxed Lummox]

roust,

I promised you I would respond at some point. Now is the time. I'm not going to go over every single issue you raise at once. I'll take a couple at a time.

Here's one:

Hawking said, "I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail,"

Since you agree with Hawking, I assume you agree with this statement. It is interesting that he compares the human brain with a computer. What if I showed you my new laptop. And then I told you that this laptop had no programmer. No softward designer, and no manufacturer. That it was the result of chance processes and time.

Yes, I generally agree with the statement. A good example is Alzheimer's disease. A person in the last stages of Alzheimer's doesn't faintly resemble the person who once had a healthy brain. They can't even recognize their own sons and daughters. The body is the same, but the brain is destroyed. That would be what I assume Hawking means by "I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail." Science and medicine have shown that when we destroy certain parts of the brain or destroy vital synaptic connections in the brain, personality, memory, and intelligence are radically altered, and in some cases severely damaged.

So, what happened to the person who once had a fully functioning brain? What happened to the "person" who once had a loving family and who interacted in normal, human ways? Because, even though they are alive, they are almost in a zombie state. I contend that what you call a person's "soul" is nothing more than the composite of all their brain cells and synaptic connections. Destroy them and you lose the person you once knew. I think that is what Hawking is saying, but I don't claim to speak for him.

As for the comparison between a human and a computer with regards to a creator it is apples and oranges. No one is suggesting a machine springs from nothing. Nor do I believe life arose from nothing. I simply do not accept your mythological version of creation, where a human like deity created us one day because he was bored. I cannot fully explain how life began. But I don't need to resort to an imagined, anthropomorphic deity to explain it either.

Second, I have a question for you. Is it fair to assume you do NOT believe in the literal truth of the many gods from cultures throughout the ages? I assume you do not believe in Zeus. How about Osiris? Mithra? Quetzacoatl? Thor? Apollo? Isis? Jupiter? Etc, etc. If not, why not? There were millions of followers of these gods in the past and they believed as fervently as you do in their deity. Why do you reject all these gods?

Of course, I reject those gods too. I don't believe for a minute there was ever a real Zeus throwing lightning bolts from the sky in anger. Same for all the rest. The only difference between you and me is that I also reject your god for exactly the same reasons you (I assume) reject Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, and all the rest. I simply go one additional step than you do. To me, Yahweh (your God) is no different than Zeus. Both are the products of a particular culture at a particular place and time in history. Both can be explained by the cultural, economic, and social factors of the time. They were attempts by both cultures to explain and understand the world in which they lived. Why your god is any different than any culture's deity in history is beyond me.

Third and last topic for today. There is literally not one single feature of the Jesus mythology that was new or unique at the time. Every single detail about the life of Jesus can be found in the mythological stories that predated your savior, from his virgin birth; miracles; death and resurrection. Even December 25 was a date that another religion celebrated the birth of their savior. Nothing about his story was new. Do you not find that the least bit intriguing? Why does Jesus have so many traits of gods who preceded him? Can you not see the obvious example of religious syncretism that took place as Christianity was trying to become a legitimate belief system in a world full of gods and other religions?

[roustabout]

FL,

You essentially regurgitated a bunch of common atheist arguments and didn't actually address the topic you started. This is called elephant hurling. When you are clearly defeated in one area of the argument you simply start throwing up new objections. When those fail, you move to new ones. I'd say this is at least the umpteenth time you thrown out these same objections, which have been answered. FL, you know nothing about Mithra except what you've heard someone else present. You've taken those arguments on faith and adopted them as your own.  

No one is suggesting a machine springs from nothing. Nor do I believe life arose from nothing.

That's a good start. However it doesn't agree with Hawking and most other scientists. Actually let me amend that. Many if not most in science believe that the universe arose out of nothing. Life arising out of nothing is a bit of a misstatement. Life arising out of unguided material processes requires nothing except absolute faith.
An infinite universe is a logical impossibility if you know anything about infinite regress. Many including Hawking are substituting imaginary theories on multiverses, which oddly, have zero evidence of existing. None, zilch, nada. Plus a multiverse would ultimately have to lead to a supernatural universe where the laws of nature were suspended.  Essentially a God without a conscience.

Second, I have a question for you. Is it fair to assume you do NOT believe in the literal truth of the many gods from cultures throughout the ages? I assume you do not believe in Zeus. How about Osiris? Mithra? Quetzacoatl? Thor? Apollo? Isis? Jupiter? Etc, etc. If not, why not? There were millions of followers of these gods in the past and they believed as fervently as you do in their deity. Why do you reject all these gods?

How fervent I am about my faith, or others are about there own, isn't grounds for truth. you won't hear that claim from me. There is a perfectly reasonable process to examine this issue. In fact there is some detailed study on it by Frank Turek. If you are interested I can get you the info. Just because there are a myriad of other faiths doesn't mean there are valid reasons to accept them. Nor does that mean that I don't have sound reasons to accept the Christian faith. Example: You give a math test. The students come back with multiple answers. Does that mean the correct answer doesn't exist? Or, that math doesn't work? Turek has a great talk on what traits God must possess to be logically consistent.
"Self-existent,timeless, nonspatial, and immaterial (since the First Cause created time, space, and matter, the First Cause must be outside of time,space, and matter). In other words, he is without limits, or infinite;
unimaginably powerful, to create the entire universe out of nothing;
supremely intelligent, to design the universe with such incredible precision (well see more of this in the next chapter);
personal,in order to choose to convert a state of nothingness into the time-space-material universe (an impersonal force has no ability to make choices)."
http://crossexamined.org/articles-detail.asp?ID=78&Title=Who%20Made%20God?

The fact is that there is only two faiths that fit these criteria. Judeo-Christianity, and Islam. And Islam relies on an altered history of the Hebrew people. All other world religions don't even get out of the starting gate. We both agree that we have minds to examine and discern through reason and logic. We can see when something fails logically. Paganism, Pantheism, and Polytheism are self-defeating. Just because one hasn't examined in detail each world religion doesn't mean that Christianity is wrong. That is fallacious reasoning.

Why your god is any different than any culture's deity in history is beyond me.

I think that is the ultimate question. Sadly many answers to that question have already been presented to you. Counterfeit money is not proof that the genuine doesn't exist. Yet that is the logic you are using here. There are differences, and the differences are the key.

There is literally not one single feature of the Jesus mythology that was new or unique at the time. Every single detail about the life of Jesus can be found in the mythological stories that predated your savior, from his virgin birth; miracles; death and resurrection. Even December 25 was a date that another religion celebrated the birth of their savior. Nothing about his story was new. Do you not find that the least bit intriguing? Why does Jesus have so many traits of gods who preceded him? Can you not see the obvious example of religious syncretism that took place as Christianity was trying to become a legitimate belief system in a world full of gods and other religions?

Having studied this objection and having answered it to you in the past, I know that you are simply repeating an argument that is not your own. The Christian faith makes no claims about December 25. In fact, I can not believe that someone would even present this as an argument. You certainly won't see it in any doctrine. That is a result of Constantine, 300+ years after the canon was closed. Regarding the similarities, that is a stretch at best. The differences overwhelmingly outweigh any similarity. I've actually done some study on the issue. Seeing that you mention Dec. 25 as an argument against Christianity makes me seriously doubt that you have.

A person is welcome to accept or reject anything they darn well please. But it seems too me that one would want to be internally consistent, non-contradictory, logical and reasonable in doing so. Your post has done nothing to indicate to me that you have, but instead are relying on the opinions and critiques of others, because it fits what works for you. That my friend is a religious ideology.

[plumbervol]

Science has been trying explain away God for years, the idea of a God seems to be unscientific to them. My son made the most unique point to me, our cat was constantly bringing dead moles onto our front porch and Michael called it an offering to the Cats idea of God. LOL

[Dementia_Madness]

actually if you understood the "science" of cat behavior, you would know that the reason cats do that is because they are hunters and have the innate instinct (built into them by design) to bring food back to "the den" to feed the "family unit", they are not actually offering a tribute to you, but more of a meal to you, and the pride in showing off their great hunter skills...they get great satisfaction from both. But that being said..science originally was intended to understand not that there was no need for a God, but how exactly God made everything, not in the sense of how did he do it, what poer or skill he used, but how he put things together, how he designed them...it was an understanding of what God did, and the attempt to understand what he shows us through his design. All the great scientists of the past had that yearning, the yearning for God's truth, sadly today science has a new mission, it starts out with the preconceived notion of no God and works from there, whereas before, when all the greatest discoveries of the past were actually made, it was from the understanding that YES God is real, and this is what he did.

[Dementia_Madness]

A real role model and pillar of society.....


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2106025/Stephen-Hawking-visits-California-swingers-sex-club.html?ITO=1490



I feel sorry for him....It cannot be easy living in that chair..with normal healthy desires, I know he has been married and divorced and has kids...but one has to wonder if there is not at least a little bitterness, especially when you are told what a wonderful person you are....and basically treated like a superstar...and yet in the end to the humanist mind be brought so low and trapped as such. I believe that there is really no such thing as "handicapped" and that people are just as enabled as others despite the diversities of life....This is my Hero...

I Love Living Life. I Am Happy.

Would love to see these two guys in a room together.

Watch this

The Butterfly Circus - HD