Palah Biswas On Unique Identity No1.mpg

Unique Identity No2

Please send the LINK to your Addresslist and send me every update, event, development,documents and FEEDBACK . just mail to palashbiswaskl@gmail.com

Website templates

Zia clarifies his timing of declaration of independence

what mujib said

Jyothi Basu Is Dead

Unflinching Left firm on nuke deal

Jyoti Basu's Address on the Lok Sabha Elections 2009

Basu expresses shock over poll debacle

Jyoti Basu: The Pragmatist

Dr.BR Ambedkar

Memories of Another day

Memories of Another day
While my Parents Pulin Babu and basanti Devi were living

"The Day India Burned"--A Documentary On Partition Part-1/9

Partition

Partition of India - refugees displaced by the partition

Friday, September 3, 2010

Since God Did NOT Create the Universe, We MUST NOT Allow Gods to Write Our Destiny!

Since God Did NOT Create the Universe, We MUST NOT Allow Gods to Write Our Destiny!


Indian Holocaust My Father`s Life and Time - Four Hundred SEVENTY THREE

Palash Biswas

http://indianholocaustmyfatherslifeandtime.blogspot.com/

  1. Colonise space or face extinction: Stephen Hawking

  2. London, Aug 9 : Unless humans colonise space within the next two centuries, they will become extinct, noted astrophysicist Stephen Hawking has warned adding: "Our only chance of long term survival is not to remain on planet earth."

  3. New Kerala - 09 Aug 09:11PM



God did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, the eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book.Earlier, the Renowned astrophysicist  announced that in order to continue the human race, we must move to new planets.It could be either a nuclear war, a meltdown by the ageing Sun or a fatal hit by an asteroid or a black hole -- the reason could be any but the fact is our Earth may be facing a disaster sooner than we thought.

Since God Did NOT Create the Universe, We MUST NOT Allow Gods to Write Our Destiny! The chief rabbi, Lord Sacks, has lashed out at Stephen Hawking after the astrophysicist claimed in his new book that God had no role to play in the creation of the universe.

The SATANIC THREE IBLIS Zionsist Manusmriti Corporate Imperialist Fascist Galaxy Order Post Modern, Free Market Democracy, Absolute Power and Dictatorship, Clash of Civilisation and Dominating Communities, All root in the theory of Universe Created by God. The Politcs and Economics is Nothing but God Business. karl Marx hence conceptualised the Materalist Interprataion of History. Charvak denied the very Existance of God and rejected all Vedic brahaminical Rituals. The places of Worship have ethically Enslaved the World and Man with the Weapon of Religion and Excluded the Indigenous Aboriginal black Untoucables all over the World. TASLIMA Nasrin is the most controversial CRUSADER against Religion and has been EXILED from her Homeland Bangladesh. The Anti God writer is NOT Wanted in secular and Democratic India. We have to see the reactions from the Church and global Hindutva. ISLAM is already targeted by US Imperialism. Religin has seized the Muslim Communities and a worldwide war against Muslim continues on the name of War against terrorism! Thus, the Muslims must understand hawkings best as the Scientist has taken the best ever initiative to break  the Hegemony Galxy Rule. In India, the GOD Business made the majority Eighty Five percent MASSES Enslaved and EXCLUDED them and an INFINITE ETHNIC Cleansing Continues!
As Hawking says God did not make the universe!The reaction should be understood as the God Business is Challenged by a person of Infinite Credibility this time. In India, even in Vedic Period, long before Western Materlialist Philosophers like Hegel and Marx, CHARVAK rejected the Religion which created a God to ensure the Hegemony Rule to write the Destiny of the Enslaved Man!
About 244,000,000 results (0.23 seconds) 

Search Results

  1. The Twelve Olympian Gods and Goddesses of Greek Mythology ...

    Hermes - The speedy messenger of the gods, god of business. The Romans called him Mercury. Hestia - Calm goddess of home and homelife, symbolized by the ...
    gogreece.about.com/cs/mythology/a/olympiangods.htm - Cached - Similar
  2. [PDF]

    How Business In Itself Can Glorify God

    File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
    This site may harm your computer.
    implications for any believer in business. This fifth way to glorify God is .... As in every good business transaction, both parties end up better off than ...
    www.ec-i.org/How%20Business%20Glorifies%20God%20%20Dr.%20Wayne%20Grudem.pdf - Similar

  3. True Wealth: Doing Business God's Way: God's Business Plan for YOU!

    In conclusion, if you're a Christian … you ARE in business -- either for yourself or for God. God's business plan requires (with Father God's help) that we: ...
    www.true-wealth.com/content/cpt4/do_bus.htm - Cached - Similar

  4. Videos for God business

    		Tom Waits - "God's Away On Business"
    3 min - 12 May 2008
    Uploaded by antirecords
    www.youtube.com

  5. God First Business Network

    The God First Business Network is a great place for Christian business owners and professionals to connect with other like minded leaders. ...
    www.godfirstbusiness.com/ - Cached - Similar

  6. Spirituality: God and Business (Fortune.com)

    People who want to mix God and business are rebels on several fronts. They reject the centuries-old American conviction that spirituality is a private ...
    www.calbaptist.edu/dskubik/god_bus.htm - Cached - Similar

  7. WikiAnswers - Who was the Roman god of business and money

    History Politics and Society question: Who was the Roman god of business and money? Mercury is the messenger god, also of commerce.
    wiki.answers.com/.../Who_was_the_Roman_god_of_business_and_money - Cached - Similar

  8. God's Away On Business Lyrics - Tom Waits

    On Business. Business. / I narrow my eyes like a coin slot baby, / Let her ring, let her ring / God's away, God's away, / God's away on Business. ...
    www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/t/.../gods_away_on_business.html - Cached - Similar

  9. Tom Waits – God's Away on Business – Video, listening & stats at ...

    Watch the video for Tom Waits – God's Away on Business from the album Blood Money. Tom Waits (born Thomas Alan Waits, in Pomona, California, on December 7, ...
    www.last.fm/music/Tom.../_/God's+Away+on+Business - Cached - Similar

  10. The Hindu Business Line : Inflation: God, give us enlightenment

    21 Aug 2010 ... Or, what's so good about zero inflation? (Economists of all hues, it seems, draw the line at deflation, i.e., falling prices.) ...
    www.thehindubusinessline.com/2010/08/.../2010082151670800.htm - Cached

Sponsored links

  1. Google AdWords India.

    Connect W/ Potential Customers When
    They're Searching For You-Join Now!
    www.Google.com/AdWords

See your ad here »







Stephen Hwaking!theoretical physicist and cosmologist Known for his contributions to the fields of cosmology and quantum gravity, especially in the context of black holes.Is an Honourary Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, a lifetime member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

His views
God didn't create the universe, it was actually a result of the laws of physics
Says universe began spontaneously disapproving Sir Isaac Newton's theory that stated the opposite

God didn't create the universe — it was actually a result of the inevitable laws of physics, British physicist Prof Stephen Hawking has concluded.
In his latest book, The Grand Design, Hawking said: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and, will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there's something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist."

In his new book, Hawking cites the 1992 discovery of a planet orbiting a star outside our own Solar System as a turning point in his rejection of Sir Isaac Newton's theory that the universe did not spontaneously begin to form but was set in motion by God. "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going," he was quoted by The Daily Telegraph as saying.

Prof Hawking didn't dismiss the possibility that God had a hand in the creation of the world in his 1998 book, A Brief History of Time. He wrote in his famous work: "If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph, of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God.",

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological theory of the early development of the universe. The theory postulates that the Big Bang event took place at some finite, time in the past; according to the best available measurements as of 2009, 13.7 billion years ago.

According to the Big Bang model, the universe, originally in an extremely hot and dense state that expanded rapidly, has since cooled by expanding to the present diluted state, and continues to expand to day.

Prof Hawking's book, co-written by American physicist Leonard Mlodinow, is to be published on September 9.

However, his finding was described by Sacks as an "elementary fallacy" of logic.

"There is a difference between science and religion. Science is about explanation. Religion is about interpretation. The Bible simply isn''t interested in how the universe came into being," the Guardian quoted the chief rabbi as writing in the Times.

Sacks also said the mutual hostility between religion and science was one of "the curses of our age" and warned it would be equally damaging to both.

"But there is more to wisdom than science. It cannot tell us why we are here or how we should live. Science masquerading as religion is as unseemly as religion masquerading as science," he added.

In an earlier book, 'A Brief History of Time', Hawking was apparently more open to the idea of God, suggesting that a scientific understanding of the universe was not incompatible with a creator.

"If we discover a complete theory ... it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we should know the mind of God," he wrote.

Also try:


Search Shortcut

Stephen Hawking - News Search Results




search results

  1. Stephen Hawking - Wikipedia

  2. Stephen William Hawking, CH, CBE, FRS, FRSA is a British theoretical physicist and cosmologist, whose scientific career spans over forty years. His books and public appearances have...

  3. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking - 197k - Cached

  4. Professor Stephen Hawking's Website

  5. Includes Stephen Hawking's biographical information, with details of his experience with ALS, as well as public lectures and physics colloquiums.

  6. www.hawking.org.uk - Cached

  7. Stephen Hawking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  8. Wikinews has related news: Scientist Stephen Hawking rushed to hospital in ambulance ... Main article: Stephen Hawking in popular culture ...

  9. en.wikipedia.org/?title=Stephen_Hawking - 197k - Cached

  10. Stephen Hawking - Image Results

    * * * *



  13. Stephen Hawking's Universe

  14. PBS series with Stephen Hawking and other leading cosmologists that explores questions as: Where do we come from? How did the universe begin? Why is the universe ...

  15. www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/html/home.html - Cached

  16. Stephen Hawking: Biography from Answers.com

  17. Stephen Hawking , Physicist Born: 8 January 1942 Birthplace: Oxford, England Best Known As: The author of A Brief History of Time Stephen Hawking is

  18. www.answers.com/topic/stephen-hawking - 285k - Cached

  19. Stephen Hawking's Universe - Cosmological Stars

  20. Stephen Hawking's Universe: The Web companion piece provides detailed explanations of the most important ideas and developments in human understanding of the ...

  21. www.pbs.org/hawking/cosmostar/html/hawking.html - Cached

  22. Stephen Hawking - Worldnews Network

  23. World News on Stephen Hawking, Cosmologist, Physicists and Physics from WN Network ... colonise space or face extinction, academic Stephen Hawking has warned ...

  24. wn.com/stephenhawking - 123k - Cached

  25. The Stephen Hawking Pages

  26. Stephen Hawking has been one of my personal heroes ever since my Uncle Ian gave ... "Stephen Hawking's Universe" - info on the recent BBC series ...

  27. www.psyclops.com/hawking - Cached

  28. Stephen Hawking asks big questions about the universe | Video ...

  29. TED Talks In keeping with the theme of TED2008, professor Stephen Hawking asks some Big Questions about our universe -- How did the universe begin? How did life ...

  30. ted.com/talks/stephen_hawking_asks_big_questions_about_th... - 57k - Cached

  31. Stephen Hawking : Discovery Channel

  32. Stephen Hawking's Universe. Storm Chasers. Surviving the Cut. Swords. Swamp ... Into The Universe with Stephen Hawking is an epic new kind of cosmology series, ...

  33. dsc.discovery.com/tv/stephen-hawking - 69k - Cached

Also try:


More search results

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next >

  1. News for Creation of Universe


  2. The Universe had no creator – Asserts Stephen Hawking in his new ...‎ - 1 hour ago
    And so, divine decree has nothing to do with the creation of universe. Hawking's book 'The Grand Design' which he has coauthored with the fellow physicist ...
    Seer Press - 790 related articles »

  3. Creation of the Universe - Harun Yahya

    A century ago, the creation of the universe was a concept that astronomers as a rule ignored. The reason was the general acceptance of the idea that the ...
    Big Bang - The Great Equilibrium - 1024x768 - Books
    www.creationofuniverse.com/ - Cached - Similar

  4. Books - Creation of the Universe - Harun Yahya

    This is the magnificent creation of God that can be observed throughout the entire universe and need to be thought over in order to comprehend the beauty ...
    www.creationofuniverse.com/html/kitap_film_ses.html - Cached - Similar
    Show more results from www.creationofuniverse.com

  5. Creation and Evolution - Islamic Teachings About Creation

    When describing the creation of the "heavens and the earth," the Qur'an does not discount the theory of a "Big Bang" explosion at the start of it all. ...
    islam.about.com/od/creation/a/creation.htm - Cached - Similar

  6. Videos for Creation of Universe

    		THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE.(PART 1)(1 OF 3) ...
    10 min - 2 May 2008
    Uploaded by ZULKARNEYN2099
    www.youtube.com
    		Norse Mythology 1 - Creation of the Universe
    8 min - 1 Nov 2008
    Uploaded by Bolverkson1984
    www.youtube.com

  7. YouTube - The Creation of Universe

    How did the endless universe we live in come into being? How did the equilibrium, harmony, and order of this universe develop? How is it that this Earth is ...
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP6ZiQ9oq94 - Cached - Similar

  8. Creating a Universe-Creation Theory

    The last 20 years have seen an increasing interest in cosmology and in theories related to the creation of the universe. Outlined below are some of the ...
    web.uvic.ca/~jtwong/newtheories.htm - Cached - Similar

  9. (47) Creation of the universe and the development of life and ...

    Thus there are three entities involved in the creation of the universe. They are: God, all the souls, and the lifeless maya. ...
    www.encyclopediaofauthentichinduism.org/.../47_creation_of.htm - Cached - Similar

  10. The Creation of the Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The Creation of the Universe is Lou Reed's Metal Machine Trio's first album. Metal Machine Trio is Lou Reed's band that was formed in 2008 with Ulrich ...
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Creation_of_the_Universe - Cached - Similar

  11. The Holographic Universe - Crystalinks

    In The Holographic Universe, Talbot made many references to the work of ...... CREATION INDEX · ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF ALL FILES · CRYSTALINKS HOME PAGE ...
    www.crystalinks.com/holouniverse1.html - Cached

  12. Harun Yahya - The Creation of the Universe - Introduction

    Creation is a fact. In this book we will be examining the evidence for this fact. We will see how materialism has collapsed in the face of modern science ...
    www.harunyahya.com/create01.php - Cached - Similar

  13. Universe Creation 101

    26 Jul 2010 ... Universe Creation 101 ... COPYRIGHT BY Universe Creation 101 | A.C.N. 138 914 762 | A.B.N. 81 138 914 762 ...
    www.universecreation101.com/ - Cached - Similar

  14. Books for Creation of Universe

    The Creation of the Universe - Hârun Yahya - 2000 - 218 pages
    Creation of the Universe - Shu Xian Li - 1989 - 200 pages
Searches related to Creation of Universe

creation universe video

creation sikhism



Stephen Hawking, Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton, the Belief in God, and More.

The world's foremost physicist, Stephen Hawking has once again enjoyed a burst of creativity. He has in recent days made several intriguing statements, offering a number of spontaneous views, and generally given to those of us within the Hawking sphere of influence, some new things to think about.
Hawking has it seems joined the previous greatest thinker on Earth, Doctor/Professor Albert Einstein, in a new determination that there is no God. Einstein we recall, while describing himself as a "deeply religious man," went on to say he could not conceive of a God who would "reward or punish," nor could he condone a belief in a consciousness which would "survive physical death." Hawking cites the existence of even a single planet revolving around a star not our sun as proof that "There is no God."
Hawking has co-authored a new book, The Grand Design, with American physicist physicist Leonard Mlodinow, the book to be released the week of September 6, 2010. The physicists disagree pointedly with Sir Isaac Newton, who believed that because the Universe could not have been wrought out of chaos, it must have a divine origin. Hawking's point is that the universe, with  planets other than our own, was therefore not designed simply to please humans. It should be mentioned that this marks a change of thinking for Hawking, who did believe in God as recently as 1988.
In other matters, Hawking warns us that we might do well to leave our home planet of Earth and travel to a few other destinations, not as it were, placing our "eggs" in a "single basket." He says the future of Earth is "touch and go," and mentions specifically the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1963 as a point in time when it all might have ended. We recall that Soviet missiles had been installed in Cuba, aimed at the U.S., and then-President John Kennedy warned that if they were not removed we would strike from a flotilla of warships that we emplaced around that island nation. The missiles at the last moment were removed. Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev ordered the dismantling of the offensive weapons and returned them to the Soviet Union. The point then is that Stephen Hawking say's with potential extinction a distinct possibility within periods of decades, surely we cannot face hundreds or thousands of years with the expectation of survival.
Continued on the next page Page 1 — Page 2

Article tags


Spread the word

Article Author: John Lake

John Lake, aka BigBadJohnny, is a Chicago born humorist, self-styled expert, and sometime Liberal Blogger.


I hope I don't shock readers with my somewhat atypical meandering, although in truth that might even be my motivation. That's what we "liberal Bloggers" do.

…

Visit John Lake's author page — John Lake's Blog



Read more: http://blogcritics.org/scitech/article/stephen-hawking-einstein-sir-isaac-newton/#ixzz0yTR0EMrw

Bad News, Religious People: Stephen Hawking Says God Didn't Create the Universe

                                   
                                                                                                                        
                        
Hawking's sassy look.Photo: Dimitrios Kambouris/WireImage
                                 
                                                                                               
Stephen Hawking is pretty much the world's go-to genius, so whenever he says things like "we're probably not going to get along with aliens," everyone pays attention. Now, in his upcoming book, according to an excerpt of the introduction released by the London Times (which isn't getting any traffic from this because of their pay wall), Hawking declares that the Big Bang can be explained without God.
                                                                      
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," Hawking and his co-author, Caltech physicist Leonard Mlodinow, write in "The Grand Design," which is due to be issued next week. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper [British way of saying light the fuse] and set the universe going."

We don't understand what he's talking about yet, but he's not going to give the whole theory away in the intro — that's why you buy the book. Okay, we won't understand the book, either.
Hawking says God's not needed. So? [MSNBC]
Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe [CNN]
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/09/bad_news_for_religious_people.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+nymag%2Fintel+%28Daily+Intelligencer+-+New+York+Magazine%29

Hawking says God's not needed. So?

Rodger Bosch / AFP - Getty Images file
Physicist Stephen Hawking delivers a lecture in South Africa in 2008. In a new book, he says science doesn't need God to explain the origin of the universe.
Alan Boyle writes: British physicist Stephen Hawking's latest book is already making waves with his observation that science can explain the universe's origin without invoking God.
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," Hawking and his co-author, Caltech physicist Leonard Mlodinow, write in "The Grand Design," which is due to be issued next week. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
That's the quote that lit the fuse in The Guardian as well in The Times of London, which published an excerpt from the book in its Thursday editions. But by itself, the quote doesn't have much "there" there. If Hawking is saying merely that something can arise from nothing willy-nilly, that's not much of an explanation for the origin of the universe.
What he's actually saying in the book is that when we study the universe's origins, we have to work our way back from the present, rather than assuming there's an arbitrary point 13.7 billion years ago when Someone pressed the button on a cosmic stopwatch. And when you look at it that way, the universe looks more and more like a quantum phenomenon, in which a multitude of histories diverge. This is what Hawking calls top-down cosmology.
Space and time fizzle out, so it can't be said that there is a time before the big bang — just as you can't say that there is something north of the North Pole. (I'm talking "north," not "up.")
Gravity is part of the picture because it helps keep the cosmic balance sheet in line. Here's the part of the paragraph just before the quote cited above: "Because gravity shapes space and time, it allows space-time to be locally stable but globally unstable. On the scale of the entire universe, the positive energy of the matter can be balanced by the negative gravitational energy, and so there is no restriction on the creation of whole universes."
"The Grand Design" puts together ideas that Hawking has been trying out for a long time. Five years ago, for example, he noted that eliminating the question of what happened before the big bang meant "the beginning of the universe would be covered by science." And four years ago, he joked that he had presented a paper suggesting how the universe began during the same conference at which Pope John Paul II asked scientists to set the question aside.
Does Hawking's view mean that modern physics "leaves no place for God in the creation of the universe," as the Times suggests, or that "God did not create the universe," as The Guardian claims? Not unless you need a "God of the Gaps" to step into science's place. A more sophisticated view would hold that physics (and evolutionary biology, to cite another example) are the not-always-mysterious ways in which God routinely works. In fact, Soren Kierkegaard would say that God's workings have to be transparent — and I tend to side with Soren.
Some will argue that such a concept of divinity is so weak it should be sliced away with Occam's Razor. Others will quote chapter and verse to support their claim that religion trumps science. And still others will argue that science and religion should be non-overlapping magisteria. But hey, that's what the comment box below is for. Feel free to weigh in with your comments, and stay tuned for my Q&A with Leonard Mlodinow later in the week.
Update for 1:50 p.m. ET Sept. 2: The waves continue to roll across the Internet. Here's a transcript of a Times of London chat about Hawking's comments, featuring evolutionary biologist (and atheist) Richard Dawkins talking about God. "Darwin kicked him out of biology, but physics remained more uncertain," Dawkins says. "Hawking is now administering the coup de grace."
Reaction is also coming in from godly types such as Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks, Britain's top Jewish leader, as well as the Rev. Dr. David Wilkinson, an astrophysicist who is principal of St. John's College, Durham. "There is more to wisdom than science. It cannot tell us why we are here or how we should live," Sacks is quoted as saying. Wilkinson, meanwhile, says that Hawking "raises a number of questions which for many opens the door to the possibility of an existence of a creator," such as cosmic purpose, the source of the laws of physics and the intelligibility of the universe.
Dawkins says those questions either don't matter to him or are unanswerable.
The parodies are starting to roll in as well, by the way. Here's a bit of "disinformation" from Colombia Reports that puts devil horns on Hawking.
More about Stephen Hawking:
Join the Cosmic Log corps by signing up as my Facebook friend or hooking up on Twitter. And if you really want to be friendly, ask me about "The Case for Pluto."
Share
Browse: science, religion, space, books, cosmology, stephen-hawking

Discuss this article

Jump to discussion page: 1 2 3 ... 20proamerica-1148973
Well Stephen, You're very bright; so, first find nothing and then create something from it.
I'll even accept creating something from a total vacuum; which is still something.
Until then, my question remains "what exploded if nothing existed before the big bang"?
  • 32 votes#1 - Wed Sep 1, 2010 11:49 PM EDTMCC-2290421 Comment collapsed by the community

So who created god? How bout you find nothing, then create a god out of it.
  • 69 votes

#1.1 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 12:14 AM EDTJohn S-400329
I hope you're not expecting a reply to that question from a religious person... because the odds are you won't get one.
Why? Well its all fine and nice for a religious person to ask "Well, how did the universe form from nothing smarty pants? It MUST have been created by god!"... yet when you ask the question "Well how did god get there?" they will suddenly dodge the question and conversation because there is no rational answer to that question that a religious person will accept. If they do attempt to answer it, the answer will be an irrational attempt to explain how god was always there and that its wrong to question god (when the question makes you uncomfortable, make the question go away... thats how religion survives).
  • 81 votes

#1.2 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:10 AM EDTKD858
Sorry Steve Hawking fans, but I am afraid this guy isn't all he is cracked up to be. He has been placed on a pedestal and I really don't see why.
He says...."Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing,"
Oh really.... well then where did the law of gravity come from? Nothing I suppose. I don't think so. The law itself represents something and like all of natures laws, there is a lot of intelligence behind them its not all that difficult to see.....including the laws of nature that just happened to create life and all of wonders herein.
  • 28 votes

#1.3 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:17 AM EDTScoobyDoo-1819879
I have "faith" that ProAmerica is going to answer that question MCC. Come on Pro, we're rooting for you. Be the first religious person in the world to answer that question coherently.
  • 9 votes

#1.4 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:21 AM EDTSteve Herbert
Gravity is the curvature of Space Time. Curvature is a mathematical concept, like zero or infinity, or the number two for that matter. Who created mathematics? The human mind(s). The creation of God by human minds is a solution to a problem, just like the calculation of the orbit of the moon is a solution to a problem, if your goal is to get to the moon. I wouldn't be suprised if there have been attempts for a mathematical proof of God, but I don't know of any successful ones.
  • 35 votes

#1.5 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:39 AM EDTJatmn
Stephen Hawking's faith in his ideas appears to be much greater than the faith many have in God. "Because there is a law such as gravity... Spontaneous creation"!
The highest proof of evolution is found in the evolution of Science "facts". "We have to work our way back from the present" over merely several decades of discarded science text books as proof positive. Scientific "facts" die off and are replaced more "advanced facts" which we very well may observe to evolve again in the near future.
  • 5 votes

#1.6 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 2:25 AM EDTUh... No
MCC, here is your response from a religious person. Any reasonably intelligent religious person doesn't ask, "What was here before the Big Bang?" It is also foolish to ask "Where did God come from?" or "Who made God?" I know the concept of eternity is one that our minds do not easily wrap around, but that is exactly how long God has been around. You must realize that God would not be God if he were created. But being God means that he has always been and always will be. Does this defy science? Sure it does. But you obviously cannot expect God to confine himself to the laws or the realm of the universe. Anyways... That is another conversation
  • 33 votes

#1.7 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 4:50 AM EDTbobkat-1879142
Yes, all theories demand that something simply exists in and of itiself, gravity, quantum foam, God, etc.
People don't beleive in God "because" they need an explanation of "why" the universe was created. Beleievers beleive in god because what I call their "faith faculty" leads them to beleif. (And cognitive psychologist have determined that thes drives are ahrd-wired.) Other people's fauclty elads them to non-belief. It's an assertion,a personal position which by its very nature isn't subject to empirical proof, either for belief or unbelief.
  • 9 votes

#1.8 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 8:03 AM EDTJim Hawk III
Nothing "exploded." The term "big bang" was invented by Fred Hoyle as a derisive commentary on a theory with which he didn't agree. Hoyle favored a steady-state theory in which matter and energy were spontaneously generated as the Universe expanded. Unfortunately the media of the day decided they liked "big bang" as a term and so we're stuck with it.
As for what expanded--well, the Universe expanded. It was in a particular state, very, very small, and then due to--something--it stopped being in that state and started being in this one. Cosmologists and religionists both strive to find out the reason for the state change. That "something" could be God, or a quantum fluctuation in a physics we haven't learned to describe yet, or something completely beyond our speculations up to this point.
No doubt before the expansion of the Universe it existed in that prior state for a long time (if "time" has any meaning in that context), and prior to that state there may have been an infinite number of prior states. No doubt there are state changes in our future which we will not be privileged to observe, simply because human beings won't be here a billion or trillion years from now. We can't address the deep past and deep future states with any accuracy because we'll never be able to see them--and that's a question of physics, not a question of time. They simply exist outside any relativistic light cone one could generate for us.
Asking "how did the Universe get here" is almost meaningless, because there was never a time when it wasn't "here." It simply looks different depending on when in its history one cares to take a look.
  • 23 votes

#1.9 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 8:05 AM EDTAndrew-2291054
One writer above fairly challenges Hawking to "find nothing and create something". I challenge him to explain that if there was nothing before God, then where did God originate? Humans are bound by the limitations of time. That makes all of this an exercise in argument. In a pragmatic sense though, the clearest distinction between science and religion is that in the science world we celebrate when we prove a previous theory wrong (i.e. Hooray!!! I just proved that the atom is not the smallest mass!!!!), whereas religion is afraid of one of their tenets being disproven (ie.."he says the earth revolves around the sun,...off with his head!!!). In science, skepticism is embraced. In religion it is feared. Science seeks to understand the specifics our origin and evolution, while religion seeks to explain it through their respective pre-existing narratives. Science embraces curiosity, religion demands acceptance. We will likely never have the full answer regarding our earliest origins. But for now, science comes much closer than fairy tales about woman springing from the rib of man, eating apples from talking snakes, immaculate conceptions, rising from the dead, human sacrifice, etc....
  • 35 votes

#1.10 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 8:36 AM EDTPondering Comment collapsed by the community
Yeah - I used to have respect for Stephen Hawkins - but after this, and I must read the book for full details, but he has gone off his rocker. I guess he got so caught up in his own success and influenced by his elitist faux-scientist friends that he'll just produce anything, no matter how ludicrous. For such a great thinker - how can he just get to a point of saying a universe would naturally happen because Gravity exists - things have to coalesce? But I thought gravity was supposed to be a particle and was based on mass. Well - this just throws the old particle physics to hell.
I'd also say that he is challening then the big bang theory as well. all mass existed everywhere already and through gravity coalesced. (have to read, but he is clearly shooting for anyting and everythig now)
Well - pity - great thinker goes crazy. Thanks for the good years Stephen. Good luck with your new lunacy.
  • 7 votes

#1.11 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 9:10 AM EDTVulcan One
Man is God for man created God.
  • 37 votes

#1.12 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 9:18 AM EDTbob-1008224
All we need to know is that, historically, every explanation regarding nature which invoked the supernatural has been wrong. Always. Without exception and without fail. The "God" explanation has a 100% failure rate. It was wrong with disease, earthquakes, planetary motion, mental illnesses, etc. etc. When the God believers show me a SINGLE success in history that's testable, then they'll have an argument.
  • 48 votes

#1.13 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 9:47 AM EDT
stedums
thank you
#1.14 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 9:51 AM EDTTimlig
Nothing exists without an end, cause and effect. God is the First End, the spiritual world is the cause and the material world the effect. All three have existed without time (there is only the appearence of time in the material world). So the big bang was just an event in our local horizon - the beginning of our neighborhood. Come on folks - stretch your minds out of the material into the great beyond. If you are so smart, you should be able to do this rather easily.
  • 9 votes

#1.15 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 9:58 AM EDTmg654987
No matter what you come up with regarding what came first the question can always be asked, "where did that come from?" This is true whether it is the big bang, God, this version of "sponteneous creation". Walk down this path of "what came before that and what came before that?" Regardless of whether that path is a "God" path or a big bang path, see how far you get without your brain seizing. This one question that has been considered since the beginning of time of "how did things begin?" is proof that we are not all knowing and that we currently lack the ability to comprehend a state of no beginning and no end. This, together with the grandeaur and order of our world and universe, leads me to put my faith in a greater power and plan, something else that is hard to comprehend, rather than some lame attempt of another simple human mind that can't function unless it has an explanation to everything.
  • 6 votes

#1.16 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 10:04 AM EDT
Timlig
Infinity is imposible to explain to our finite minds. It can be approached only through analogies. So it's not possible to discuss where God came from if Life has always existed. We can beat our heads on this one all day and not get anywhere.
I once wrote a creation story: http://clayhound.us/creation.htm It was fun to do and ended up answering some of my questions. Try it sometime, you might be suprised what's in your head.
#1.17 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 10:20 AM EDThs321
Why talk about the creation of the universe. Hawkins nor anyone else can tell you what dark matter is composed of or it's nature and characteristics, yet they will assure you half if not more of the universe is composed of it.
My point, a human being isn't qualified to even have an opinion as to whether or not a god exist.
  • 10 votes

#1.18 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 10:38 AM EDTThisguy
O come on science as the end all answer is just asinine. The problem with science its never a definitive answer what we accept as fact from science one day is disproven the next, and that theory is now fact. Science is ever evolving and can only be taken with a grain of salt, or as the "answer of the day".
As far as Hawking is concerned his book is only his theories, so there for they can only be taken as just that "Hawking's theories", because some day they will be disproven by another scientist.
  • 7 votes

#1.19 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 10:40 AM EDT
Louissa
I agree with Timling, and I dont mean it in a religious way, because just like everything else we experience in this world religion has been created by man. There is no way man will be able to explain how everything was created because we humans in this wolrd cannot comprehend enternity. We man have the need to see to believe to so speak to believe. I dont concider myself a big religious person but I do agree that eternity means what it means and only a supreme being can be eternal otherwise it wouldnt be call eternal. No one alive will be able to answer this questions.
Just like somebody said above, God or Eternity wouldnt be eternal if something existed before nor the made up laws of man will apply to God. Ones we are dead we will only understand.
#1.20 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 10:49 AM EDTnutgrape
Jim Hawk III
Nice Argument. So the universe is infinite. If it is infinite then could you not assume the existence of "god"(a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc...)? Does not probability theory state that nothing is impossible and that given enough time anything, no matter how improbable, can and will occur? Can you not also argue that sometime in the future or the past something has/will cause/d the universe to exist?
  • 6 votes

#1.21 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 11:02 AM EDT
Centares
Seems to me that Dr. Hawkins' faith in gravity has replaced his faith in God. Can the beginning of the universe, the ultimate action/cause that caused its creation be explained? Is it even possible, with absolute certainty to eliminate the question of what existed before? Or is it possible that time as we know it did not exist until that precise event occurred?
#1.22 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 11:09 AM EDTFarsight
@Proamerica Your asking the right questions. Matter does spontaneously create itself in a vacuum. According to quantum mechanics, particles of matter spontaneously appear with an anti-particle, separate and then converge, cancelling each other and in the process give off energy. Henk Casimir in 1948 provided proof of this in his experiment where two metal plates placed close to each other in a vacuum chamber attract each other. This is caused by 'pressure' exerted from these cancelling particles being greater on the outside of the plates than the gap between the plates. This is called the 'Casimir Effect' and may explain why the rate the universe is expanding is increasing.
The BIG question is where did all this energy to generate the Big Bang came from in the first place. According to E=mc*2, all matter can be converted to energy, or if one was to expand that, matter is energy that has coalesced into a palpable form. We know the equation works; Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Nevada desert felt it. But without what sparked where all this energy came from, it is in my opinion that invoking God into the grand equation is valid, for at least now. I await Hawking's and Mladinow's findings. At the very least it would leave more think about.
  • 6 votes

#1.23 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 11:29 AM EDTbrad-356184
I dunno, I think saying the human mind invented Math is like saying Columbus discovered America. They were both here before humans, a human just had to exist to translate its form into a "something" we could understand. Perhaps God works in the same way?
  • 8 votes

#1.24 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 11:50 AM EDT
Vasagi
And the answer to your question: "what exploded if nothing existed before the big bang" was gone over in the blurb about Hawking's book: nothing. There was no "before" the big bang, since the big bang created time. Divide by zero. Error. What's north of the north pole?!?
I'm not saying that I buy into the theory - but you should at least read the article and make some effort to understand it before you try to tear it down. It still sounds like an interesting theory, and I may just have to pick up the book ... at the library. You know ... a big building full of books?
#1.25 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 12:00 PM EDT
teryakywind
I hope you're not expecting a reply to that question from a religious person... because the odds are you won't get one.
Why? Well its all fine and nice for a religious person to ask "Well, how did the universe form from nothing smarty pants? It MUST have been created by god!"... yet when you ask the question "Well how did god get there?" they will suddenly dodge the question and conversation because there is no rational answer to that question that a religious person will accept. If they do attempt to answer it, the answer will be an irrational attempt to explain how god was always there and that its wrong to question god (when the question makes you uncomfortable, make the question go away... thats how religion survives).
Were God a fourth-dimensional being, he would not need to "exist" as far as our definition would extend. He could manipulate space-time without the need to occupy a physical space, therefore he would not need a three dimensional, physical universe in order to affect a change.
  • 4 votes

#1.26 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 12:04 PM EDT
Killerdrgn
@jatmn There are very few "facts" as you believe them, in science, there are mostly theories. Gravity, Evolution, relativity, fission, fusion, are all theories. There are very few proofs in science, hence very few facts.
And Stephen Hawking is talking about Quantum Physics here, most of you guys probably won't understand most of what Hawking is saying.
  • 1 vote

#1.27 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 12:09 PM EDT
Killerdrgn
@teryakwind god would have to exist in a much higher plane than space/time (fourth dimension) in order to affect the supposed changes.
#1.28 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 12:13 PM EDTrightvswrong
SH may be able to do math very well, other than that, he's showing his true ignorance of the truth. God has always been here and always shall be here. Even if some don't believe it, it doesn't make it any less true.
  • 6 votes

#1.29 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 12:39 PM EDTFeelnGoodw/Christ
It amazes me how the Intelictual can explain the biggest question of all time and give their "Proof Positive" by refering to Darwin and his interpretation of the world.Darwin was a man writting his personal revelations just as the men of the Bible were writting down their personal revelations.Its a matter of which man or men are you going to follow and stake your belief of what happens when we die. They are answering 'Proof Positive" about the Universe and cant even find a cure for the common cold, remove cancer, AIDS how to end hate in our hearts and why some kill and others live pretty decent lives but he has answred how this world began.
  • 8 votes

#1.30 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 12:39 PM EDT
ddhartma
Jim Hawk III, Your argument is excellent and it brings up a point that until science can prove either the existence of the universe before the expansion, or what caused the expansion, these theories must be accepted as beliefs (faith, if you will allow me). Just as the Christian has not proven the existence of an eternal God and creator of all, it too is accepted by belief (faith alone). My problem with Stephan Hawking's latest proclamation is that by stating that "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he is making a statement that is pure cop-out rather than offering any proof (either mathematical or even purely hypothetical) that can substantiate his statement. His statement is very Descartes "Cogito ergo sum".
#1.31 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 12:42 PM EDTGary 420
3 questions for Hawking:
1) Where did the matter come from? Something from nothing? Sorry, not valid
2) What caused the big bang? Still cannot answer that one, can you?
3) How did life spontaneously begin? Why can't you recreate this phenomenon in your lab?
As smart as we think he is, Mr. Hawking is touting unproven theories. It takes more faith to believe Mr. Hawking's theories than it does to believe in God.
I drop a book on the floor, that's gravity. Nothing gets created when I drop a book.
God created matter, God created the universe. We are God's creation. Creation is a living, breathing process that is still ongoing. We don't know how it happened and will never know, until the day we meet him face to face. Are there beings living on other planets? Maybe. There is nothing in the Bible that denies this. There is but one true God. There may be many versions of humans running around the universe.
I find it curious that those that think Believers are ignorant, have never taken the time and intellectual effort to truly study and understand scripture. Scripture and science are not mutually exclusive things. It does take some intellect to see how they fit together. Too bad someone as bright as Hawking cannot grasp this.
  • 10 votes

#1.32 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 12:50 PM EDT
Proskunetes
"So who created god? How bout you find nothing, then create a god out of it."
This is an illogical question. It is like asking, when did that which never came into existence come into existence? Hawking is arguing that the universe came into existence, and all things that come into existence need a cause. Religious people do not argue that God came into existence, and therefore do not need to provide a cause. Asking for a cause of that which did not come into existence nor is an event is actually absurd. It is not that something exists therefore a cause is required; it is that something came into existence and event occur that logically require an initial (and subsequent) causes.
It is another thing to question the plausibility of the existence of God, but asking "Who created God?" is simply nonsensical. If you wish to get around an initial cause of the universe, then you must argue for an eternal universe (which has been mentioned as the steady-state theory). Arguing for spontaneous creation out of nothing seems quite illogical to me. It treats "nothing" as an actual entity (something). One philosopher addressed this point by saying that it would be like someone saying that nothing stopped the German advance, and another responding that it was great that the Germans were stopped. Nothing is a non-entity and as such has no causal powers. It is absurd to say that the universe was caused by nothing. Some scientists claim that we cannot let a divine foot in the door, because then we would have to consider all things possible. Even though this is not true and the existence of God permits the logical advancement of science, spontaneous creation from nothing would truly make nearly anything possible.
A steady-state theory may get you around the burden of explaining why matter exists rather than nothing, but even granting this theory it is evident that this universe did not remain static. It cannot account for an active universe that contains events. Therefore, an initial cause allowing for events is still required. We cannot get around the need of a first cause; therefore, we must discern what the necessary characteristics of this first cause are. It must have causal power, which of course rules out nothing as nothing literally has nothing, including no properties (it's odd that one would have to emphasis the nature, or better yet lack of nature, of nothing, but some don't always grasp that nothing means NOTHING - not a kind of something).
Does matter have causal power over itself? If you believe so then I'd like to hear an example. Material effects are the result of prior material causes (Man throws ball, bat hits ball, gravity pulls ball to earth). An infinite regress of causes is logically absurd; therefore a material first cause of the universe appears quite implausible. We need to look for a first cause that is not bound by this necessary regression of prior causes. What fits this bill? A first cause with the capacity of spontaneous choice.
You can argue on the issue of the plausibility of the existence of God and the nature of the first cause, but it is absurd to inquire of the cause of the first cause. I have argued for the incapability of the (non-theistic) steady-state theory to adequately account for the nature of the universe. If you feel that a different description of a first-cause better explains reality, then present it, but asking illogical questions gets you nowhere (and by nowhere I don't mean somewhere =P).
  • 4 votes

#1.33 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 12:53 PM EDT
Dennis-816242
The Big Bang happened because two (or more) adjacent 11th dimensional "branes" collided. The expansion we theorize seems to me to be simply the same collision being at more than a single point, like two sheets in the wind.
#1.34 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:00 PM EDT
Proskunetes
***To clarify, I meant to say that material causes have prior causes, not that material causes necessarily have prior material causes, though this would be required within a naturalistic worldview. As I am not a naturalist, I hold that material causes/effects can have immaterial causes.
#1.35 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:03 PM EDT
teryakywind
@ killerdryn: higher than the fourth dimension then! Current ten-dimensional theory supports the idea of God as a denizen of one of those dimensions above ours.
  • 1 vote

#1.36 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:08 PM EDT
Jeff in Post Falls
Oh boy--here we go. I love reading these, mostly ignorant rants from the same people who think Climate Change is a conspiracy, and the Holocaust didn't happen...
You clearly lack a Science background.
Killerdrgn--Whaaaat? Did you just say there are very few facts in Science?
proamerica-1148973, Proskunetes--Don't get all butt-hurt because you don't understand, or because you don't accept everything others tell you. You're entitled to your opinion.
This is only to explain the beginning and expansion of our Universe--not your Religious beliefs. get over yourselves. Go read a book or go outside... or stay and impose your beliefs on everyone.
  • 1 vote

#1.37 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:57 PM EDT
Kyzzyxx
The latest theories involve infinite multi-verses. When that concept is compared to God then I have to ask, so you are expecting me to believe that some being, that I cannot see and have no proof of, has existed forever over the concept that what I can see and touch has existed forever? No.
Also, why do people keep insisting that the Universe is expanding into nothing? Have you seen outside the universe? No. One theory I have is that the old battle between matter v anti-matter took place a long time ago and antimatter won but pockets of matter continue to pop into existence. Regardless, I am not convinced there is 'nothing' anywhere.
Or another viewpoint. Assuming something created all we see, why oh why do people think it is one, single being? To me, that is the single most ludricous concept, theory, belief out of all of them. That is proof of man's simple-mindedness and nothing less. IF something created all this (and I stress IF) then it is far more likely it is a race of beings that exists outside of all we know, not a single presence.
Bottom line, I think, on a public level that no assumptions should be made in, say, regards to laws, based on some being we cannot prove exists. I don't think anyone should be telling me or anyone else what can and cannot be done based on some 'faith'. That should remain solely personal until proven otherwise. They have no right and I will not accept it. Period.
#1.38 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:59 PM EDT
M.Fisher
Thank you, Uh...No, for doing exactly like we knew you would.
"Who made the big bang? God did."
"Well who made god then..?"
"Oh! God always was!"
LAAAAAAAAAAAAMMMME!!!!!!
And here is another thing: If there is a "god" then it would be the universe and everything in it. That includes you and I and everything both seen and unseen. The idea of a big, old man filled with human flaws and yet demanding his creation to be without flaw is even more stupid than the typical, Christian, unimaginative response of "well, god always was so nyaaa!".
  • 1 vote

#1.39 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:59 PM EDT
Fred Evil
"It is also foolish to ask "Where did God come from?" or "Who made God?""
NO it is not. It is foolish NOT to ask those questions.
#1.40 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 2:03 PM EDT
knoman-1529940
i came up with something that mirrors this 20 years ago but q1. who ordained the 'LAW' or was it, the concept, platos 'form' just there prior to creation? it just continues on. it's easy to accept this if you are trying to get away from a God concept except it will still haunt you much like the response to plato. my idea was creation from nothing following an idea akin to hawkings gravity. that is; a primal thought from an all pwerful source can in the process of going also return to the source and in so creates a reverberation or lump which is the essence of time and therfore matter with whatever secondary principals accompany purpose or definition. think about it before responding.
#1.41 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 2:05 PM EDT
JR-1621396
It gives you the same magical feeling as saying, when in trouble, everything will be okay. Believing gives sense to our existence, compensates for our lack of knowledge, education or intelligence -- especially vis-a-vis of anything more complex than the Holy Book of our choice. Even if it's a poor man's answer, it is legitimate, and believing is important variant of human experience.
#1.42 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 2:10 PM EDT
Smc31569
@uh... no, therein lies your problem. There is no such thing as a "reasonably intelligent religious person" by sheer fact that they believe in a creation/fabrication/perpetuation of a fantasy/myth that exists neither in reality nor ANY realm. "god" is a figment of weak men's imaginations.
  • 1 vote

#1.43 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 2:30 PM EDT
Indy Patriot-1934313
Oooo!!! I couldn't wait to jump into the fray on this one! LOL!
First of all, while I respect Mr. Hawking for his astrophysical theories and contributions to science, I am appalled that he would overtly come out to denounce religion based upon this particular theory of origin. The magnitude of science is limited by the simple understanding of human experience. We can only know as much as we humans can ascertain through study of our physical environment.
So, I find it mildly amusing that there is always so much debate between Creationists and Science. One should not forsake the other because there is no uniform comparison between the physical, tangible universe, and the spiritual. There can never be any comparison because it is, to mention an overused adage, the difference between "apples and oranges". Two people debating science vs. religion are never truly debating the same thing. Kinda like:
Person 1: "The grass is green."
Person 2: "No, it's beautiful."
Person 1: "No! It's green because of the photosynthetic properties of the plant."
Person 2: "You're wrong. It's green because that's the way I perceive it to be. And it's beautiful."
Person 1: "No way! It's green because the green color portion of the spectrum captures the energy of the sun's rays best."
Person 2: "No, it's green because my mind perceives it to be green, and it gives life."
On...and on.......and on..........
So it's a ridiculous argument at best. Besides, while I identify as a Christian because I was born into a Christian family and community, I find much of the argumentative support from so-called Christians to be sophomoric and full of folly. I get irritated when people use Scripture to support their cause, when throughout history people have used the rigid, hard-interpretation of their religion to support virtually any conceivable position.
While I respect the Bible, I do not take it for face value. The Bible was not written by God, it was written by man....over many centuries, by many people, in many different languages...and then subject to translation since. While the big picture the Bible represents is noble and insightful, it is still full of contradictions and falsehoods. Therefore, do not quote Scripture to support your argument, you must rationalize your arguement in more broad, abstract terms.
The best explanation I have heard on this thread is that science explains the "how", and God explains the "why". I am a spiritual person, I believe in God as the Creator of all, the alpha and the omega. I believe God created our physical universe to allow humans the chance to experience life in the absence of absolute spirituality, to encourage the development of our own souls within the confines of space, time, and human fallacy. God does not care what religion you are, He only cares WHO you are as a person designed to love.
If you study near-death experiences, one quickly realizes that religion and science are relatively incompatible with one another. That is because neither religion nor science can explain the true meaning of spirituality. Religion is the cultural expression of spirituality, not spirituality itself. That is where we fight and argue over useless issues in life.
Maybe, just maybe, God created the physical world, complete with its physics and mathmatics, so as to allow humans to better understand the goings-on, to be able to interpret and influence our environment (the universe) for the betterment of us all. As we understand the universe, we slowly come back to God to answer the true questions of why we are here in the first place.
  • 3 votes

#1.44 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 2:37 PM EDT
Debbie-1144654
MCC here's my take on who created God. God was created by non-scientific "scholors" as a way to explain how the universe came into existance and to exhert control over other people.
Personally I think some of Stephen Hawkings theories are a little strange but the Big Bang makes so much more sense than a being with no physical form creating planets, animals, humans, etc.
Apostle Rick, I dont' think there has ever been hard proof that "God" ever restored anybody. I don't mean some passage from the bible either. I don't take anything on faith.
  • 1 vote

#1.45 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 2:37 PM EDT
teryakywind
@ Debbie-1144654:
Ten-dimensional theory supports the idea that there are beings in dimensions above ours that could exert a signifigant change in our dimensions of space-time without the need to be seen. Such a being would be invisible to us and its form beyond our comprehension to understand. If you have an issue with this explanation hingeing on ten-dimensional theory, please remember that ten dimensions of space is the only variable that allows a unified field theory such as scientists are trying to solve to be possible.
  • 2 votes

#1.46 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 3:18 PM EDT
Fred Evil
"God does not care what religion you are, He only cares WHO you are as a person designed to love."
So says a human who has never met, spoken with, or in any way shared two-way communication with said entity.
  • 1 vote

#1.47 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 3:34 PM EDT
tmacc
The term "big bang" was introduced about 60 years ago to differentiate the modern view from an earlier "steady state" view of the the universe.
The term big bang does not mean there was an explosion.
The claim is that the known laws of physics can explain how we got here w/o introducing events, such as virgin birth, or other magical occurrences, which violate known laws of physics or biology.
If one wants to pick apart an idea it's best to understand it first.
  • 1 vote

#1.48 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 3:41 PM EDT
Killerdrgn
@Jeff, yes it's true that there are very few "facts" as the previous poster was stating about what is presented in textbooks. Most things in science are actually hardened theories. It is not a "fact" in science until it is proven in every scenario or proven arithmetically. As such, theories are subjected to change when new evidence is introduced into the field. This is how the scientific process works.
So from the previous posters example of how textbooks change every year as an example of why he/she believed that science was bunk. And I countered that what the poster was believing as fact as the bible presents them, did not apply in the same way.
#1.49 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 4:08 PM EDT
Killerdrgn
@teryakywind
Ok if you do believe god as a being somewhere in the 10th dimension, why does it have to be your god? or even one of the monotheistic kinds? If one can exist so can many, heck it may even be Zeus, Ares, Hades, Poseidon, Seth, Ra, Horus, Loki, Thor, Odin, Izanagi, Amaterasu, Susanoo, Wandjina, Altjira, Baiame, etc....
#1.50 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 4:15 PM EDT
Proskunetes
@Fred - would you care to explain why the question "Where did the thing that never came come from?" It is illogical to ask. The question is whether God exists, and if He does then He never came into being, but always was. If He doesn't exist, then He also came from nowhere because He never existed.
It seems as though you don't understand much about cosmology. An infinite regress is logically absurd; therefore, whatever one proposes as the entity out of which came the first cause, it must have never come into existence. Anything that comes into existence requires a prior cause.
#1.51 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 4:45 PM EDT
WH-1877367
If there really is a God who is ontologically 'big enough' to explain the Universe then there could not have been anything we could call 'before' such a God. If there really is such a God, then he must be 'above and beneath and beyond' us in the true ontological sense, in that he had no beginning, has no end, in fact possesses the power of self-existence. This alone places him beyond our reckoning, when it comes to questions about his existence or 'origins' - as it places him as the very 'ground' of existence itself. 'Existence' and all that exists, rests upon the ground/platform/ontological base of the self-existent one. Without this self-existent one as a base, the Universe would collapse something like a painting without a canvas. (Even beings within the Universe who don't believe in a self-existent god would collapse without his support - Richard Dawkins, Steven Hawking) This is not easy to wrap our minds around, since our experience of 'existence' is from the perspective of temporary and contingent beings. We don't directly perceive Being and Nothingness (could we even?). The self-existent god does perceive these things directly. He is capable of willing things into existence at the base quantem level, the next level up from himself, whatever that is. The self-existent god is non-contingent - he depends on nothing and requires nothing outside of himself. A self-existent being would fill or negate 'nothingness' with himself but that does not require a 'beginning' to his existence as we think of it. He simply is because he is (I Am that I Am) - that is what self-existence is - and he negates the nothingness that would have been had he not existed.
We really don't know what nothingness is - we've never seen it or encountered it, except perhaps in our experience of the absence of a loved one or the absence of furniture in a vacant house. But that is a poor example of what raw nothingness would be like to encounter. A self-existent god however would know what nothingness is, since he is the negation of nothingness, he would be life/existence itself. (Perhaps the best way to describe 'nothingness' from God's perspective would be 'outer darkness')
So now convice me that this is the God we've created in our image...
  • 1 vote

#1.52 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 5:08 PM EDT
butchr55
God can't be explained by man no matter how hard we try. the same way we will never be able to fully explain the universe & all of its mysteries. to me they are one & the same. some make it seem as though we created God instead of the other way around.
  • 3 votes

#1.53 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 5:25 PM EDT
K. Gochanour
I was blind, but now I see. I used to think like Mr. Hawkings until my spirit was invaded by God. Now I see and understand that the God of the Bible is the God of creation. You, Mr. Hawkings are still blind, dead by spiritual standards. Without having an understanding of what lies beyond the physical realm by being attached to it, there is no point in making suppositions about anything.
  • 1 vote

#1.54 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 5:25 PM EDT
Lindsey0123
mcc-
I can't answer the question about where God comes from, but there is something I would like to say. A lot of the time people say they won't believe in God until certain (or all) questions they have are answered for them. The problem with that is that God is so much superior to us and so much more complex it is really foolish for us to think that we can understand everything about Him. It is like an ant trying to understand how to build a computer or do brain surgery. Or even to understand WHY we do it. If an ant can't ever hope to understand us, how much more will we not understand God? Our brains don't function anywhere close to the way the mind of God does, so you can't expect to understand why or how God does many things. Although He does allow us enough understanding that we can answer many questions, there will always be things we don't understand. But there is far more evidence for the existence of God and salvation through Jesus Christ than there is that He is not real. If you are all do the research and are honest with yourselves, you will see. But God leaves it up to you to decide if you care enough to find out. I pray that you all do!
If you are interested in this, check out some of the books by Lee Strobel, like "The Case for Christ." Or read "Letters from a Skeptic" or "The Problem of Evil" by Greg Boyd. Or "Darwin on Trial" by Phillip Johnson. Those are some books I read as a new Christian that really strengthened my faith. There are tons more excellent books out there that can give you the evidence you need to prove that Christ is for real. I hope you'll all check them out, since your eternal life depends on it!
  • 3 votes

#1.55 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 5:31 PM EDT
A Veteran
Did I miss a big headline here or is it NEWS that a scientist says there isn't a God? Of COURSE there isn't a God, Scientists can't admit to a more intelligent entity than themselves, after all we humans know everything, just ask a scientist. Oh! By the way, how's that cure for the common cold coming along guys? Get real people, there are things out there that we cannot conceive in our wildest imaginations, including the combined intellectual assets of every so called scientist on this puny little planet we inhabit.
  • 3 votes

#1.56 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 6:39 PM EDT
Moshe Marcou
Man created God in his own image and likeness. A constantly fluctuating perception to explain mortality, or as a means of defining the "perfect" parent solution for future reference.
  • 1 vote

#1.57 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 6:44 PM EDT
MikeyMike
The occurence of a supposed "big bang" is deduced from an examination of the movements of galaxies. All galaxies everywhere we look are expanding away from each other. This is not theory, it is observed and confirmed fact. Additionally, the farther away you look, the faster the galaxies are receding. All of this evidence, if rewound in reverse, indicates that at one time in the past all galaxies were much closer together and extending this idea to it's logical conclusion, all galaxies were supposedly once all in exactly the same infinitesimally small, dense, hot, place, known as a singularity, from which they all burst forth in a great wave of expansion and cooling which brings us eventually to where we are now.
So goes one theoretical explanation for the data we observe. The difficulty with this is that it seems to imply, as others have debated above, that the universe sprang into being from nothingness, which as Proskutes has eloquently pointed out, is nonsense.
There is also the idea which has been mentioned that the universe exists in a "steady state" without expanding, but that does not match observed data, so that idea has been mostly abandoned.
There is another way. The universe may exist in an oscillating cycle of expansion, slowing due to gravity and then contraction into a "big crunch" from whence the next universe explodes in an eternal cycle of destruction and rebirth. (Hello, Kali? Brahma? Vishnu? are you there?).
The only trouble with this theory is that currently it seems that the observed movements of the galaxies are actually accelerating rather than slowing due to gravity. If true, then this cylical model doesn't hold. The explanation for the supposed acceleration is unknown and it is credited to vaguely defined notions such as "dark energy". Humbug.
It is my personal opinion that possibly when more accurate measurements are made, which account for as yet unseen and unknown quantities of nothing more mysterious than interstellar dust, which will then be understood as the missing mass or "dark matter" of the observed rapidly swirling galaxies, and also will be understood as the root cause of the miscalibration of expansion measurements, then at last, in a quick Poof, many mysteries will be solved. Therefore, the universe will indeed eventually collapse back in upon itself, and all is doomed. Until the next time.
Oh, and one more thing, don't bother praying to save it all. There's no one listening.
#1.58 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 6:48 PM EDT
CM-6969
So who created god? How bout you find nothing, then create a god out of it.
Considering the millions of "Gods" that have been created, it must be quite simple. Hey, just in this thread alone I've spotted several new variations of "god" that were apparently made up on the spot!
That makes a nifty intellectual challenge - try counting the various versions of "gods" that have been mentioned here.
#1.59 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 7:05 PM EDT
Thoughts from Cali
Each religion is a product of the interpretation of it's followers. Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, Islam, etc, they all worship the same God . . . just with a different interpretation. So is one religion correct above all others? No. They are all subject to ancient interpretation. Does this mean that a creator does not exist? Not necessarily. Science and evolution may explain the workings of a creator.
Accepting the fact that time, as we know it, represents the passage of life. And time does not exist in the realm of the creator, because it has always been. Given these two concepts, we can toss out the notion that the world was created in 7 days. If time does not exist for the creator, then the "7 days" is an interpretation by man. In addition, these "7 days" can actually represent millions of years of creation and evolution. God creating Adam from dust may be a simplified explanation of God causing evolution to take place . . . from the evolution of cells (a concept translated to "dust" in ancient times) to the eventual human result.
Religion and science do not have to be competing concepts. In the realm of possibilities, science may be the work of God. And each religion will interpret this work in their own way. People constantly say that God works in mysterious ways, so why would they think it was any different in the beginning?
It is a shame that religious institutions would rather wage a never-ending war against science, instead of accepting the fact that science may be God at work.
#1.60 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 8:11 PM EDT
riggznit
God? What do we really know about anything? What do we know as fact or infallible? So? How can you say his existence is or isn't?
Scientists often suffer from pre ejaculation and go with the latest venue that is subscribing to their self perception of existence.
They're has to be and is way more to the story. Not everything adds up! Everyone has had things happen in their lives that is simply unexplainable, Well I have.
Math is my cup of tea however there is way more to this than MATH? We don't understand why Stephen is still alive is this due to math or just his ability to see hope and future. Personally i would put more into the laws of perception than I would into Math. Math is the tool in which the container we exist in speaks. Can we see outside our container? Can we see what is in our container? Can you tell me that we are not in a container?
As always people will give me the poker face.
Stephen if you got it all figured out please enlighten me into the the mathematics behind gravity now not the constant attraction but the fundamental building blocks of this so called gravity. So since you cannot than it is my assumption that your gravity doesn't exist.
Religion being in mans hands for so long hasn't got a grip on me, yet I still believe in God maybe not as others do but believe do to experiences in life. My ideas as I like to say are open but they exist. Remember that you have to believe in god to say you don't believe in him. Otherwise you simply would walk away with no comment about the subject. Are you trying to convince me or yourself?
We are on the verge of the molecular computer yet you can say that the pressence of a god isn't possible. Scientists that sound just like the ones who sit across the isle and laugh at your theories. Whats possible or impossible is subject to vision no vision would mean its impossible.
#1.61 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 8:52 PM EDT
One Love-1
I kind of find it hard to believe that "The Universe" came out of no where. It doesn't just appear, but then again, I kind of find it hard to believe that the almighty "God" comes out of nowhere either.
#1.62 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 10:04 PM EDT
ted arndt
Spontaneous Creation?? Why didn`t he just say "It was magic" Genius? How absurd. Isn`t it much easier to believe in a wonderful God?
  • 1 vote

#1.63 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 10:16 PM EDT
Levi777
Why is it so inconceivable that God could not have done His works and science is finding out the means by sifting through the rubble? And I offer this, taken from "King of the Earth" by Erich Sauer, that great German apologist;
"The German mathematician Professor Hans Rohrbach tells of the following conversation between Cardinal Faulhaber, Archbishop of Munich, and Professor Albert Einstein; 'I respect religion, but believe in Mathematics;' said Einstein, 'doubtless for your Eminence the reverse is true.' 'You are mistaken,' replied Faulhaber, 'religion and mathematics are for me only different ways of expressing the same Divine exactness.' Einstein was astonished. 'But what if one day mathematical research should show that certain verdicts of science contradict those of religion?' 'I have such high regard for mathematics, ' replied Faulhaber, 'that in such a case, you, Professor, would be under obligation never to stop looking for the error in calculation.'" (pg32)
Some things just are, no matter how bad you want them to not be, and some things just are not, not matter how badly you want the to be. The natural man does not seek the things of God, and indeed he cannot, because sin brings a separation from God, so that he is unable to draw near to God. But when faith is found in a man, God draws him, and faith when it is complete, brings forth salvation and newness of life. Then does a man have eyes to see, and ears to hear.
  • 1 vote

#1.64 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 10:16 PM EDT
Mj-812651
Something was there just in a different time which make it impossible for us to find.
What if there was another big bang after the big bang we are keeping time with. Would it still be impossible to find?
#1.65 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 11:32 PM EDT
Tiffany-Awesome
Crazy because I just wrote a blog about how the universe began according to the Quran and how the Quran talks about (in detail) the expansion of gases in a way quite similar to the big bang theory. Check it out at singlecreed.blogspot.com
#1.66 - Fri Sep 3, 2010 12:04 AM EDT
BumbleBee
Is gravity nothing? This universe needed only gravity to create itself....So was gravity just always there? I really can't see gravity...yet you need only look around you to know it's there.
Hmmmm....gravity must be imaginary...like Santa Clause
#1.67 - Fri Sep 3, 2010 12:24 AM EDT
soulfire
the problem is still there is no such thing as nothing and no such thing as a beginning of time the human mind can not comprehend infinity so we always have to come up with a beginning. Something always was and stating that science can eliminate God is just putting a limit to God because they hate to admit there was something always. Just because Darwin proved evolution does not mean he took God out of the picture God created the laws like gravity to put the whole evolution and creation in motion. I've felt that God just created man but I doubt we came from monkey there never will be a missing link. God created the laws that got it in motion and then let it's laws do there thing. Everything that is, was, will always be is God we are not a separate creation by God we are a creation from God since God is all the infinite engulfing beyond what the human mind can understand.
#1.68 - Fri Sep 3, 2010 1:25 AM EDT
Melvin-2260629
The answer to if God was before the Big Bang then how did He get there is simple. He is based outside of both time and space, its one of the concepts that a human can't fully get a grasp on, even the most touted Christians. Everything a human understands has limits, period. God being omnipotent means that he can't have limits, including time and space. If God was limited by time and space, he couldn't be omnipresent. Also, it would be possible to get to Heaven without believing in Jesus, you'd simply build a spaceship to get there (stupid idea, I know....that's the point). I challenge anyone to point out something that they can FULLY understand WITHOUT ANY LIMITATIONS.
#1.69 - Fri Sep 3, 2010 4:35 AM EDT
daylight2000
John S-400329
Why? Well its all fine and nice for a religious person to ask "Well, how did the universe form from nothing smarty pants? It MUST have been created by god!"... yet when you ask the question "Well how did god get there?" they will suddenly dodge the question and conversation because there is no rational answer to that question that a religious person will accept.
Hello. Since you seem to be saying everything needs to have a creator, then again you've painted yourself into a corner:
What created the big bang? What created that which created the big bang? And so on, and so on.
What created all matter and energy in the universe?
What created the laws of nature?
What created life?
What created consciousness that is life?
The evolutionist/atheist typical response will be, in so many circular words, that "nothing did it" - yet then they turn around and then use the same logic to pretend it shows God does not exist since we can't show what created Him.
If they do attempt to answer it, the answer will be an irrational attempt to explain how god was always there and that its wrong to question god (when the question makes you uncomfortable, make the question go away... thats how religion survives).
Yet some evolutionists will claim matter was always there and that nothing created everything. Oh the irony.
Don't worry - God will not force you to accept Him, or repent and trust on Jesus Christ to save you from a lifetime of sinning daily - He gives every single person exactly what they want: for those who truly want forgiveness, He gives it. For those who truly want to be separate from Him, He gives them that too - so God will allow you to have exactly what you're demanding. The catch is when you realize it's not really what you wanted it will be too late as you were already told all about it and insisted on getting it anyway.
Psalms 90:1-2 A Prayer of Moses the man of God. Lord, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations. 2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.
  • 1 vote

#1.70 - Fri Sep 3, 2010 8:27 AM EDT
Zychan
I suppose that this really boils down to the old argument of: The Big bang? Where did the particles come from? And: If God was there before the universe, where did he come from?
This is simply called the theory of "Infinite Regression".
The main issue here is that in the world of science (i.e. where there must be empirical verification; reproducible phenomena), the law of Physics which says "From nothing Nothing comes" is an inescapable prison. All of Mr. Hawking's comments aside, Science is trapped by it's own law until it can PROVE that it does not apply, which Mr. Hawking cannot do, nor can anyone.
On the other hand, for the argument of "Well, where did God come from?", that is not so binding. If one wanted to grant the possibility that God did "come from somewhere" (theoretically only, of course), then the question would then be, "What does that prove?". Answer: We are not responsible to God's (supposed) creator, we are responsible to ours. The argument of who created God is rendered completely moot at that point.
So, in the end, Science is still stuck having to try to prove that something can come from nothing and being unable to do so, whereas those who answer to God have no such problem.
#1.71 - Fri Sep 3, 2010 8:29 AM EDT
daylight2000
And for the record, the fish to man story of evolution is another religion and not science. They believe every animal got here by evolving from another animal (starting with the first life form that came from nothing).
So in other words, they believe [finches] evolved over generations eventually from animals that were clealry not [finches] at all if you go back far enough. But that belief cannot be shown in any observations and cannot be shown in any repeatable test cases, hence it's not science. They can only point to fossils and say "we believe this evolved into that" - or point to whatever supposed percentage of DNA similarity between two animals and say "we believe this means this evolved into that", and so on. The biggest lie of our age: pass off beliefs that are not observable and not able to be shown in repeatable test cases actually happening as science anyway.
#1.72 - Fri Sep 3, 2010 8:31 AM EDT
JQ 12261891
You know, if you do not accept faith then fine, I do not begrudge you that; let science be your guide. However, at the same time there is pervasive tendency to not only disagree with and ridicule those who hold onto and love their God, but also to vilify those people of faith. There are indeed religions in this world at this time with factions of people who deserve to be vilified, Islam being the leading culprit. That being said, with the exception of maybe a few isolated crazies (on a global scale) including the Westboro Baptist church crowd, Christianity doesn't seek to destroy or castigate nonbelievers. So what motivates the bigots of this thread who do everything they can to belittle the faith of those claiming to believe in God?
I found one particular post very interesting. The post basically stated that people of faith do not welcome skepticism while people who rely solely on science do embrace skepticism. Really? …Really? If you doubt the validity of theory of evolution (which I believe in btw) you are now someone to be looked down upon and made fun of. Let's take this global warming debate… wait there is no global warming debate, it's settled science and any hereti… um, I mean skeptic is akin to a holocaust denier. Those that embrace the theory of global warming are calm rational scientifically-minded people who just want what is best for everyone… except Ted Kaczynski and James Lee… but they're anomalies.
The truth is there are irrational zealots in every religion, including global warmingism, but you people need to keep your hatred in check.
#1.73 - Fri Sep 3, 2010 8:56 AM EDT
Loo-E Loo-I
Gary420
I drop a book on the floor, that's gravity. Nothing gets created when I drop a book.
What about a sound? ;-)
The *thud* created by the book hitting the floor didn't happen until gravity pulled them together.
#1.74 - Fri Sep 3, 2010 9:48 AM EDTApostle Rick Comment collapsed by the community
Ha, Ha!!, This is not really news. A statement like this would come from an athiest. Why is this suprising? Stephen Hawking is probably a bitter man because of his physical condition and God never restored him. Stephen, my friend, God said in Isaiah 55:8-9:
8"For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,"
declares the LORD.
9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
You can't beat God my friend. He created us to be dependent on him. You cannot take your next breath without God's permission.
It's funny how you Bible thumper's like to put down science, except when it behooves you to take notice--like when you're sick and dying. Frankly, I believe in God just simply because I need to. There are still gaps that science cannot explain, and because we are not just made up of brains, but also of emotions and minds, there will probably always be room for the notion of a God. I tell people that whatever works for them and makes them better person is fine with me. However, bear in mind, religion is also a choice. It is a lifestyle choice. You're free to practice any religion or none. People also change religions often and practice their religions cafeteria style. Further, we do not all agree on what various religion tenets say and that confusion is also a right. Therefore, religion cannot, on a social level, trump something that is as rigorous as science and should never be used to harm others.
  • 14 votes

#2.1 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 12:18 AM EDTTheZenMonkey
"The human race is so puny compared to the universe that being disabled is not of much cosmic significance." --Stephen Hawking
Take your fake concern and hatred of the disabled elsewhere.
  • 13 votes

#2.2 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 12:43 AM EDTApostle Rick
First of all my belief in the God of Israel (Jesus Christ) is based on my relationship with Him. This is not about a religion. Who cares about man made religions. I have a heart for God, I don't know about you or what religion you're from. You are right about one thing and that is that there are mysteries that we don't understand. We have a limit on how much we understand just like you don't have the answer for everything. Question??? Were you around when God laid down the foundations of the earth????? Enough said.
  • 7 votes

#2.3 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 12:43 AM EDT
Uthaclena
TheZenMonkey
"The human race is so puny compared to the universe that being disabled is not of much cosmic significance." --Stephen Hawking
Take your fake concern and hatred of the disabled elsewhere.
Umm... you do know that Hawking is himself disabled with muscular dystrophy, don't you? and that therefore it's safe to assume that he is referring to himself? So I hardly think that it is either a fake concern nor self-hatred, but rather an awe regarding the Universe and his (and our) personal insignificance.
  • 3 votes

#2.4 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:08 AM EDTmelodic-1
Rick -
You know it all.................................enough said. Your mind is as open as a closed book, sure it can be a Bible since you can't face a day without it. You are scared.
if you take a child and teach him or her from birth any BS Dogma they will believe it no matter what anyone tells them. Fear rules religion, you are afraid to even think about a life without God as you see it. Not to mention hell.
Oh I know the only fear is missing out on your personal relationship with Jesus..........................what a bunch of BS. blah blah blabbiddy blah
We need to stop living in the dark ages, dump religion and move forward as a species. It can start with you. You can be morale without religion. Try secular humanism on, you might like it.
  • 12 votes

#2.5 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:17 AM EDTLeaders and Followers
A. Exactly like my relationship with the Tooth Fairy
B. Most of us only require one question mark without the preface 'Question???' to realize you are asking a question and unsurprisingly paraphrasing scripture.
C. To answer your 'Question???': No and neither were you, for all your certainty.
  • 7 votes

#2.6 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:19 AM EDT
TheZenMonkey
Uthaclena, you misread the direction of my comment. The quote is from Hawking. The second part was directed at the hateful statement by Apostle Whoever about Hawking's disability.
  • 1 vote

#2.7 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:22 AM EDT
Up Uranus
First of all my belief in the God of Israel (Jesus Christ) is based on my relationship with Him.
Sounds rather gay to me.
  • 4 votes

#2.8 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:31 AM EDTJack59-2252626
1 Corinthians 8:2 states, "And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing..."
  • 5 votes

#2.9 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:32 AM EDTApostle Rick
God said there would be haters of His word in the last days and you are all examples of it, praise the Lord. Obviously you don't fear God, you probably don't even make Him the center of your family home. I will pray for you all that you repent from your wicked ways so you all will not go to hell. Me, I'm just getting off at how ridiculous your remarks are. Keep them coming cause they are making me laugh cause you can't beat God or me for that matter. When you mock me you mock God, but good luck because it is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
  • 5 votes

#2.10 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:42 AM EDT
Uthaclena
TheZenMonkey
Uthaclena, you misread the direction of my comment.
Ah; apologies!
#2.11 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:56 AM EDT
Abonides
Jack- you just shot yourself in the foot.
  • 1 vote

#2.12 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:57 AM EDT
Patrick-1112710
I believe in God and I also believe in science.
I don't see why there has to be 1 or the other.
The universe started with a big bang. Who is to say it wasn't God saying "Let there be Light" and BOOM. Sure there would be scientific proof of the big bang, but why is it so hard to believe that maybe a higher power started the big bang to begin with.
The bible also says the earth was cleansed with water (Noah in case you don't remember). Science has also proven this to be true.
The only thing I don't believe in is evolution.
To say 'bible thumpers' don't believe in science is pure BS.
  • 4 votes

#2.13 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 2:05 AM EDTMike D-546772
If I were writing a book like the bible, and wanted my readers to believe the ridiculous things inside, I would write verses like the ones you posted.
I would also include passages that mentioned that this book is infallible, and is the mystical creation of the divine will of god.
And then some phrases that say demonic forces will attempt to dissuade you from believing in the supernatural being described within.
Then watch the suckers fall for it by the millions. The greatest scam ever.
Stop being such a sheep. Fear of hell is for suckers.
No gods, no masters.
  • 7 votes

#2.14 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 2:40 AM EDTinthegrae
Rick. I'm not an atheist nor a believer. I'm simply a decent person who lives as good a life as I can, and I don't need to fear a god to know what's right and what's wrong. But I do know that speaking to other people as you do, in that holier than thou state of mind as if your beliefs make you better than the rest, is not what Jesus wanted for his followers. Repent, my friend. Repent and learn humility. Or don't, I really couldn't care less.
But as far as Hawking goes, the man jokes around with concepts that would completely befuddle you. I wouldn't dismiss his point of view as simply bitterness. He's seen more of the universe from his wheel chair than you have from your pew.
  • 7 votes

#2.15 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 2:42 AM EDT
rch101196
Rick, please remember to preface all your god this - god that posts with 'in my opinion', because that's all it is. Religion depends on opinion, science relies on fact.
#2.16 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 10:55 AM EDT
Killerdrgn
@mike-d yeah hence Scientology.
#2.17 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 12:16 PM EDT
DB Akron
Apostle - don't stop telling the truth, but don't expect your posts to be in public view very long. Most people on this site do not except the concept of "God" unless he is in their terms. Which of course violates the concept of "God".
  • 3 votes

#2.18 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:52 PM EDT
wrathofkhan13
Patrick: If you don't believe in evolution, you don't believe in science. I'm sorry that evolution isn't obvious to you, but it pretty much 100% explains everything in nature. K-bye.
  • 1 vote

#2.19 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 2:34 PM EDT
CM-6969
1 Corinthians 8:2 states, "And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing..."
Then logically, it should apply to all those who dogmatically state they "know God", and all those who claim they "know the word of God". The bible itself says they know nothing.
In short, it basically cancels out all of the dogmatic parts of the bible, leaving only a few "We think" and "I suppose" statements.
#2.20 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 7:24 PM EDTguest40
if everything seems to be dependant on gravity....? Did graviity exisit before the big bang to hold together the framework/or should I say nothingness of the space where the universe is? I cant see a proton but believe it exists just as I can't see God but have faith he does.
Like Einstein said, Once you can accept that the universe is something expanding into nothing, wearing plaid with stripes is easy.
  • 23 votes

#3.1 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 12:20 AM EDT
RangerFan72
I believe that gravity would have had to exist to hold together 'the singularity before the Big Bang'. BTW, there was no 'nothingness of the space where the universe is', since space-time only exists 'within' the universe.
  • 3 votes

#3.2 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:04 AM EDT
guest40
confusing LOL--space- time only exists within the universe, if the universe is expanding into nothingness then its also creating space-time? I'll read his book though I may not agree with the idea of no creator. i dont think there is a "god particle" god to me is not that simple. Maybe he leaves us clues?
  • 1 vote

#3.3 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:13 AM EDT
American man
Apostle Rick, post #2: If you have a relationship with Jesus Christ, then you may want to add religion to that relationship. It's plain as day light in Acts 26:5. There are other places, look at James 1:27. If you take this serious (as it is), you may want to drop that title you gave your self. I think that is mocking God.
  • 1 vote

#3.4 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 2:37 AM EDTBrenda-251440
That's just it: You have faith that God exists. So do I. However, scientists have evidence, that has been reproduced by colleagues, that protons exist. Truth in science is reproduceable results. The levels of knowing are different.
  • 5 votes

#3.5 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 3:35 AM EDT
Pondering
Brenda - yes, I can prove protons exist (well, I can't, but humanity can) - Science, being the explanation of God's creation, is a wonderful discipline. Being able to make sense of the physical world around us is the wonder of science. God never wanted us to be stupid.
However, as much as I hae Faith that God exists, you have Faith (assuming you are agnostic based on your comment) that God doesn't exist, and you also have Faith that the method of creation of the world you live in is the correct one - presumably, you have Faith that the Big Bang happened?
  • 1 vote

#3.6 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 9:13 AM EDTVulcan One
There is a such thing called reasonable faith that is based upon objective evidence.
  • 5 votes

#3.7 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 9:26 AM EDT
ThaPyngwyn
You know (or at least it is known), that at a certain point, science becomes faith-based. As it happens to be, we are not omniscient, and that simple fact means that at its root, once you get past observation and easily supported theories, our science is guesswork and finger-crossing.
#3.8 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 12:04 PM EDT
GimDan
guest40- the god particule is a nick name for the god-damn particle. Its not a "god" almight thing, rather a theory that this particule exists. Its really called the Higgs Boson, nicked name God damn particle... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson
#3.9 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 12:07 PM EDT
captainthursday
Because we don't know the answer to something then god must have done it. This answer has never sat right with me. We have only been following the scientific method for a couple hundred years and look where it's gotten us in such a short time. Obviously we don't have the answers to everthing but those answers are out there waiting for us to discover them. To say that God did it is stifling human curiosity and the expansion of knowledge. How many people understand the fact that Stephen Hawking has to do all of the math that applies to his thoeries in his head. He can't write anything down so he has to understand it before he can try to explain it to others. And thanks to science he has lived for about 40 years longer than he was expected to when he was diagnosed with Lou Gherigs Disease.
#3.10 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 2:05 PM EDT
Lucy1
He says God is not needed. But, more important, God surely doesn't need this guy either, as a matter of fact, God doesn't need any of us. SO, don't believe, that's your choice, I choose to Believe in GOD. The Alpha and Omega, and Jesus is my Savior. And when He returns, whoever denied Him will be denied, short and sweet and to the point. No science fiction, no gravity, no big bang, or what ever else people choose to believe instead of truth. Oh well, Jesus Is Lord ! Love you Jesus.
I pray You share something with the ones who are still lost.
#3.11 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 8:24 PM EDT
WmRAllen
Lucy-- what if you're wrong?
#3.12 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 8:37 PM EDT
Lindsey0123
WmRAllen,
Lucy is right, but even if she wasn't, what would it hurt? Her faith is most likely giving her peace and joy and love for others--the same things mine gives me. However, if you are wrong, there are much greater consequences that you should consider. Have you done the research to legitimately say Lucy is wrong? I don't think so, because if you had, you would agree with her. Those who seek the truth will find it. Start by reading a book by Lee Strobel. There are many others out there to check out after that!
#3.13 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 10:01 PM EDT
WmRAllen
That's the thing, isn't it? Neither Lucy nor I can really say whether or not either of us is right or wrong (your evident acceptance of the same ideology aside).
I have seen no compelling evidence that any particular confessional schema is correct-- and I'm not so hypocritical as to make Pascal's wager just to avoid the uncertainty.
#3.14 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 10:14 PM EDTJoe Latrell
Wow. Hawking writes an entire book on how he sees things working in the universe and the world focuses on one line? I think I will reserve judgment until I have read the book.
Personally, I believe that science explains how it all works but God explains the why. I don't understand what all the shouting is about.
I don't understand what all the shouting is about.
Nice post. People get rubbed the wrong way if they find out that what they believe to be true might not be. This goes for everyone. There are an infinite number of possibilities about the origin of the universe. For all we know, this could be a lab experiment. Who knows.
All I know, is that I know nothing.
- Socrates
  • 14 votes

#4.1 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 12:21 AM EDT
Leon Tremmel
Well said Republic. I really admire Stephen, and I pray for his salvation. When all is said and done what will be found, if we can find it, will simply be a "word" spoken by God just as Genesis says. And then bang it happened. I wonder why that is so hard for folks to accept?
  • 1 vote

#4.2 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:24 AM EDT
Gray Matter-2290965
The shouting stems from the fact that, at the end of the day, the two theories, in their purest forms, can not co-exist - no matter how hard you try. As premises both theories negate the other and neither side will accept that, so they shout. The truth always lies in the middle, not the extremes. That holds true for religion, politics, sociology, you name it. Until we can meet in the middle there can be no compromise and no consensus.
  • 2 votes

#4.3 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 7:21 AM EDT
Pondering
Actually - then can co-exist. Once we realize and accept that God created the physical, Science becomes a completely legitimate field of study. Science is the study of God's creations. Even the Big Bang may be real - and if that is how God chose to start our known Universe, so be it (after all, we have evidence in Genesis that does align with the very young theory of the Big Bank - nothing and everything) - so Big Bang may be a real physical event, but that would not mean the non-existence of God. Because before the Big Bang, their was something, and that something was God.
  • 2 votes

#4.4 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 9:17 AM EDTDicks-1891035
"...before the Big Bang, their was something, and that something was God."
prove it.
show your work.
  • 9 votes

#4.5 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 9:58 AM EDT
Big thinker-2291415
Leon, perhaps it is so hard to accept because there is no evidence to support it. As far back as religion goes it has always hand picked what it chooses to support and what it chooses to ignore, entire gospels left out of the bible, and other, far more ancient religions... The catholic church killed innumerable "pagans" because their beliefs were backwards and out of date.. There is one science, with proofs and hard facts that invite testing and improvement. There are hundreds of religions, ignoring and fighting off questions and changes, each claiming to be the true faith. What makes you so sure yours is that faith? What makes you so sure that science isn't?
  • 4 votes

#4.6 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 10:14 AM EDT
graced2551
To answer Big Thinker when he asks "What makes you so sure yours is that [true] faith," the reason we, as Christians, believe that ours is the true faith is based not only on the revelations of the most popular and bestselling book in the world, the Bible, but on the undisputed fact, not fairy tale, of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. No one in history has ever been able to provide evidence to disprove the resurrection. Even the secular historians of the time of Christ and after have all agreed that Jesus was a historical figure and that the resurrection was an event that happened, and they did not come to this conclusion except through serious examination. So sources other than the Bible address the resurrection. As Josh McDowell proposes in his book of the same title, the resurrection of Christ is "evidence that demands a verdict." No other religious leader or prophet ever rose from the dead. And to believe in God is to believe that he not only has the power to create the universe from nothing, but that he has the power to incarnate himself, the power over life and death, and the power to inspire the minds of the various Bible authors to write the words he wanted written - no big task to Someone who can create the universe. The bottom line is... people were created with free will. Free will leads people to either accept or reject the gospel of Christ and his death to take the punishment for sin. I find it easier to look at the evil vs. good in the world to prove to myself that God and the spiritual realm exist, because evil and good come from the spirit within us and are not based in the physical or bodily aspect of our existence. Hate and love, evil and good, all manifest from the free will which cannot be explained by the molecules and atoms that comprise our physical beings. When we ponder these things, we step into the realm of the spiritual, which is the realm of God. If humanists argue that free will and emotions are based purely in the physical, they must then be able to also scientifically prove that hypothesis. To date, no one has been able to, or it would have been written about in the scientific journals and etched into every classroom textbook. So... does God exist? Did he create the universe? Did the universe create itself? Since their is no tangible evidence available from the past except the effects we now see through such tools as the Hubble telescope, we have to go by Faith to understand the answer, either faith in the scientific theories (and that is what they are - theories), or faith in the Word of God, Jesus, and his spoken and written truth down through the ages that explains creation. Ultimately, the answer will be confirmed to all when they take their last breath in this life and step into eternity.
  • 2 votes

#4.7 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 12:29 PM EDT
Dennis-816242
but on the undisputed fact, not fairy tale, of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Pronounced dead by people who had not yet discovered what the circulatory system was, and had no idea how to take a pulse. Um, HEY! I dispute it. I call it into question.
  • 1 vote

#4.8 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:16 PM EDT
ddhartma
If science is so great and maintains the answer to all of our questions, then which scientist has "created" even a simple blade of grass - not cloned, but created from nothing. And if a blade of grass is too tough, how about a single cell amoeba. Where has this been done and by whom? All science has proven to me is the intelligent design of God's fabulous creation.
  • 1 vote

#4.9 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:19 PM EDT
DJ1512
To Graced2551 - If your parents had become Muslims a month before you were born and moved to Saudi Arabia, you'd be making a completely different argument right now - think about that when you are so sure you are right.
  • 3 votes

#4.10 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:21 PM EDT
teryakywind
@Gray Matter-2290965:
The only reason that the two theories don't coexist is human bias, be it in the sciences or in religion (more so in science though). Scientists have this absurd belief that, because they come up with a flashy new theory that could take a Supreme Being out of the equation means that their new theory does take said Supreme Being out of the equation.
On the flip side, almost every modern church accepts science as Man's way of understanding God. Some of the more extreme churches claim that God simply put fossils and the like in place to make us think that the universe and our earth is very old, e.g. Lutherans, Pastafarians(look 'em up I didn't make this one up XD).
Funnily enough, this same argument came up in a separate news story: 10 Best Inventions, or something of the like. In this article, several people claimed, in posts completely the opposite of the question posed at the end of the article, that religion is the world's worst invention that had done the most damage to our world. I will repeat here what I said there: The people who did the most damage to the world are the ones who use religion as a justification for the atrocities they commit upon their fellow human beings. This is true of the Crusaders of the Middle Ages (where a man, you will note, ordered the slaughter of millions under the pretense that participants were doing God's work). In modern days, it's Islamist extremists who declare a Jihad on the Western world, using their religion's doctrine and twisting it to suit their needs so as to justify their war (if i remember correctly, Muslim beliefs dictate that a holy war may be declared only if a group/nation/society is actively oppressing all believers of the Muslim faith, not just a side group that the faith's mainstream groups publibly denounce).
It's not that what we hold to be true that is incompatible, it's that humans are so biased in one way or another that we are unable to reconcile our own beliefs to mesh with another's.
  • 1 vote

#4.11 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 3:44 PM EDT
Killerdrgn
@ddhartma,
They already did.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/scientists-create-first-self-replicating-synthetic-life/
#4.12 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 4:22 PM EDT
ddhartma
Killerdrgn,
They still needed a living cell full of the appropriate proteins, tRNA, etc. in order to "boot up" the synthetic genome. And the synthetic genome was very similar to the natural genome it replaced. So they cheated in essence, started out with life and modified it, but they did not "create" life from nothing.
#4.13 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 5:02 PM EDT
WH-1877367
@ Dennis-816242
Pronounced dead by people who had not yet discovered what the circulatory system was, and had no idea how to take a pulse. Um, HEY! I dispute it. I call it into question.
Uh... pronounced dead by professional (Roman) soldiers who dealt death every day and whose job was to be sure the guy on the cross was in fact dead. I think a spear into the side would pretty much do the job...
#4.14 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 5:25 PM EDT
CM-6969
If science is so great and maintains the answer to all of our questions, then which scientist has "created" even a simple blade of grass...
Science doesn't have "all the answers" and never has made that claim, but religion doesn't have "all the answers" either. But science does have a lot more answers than religion does. Science is the search for answers and testing to find and eliminate errors in those answers.
but on the undisputed fact, not fairy tale, of the Resurrection of Jesus
Pronounced dead by people who had not yet discovered what the circulatory system was, and had no idea how to take a pulse. Um, HEY! I dispute it. I call it into question.
Uh... pronounced dead by professional (Roman) soldiers who dealt death every day and whose job was to be sure the guy on the cross was in fact dead. I think a spear into the side would pretty much do the job...
Crucifixion was a horribly effective method of torture, but not very good as a method of execution. Some victims could survive several days writhing in pain before succumbing to blood loss or infection. It is entirely possible that the "vinegar" mentioned was actually laudanum, a opium infused wine that could have rendered Him unconscous. The soldier jabbed him in the side to see if he might be faking death, when there was no response he assumed Jesus was dead, and allowed His followers to entomb the body, as their religious rules required burial of the dead within a day, but didn't allow "work" to be done on the Sabbath.
But the most damning evidence is that the Romans posted a guard at the tomb. Why guard an entombed dead body? Well, if they suspected that it might not be dead after all...
  • 1 vote

#4.15 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 8:03 PM EDT
Thoughts from Cali
I agree Joe. I think science is the work of God. I imagine it happened like this . . .
Man: "So, God, tell me something. How did you create the everything?"
God: "Well that was actually a pretty impressive feat. You see, the universe was basically nothing, so I had these particles flying around. I converged them with gravity, to a point of explosion. This sent larger particles flying around, which converged with themselves into even large planets. Pockets of gas erupted in flames, casting light into the darkness . . . (trails off)"
Man: (empty stare) "Soooo you created darkness, light, and earth."
God: "Well ya, if you want to dumb it down. I guess you could just say that."
Man: "And how long did this take?"
God: "That's a hard question to answer, because your time is relative to the full rotation of earth, and the rotation around the sun. Plus you view time according to a certain cadence of 1, 2, 3. But not being on earth, and not sharing the same cadence, time as you know it does not exist in my realm. What could be thousands of years to you may be only 1 day to me. Get it?"
Man: "Uhhhhhhhh . . . ok. 1 day it is."
God: "That's not really what I was saying. I mean this was a lot of work . . ."
Man: "Soooo, let's say, 7 days."
God: (sigh) "Sure fine."
Man: "And how did you create man?"
God: "Oh, now that was tough. So all I had to work with was the primordial ooze. This was composed of really small atoms, which turned into proteins and cells . . ."
Man: "How small? Like a rock?"
God: "No much smaller. Like the smallest thing here. Anyways, so I took that, and slowly evolved it into . . . (trails off)"
Man: (blank stare) "Ok . . . so man came from something really small. Hmmm, lets say dust."
God: "Again, there was a lot more too it. I think you are missing a big part of this. I mean it wasn't that easy but you are making it sound so simple. Give me some credit here."
Man: "Ya ya . . . so listen, I'm gonna go put this in a book and use it to control the populations. I'll catch you later."
God: "Ummm . . . that's not really the reason I told you this. But, ok . . . letting everyone know can't be that bad. It's not like this stuff will eventually lead to wars or anything."
(thousands of years later)
God: "Crap"
#4.16 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 8:45 PM EDT
Leon Tremmel
Big Thinker I don't argue with folks regarding science vs religion. But all I can tell you is this. My life was unpleasant and I asked Jesus into my heart by Faith and I and my life got much much better. The reason I believe and have Faith is because I got RESULTS just the way the Word of God said I would. The results just keep coming and my Faith keeps on growing. He did what He said He would do and what He said would happen happened. I never argue with results. I am not trying to convince you I am simply relating to you what actually is happening in my relationship with Jesus.
  • 1 vote

#4.17 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 11:51 PM EDTEdFL
There is no logical reason to believe in ancient myths of gods and angels and leprechauns. The universe is natural, not supernatural. It arises from natural, not supernatural processes. We may not understand everything yet...but there is no evidence at all of any supernatural forces. None.
As more questions are answered through science, religion takes a smaller role in Society. Thus, civilization morphs from multi gods to a single Diety. Plus, just because we don't know something, does not support the existence of a Supreme Being.
And given all the wars fought over the Centurys in the name of various religions, ridding ourselves of "God" may be a good thing
  • 5 votes

#5.1 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 7:14 AM EDTA Voice (the real one)
I would have to argue your point Ama.
There have been just as many mass murders and suffering against the name of religion too. Stalin killed more people than Hitler. That doesnot change the fact that the both of them were evil/horrible men. Not because if or in spite of religion. The evil is in the heart of mankind, not in "religion". People will use whatever excuse they can to do the crimes they were going to do anyways. If the one excuse is not able to be used, they'll just find another.
  • 6 votes

#5.2 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 9:17 AM EDT
stedums
"if one excuse is not able to be used, they'll find another" Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld...yada yada yada
#5.3 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 9:55 AM EDT
Hoops McCann
I think that if atheists substitute the words "Creative Intelligence" for the word "God" they will have an easier time understanding the concept of God. It is not too difficult for anyone who studies the sciences to see that the universe and everything in it was created and is intelligent. Intelligence does not have to "come" from something else. Intelligent creative thought is what created everything we know to exist in the physical universe. First the thought, then comes the physical manifestation of that thought through physical and natural laws. Science can and one day will prove this. Belief in God and science are perfectly compatible.
  • 2 votes

#5.4 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 12:07 PM EDT
Lee-479062
The real question is why. Why should the universe exist at all? Science seeks to answer questions on how things function but never does, and cannot, answer the purpose of existence.
#5.5 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 12:08 PM EDTDennis-816242
I think that if atheists substitute the words "Creative Intelligence" for the word "God" they will have an easier time understanding the concept of God.
Big bearded man in the sky that watches every single thing every man, woman, and child does every second of every day. Got it. Understand it. Read the book more than once. Understand that God wants people stoned to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath. Understand that the Sabbath should remain holy. Understand that Saturday is the Sabbath, but the Roman Emporer Constantine gave people the first day of the seven day week off, to the Sabbath migrated and Christians have mostly forgotten. Understand that shoving an aul through the ear of a servant to bind him to the household is acceptable.
I'm just not BELIEVING it.
  • 5 votes

#5.6 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:23 PM EDT
DJ1512
To Dennis-816242 - Awesome post lol!
#5.7 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:37 PM EDT
Bebop Bob
You should listen to George Carlin's riff on the Ten Commandments to put them in (proper?) perspective.
  • 2 votes

#5.8 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 2:00 PM EDT
teryakywind
Understand that the Sabbath should remain holy. Understand that Saturday is the Sabbath, but the Roman Emporer Constantine gave people the first day of the seven day week off, to the Sabbath migrated and Christians have mostly forgotten. Understand that shoving an aul through the ear of a servant to bind him to the household is acceptable.
That is the Judaeic interpretation of God's Law. Modern Christian teachings denounce such treatment of people as inhumane and inherently wrong. What is also wrong is to use ancient Jewish beliefs to criticize modern Christian beliefs. Get it straight
#5.9 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 3:09 PM EDT
christopher michael
exactly EdFL...how much more simple and uncomplicated can it sound?
#5.10 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 3:57 PM EDT
WmRAllen
The real question is why. Why should the universe exist at all? Science seeks to answer questions on how things function but never does, and cannot, answer the purpose of existence
Why not? Perhaps the "purpose" of the universe, if it has one, is simply to exist...
What the arguments all seem to revolve around is not the question of whether or not the universe has a purpose, but whether or not the questioner's life has a purpose. If there is a Creator, then, of course a human life has a meaning and a purpose. But, if there isn't a creator... then of course a human life has a meaning and a purpose. The purpose of a life is to be lived. What more is needed?
#5.11 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 6:42 PM EDTboris-288740
Why is it that man thinks he is the only one who can create? Man creates cities, cars, planes, so-on and so-on. When I look at the things that man did not create, like, evolution, all of nature and man himself, I think of how much love it took to create all of nature and man. I see God every time I look out the window and see the beauty of nature, or my fellow man. Science denies God because he is to blind to see or hear him. I have to admit that man is a physical creature who only understands the things he or she can see, hear, touch, smell or taste. But man has a very hard time understanding his own sprite. I respect Mr. Hawking, because he is gifted with incredible intelligence and has not let his disabilities get in the way of his work. I don't understand why a man who knows how everything was created, even though he cannot see it, or hear it or feel it, be so sure? Man has a lot to learn and understand. God is right in front of us, but we can only see him if we choose to.
  • 6 votes#6 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 12:40 AM EDTTripjack

"but we can only see him if we choose to"
If you can only see him if you choose to, does he actually exist?
Nope.
  • 9 votes

#6.1 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:38 AM EDTBryan S-1754134
I can also go smoke a little something and see lots of things. Doesn't mean they exist.
  • 10 votes

#6.2 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 2:24 AM EDTFormer Sailor, Current Soldier
Do you know what the colonists called the unexplainable? Witches.
The close minded now calls the unexplainable the mysterious ways of God.
Therefore, God does not exist.
It's 2010, I thought our civilization was better than this.
  • 11 votes

#6.3 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 2:54 AM EDTAlumMe
I don't understand why a man who knows how everything was created, even though he cannot see it, or hear it or feel it, be so sure?
He can know that because he has evidence. As to your god (probably the judeao-christian variety), you have no evidence other than the writings of men who were not contemporaries of the fella they call jesus. If someone wrote that stuff today, they'd be in a looney bin or on a terrorism watch list. My guess is that you are not mormon. why aren't you? b/c you probably don't want to believe that a known and convicted con man named joe smith said he found some gold plates in the ground and translated them with special stones into the book of mormon and the pearl of great price. why is that con job any less legitimate than the bizarre tales of rape, pillage, and murder in the name of a "loving" god that we find in the old and new testaments. It's all nuts and the only people who seem to be better off for it are the pink-haired televangelists and the politicians. religion is only a foundation of earthly power and you let yourself be chained down by it - even as it makes you giddy with the idea of rapture.
I'll stick with Santa Claus and the tooth fairy - they never hurt anyone.
  • 12 votes

#6.4 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 4:09 AM EDT
soldier1986
First you need to check your facts before you talk about things. 90% of What you are spewing here is false. You must not do much research before you post things. After reading your post I have to say you are an idiot and in our country it is ok if you want to be an idiot. Just like it is ok if people want to follow God or not. When it is all done for us all we will know then who was right. Enjoy your life of self fulfillment and selfishness.
  • 2 votes

#6.5 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 8:15 AM EDT
AlumMe
soldier1986
Okie-dokie.
  • 2 votes

#6.6 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 9:44 AM EDT
stedums
ditto!!!!
#6.7 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 9:57 AM EDT
Hoops McCann
Tripjack says - "
"but we can only see him if we choose to"
If you can only see him if you choose to, does he actually exist?
Nope."
Actually Tripjack science has already proven you and your statement wrong. Using the highest power microscopes while recording the evidence, scientists recently found subatomic particles that only blinked into existence when they were looking for them or "thinking about them"! When they weren't, the recorded images showed nothing. Only when they turned their attention again to look for them or again "chose to see them", did the recorded images see and record them again. So since they could only see them when they chose to, does that mean that they actually existed? An absolute and verifiable YES! They recorded scientific evidence of the creative power of thought. Amazing how wrong you can be sometimes, isn't it? Belief in God and science are perfectly compatible.
  • 3 votes

#6.8 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 12:33 PM EDT
ThisCracksMeUp
Actually Tripjack science has already proven you and your statement wrong. Using the highest power microscopes while recording the evidence, scientists recently found subatomic particles that only blinked into existence when they were looking for them or "thinking about them"!
Care to share that "evidence" with us?
#6.9 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 4:31 PM EDT
WH-1877367
@ EdFL:
There is no logical reason to believe in ancient myths of gods and angels and leprechauns. The universe is natural, not supernatural. It arises from natural, not supernatural processes. We may not understand everything yet...but there is no evidence at all of any supernatural forces. None.
Define 'natural' and define 'supernatural', eh? How do you explain the well-documented phenomenon of premonitions? ('The Science of Premonitions' by Larry Dossey, MD) I've had many, including the Oklahoma City bombing (exactly 24 hrs. before) and 9/11 (one week before - I moved my 401K to safe-harbor funds on the 10th), Princess Diana's death (10 days beforehand). I've also experienced an instantaneous physical healing, as well as at least one 'loaves and fishes' type miracle in the physical realm. That's only some of my 'evidence.' Are these 'natural' events or supernatural events? If 'natural,' then according to what known physical laws? The best evidence is personal, and that is exactly how God reveals himself to us, personally.
  • 1 vote

#6.10 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 6:11 PM EDT
Jayne-390964
But who defines God... Man. The Bible, the Quaran, all religious documents were written, and re-written...by men. Your argument is hollow.
#6.11 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 8:44 PM EDTIke-1076172
Some good people believe in a god, some good people don't. That's just the way it is and probably always will be. The hardest and most important lesson Americans need to learn today is that it's OK to disagree. And the person who disagrees with you is not evil because he/she doesn't agree with you.
No, only if they say things like "Stephen Hawking is probably a bitter man because of his physical condition and God never restored him." That's pretty evil.
  • 8 votes

#7.1 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 12:54 AM EDT
Tom-2152344
No, Zen, it's his personal observation and opinion, the same as your negative reply is your opinion of his statement.....evil would say something like: "and God will make you suffer because you don't believe He created the Universe"
  • 1 vote

#7.2 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:02 AM EDTTheZenMonkey
Making cruel assumptions and comments about disabled people is evil.
Or perhaps it's simply sour grapes as the gentleman in question will never be able to comprehend the amazing facts of science that Mr. Hawking does. (And of course I'm in no way claiming I will either, but I don't feel the need to make spiteful remarks based on the fact that the man is in a wheelchair.)
If he had said "Mr. Obama is probably a bitter man because he is black and God did not make him white," would you find that offensive to the point of evil? I would. And this is no different.
  • 5 votes

#7.3 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:05 AM EDT
Pondering
Zen - interesting that you chose to state "amazing facts of science that Mr. Hawkings does." - this new book is not fact at all. It is pure hypothesis and theory. Hypothesis and theory does not make a scientific fact.
That is the problem I have with the new science of no God. Because science explains so much of what we can all see and touch, people have begun to trust in science (almost as how they trusted religion) and science is now moving beyond the reality and back into the realm of ideas. That is great, one can not make great discoveries if one does not dream of what hasn't been discovered. The problem is that when people come up with an idea, they immediatley sell it as reality. Since we have learned to trust science so much, so many people just except it.
And science, now being an influence in the world, rather than an educator, is no longer happy with new discoveries, they have to, without facts or basis, destroy any theory that could compromise their own theory. It is not just Science vs. God - you see it all the time Science vs. Science. "Your theory is wrong, sir, mine is correct" - "No Sir, your theory is wrong, mine is correct" - How can either be correct? They are both theories? The Big Bang is a theory. It can not be proven. Cosmic Background Radiation is not proof - it is merely a discovery of a physical reality that people have hypothesized could exist because of a uniform explosion. Maybe, maybe not - not proven because we can't prove their is a big bang.
And Stephen Hawkins, stating that gravity exists so the universe naturally would happen no matter what? Well, that almost throws the Big Bang Theory on its head.
So, I don't think we easily say that someone is not able to "comprehend the amazing facts" - because Hawkins is not offering much fact - he is offering theory (and very entertaining at that).
  • 3 votes

#7.4 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 9:26 AM EDT
bill-1260019
if you think that someone isnt evil because they disagree with you then you havent watched fox news. they demonize anyone that doesnt march in lock step with them.
my most profound religous moment came at the beginning of a "religions of the world class" at a christian college taught by a catholic priest. "even if there wasnt a god man would have created one in his own image". common sense has trumped religion in all cases for me since then. is there a God? i hope there is so the truly evil and greedy will have to spend an eternity in hell for their actions.
  • 1 vote

#7.5 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 9:56 AM EDT
DJ1512
"Whether God exists or not - good men will do good things and evil men will do evil things - but to get good men to do evil things, that takes religion."
  • 1 vote

#7.6 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:31 PM EDT
captainthursday
How about there are so many things coming out of new science that are not testable (string theory, big bang etc. ) that it is becoming a new faith in itself. You need some kind of faith to believe that we all started as some cosmic coincidence. The difference is that science is based on provable facts and there is little leeway to question the validity of results. The vast sum of knowledge gained by the scientific process has been invaluable to the proliferation of human kind. Alot of the new thoeries though are not directly observable (yet). Even though I will take science over religion any day of the week, you have to agree that some things have to be taken on faith. The faith that science will someday be able to answer the questions we have, and I think that religious people need to understand that it is now our faith vs. their faith. You say God did it, I say Science can explain it without god, You say you have faith in God, I have faith in science. In that sense, it makes faith in science no more or less accurate that faith in God, Allah, Buddah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
#7.7 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 3:39 PM EDT
teryakywind
But if you agree to disagree, doesn't that mean you agree?
#7.8 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 3:52 PM EDT
JPrufrock
Bill, the fact that you would actually wish an eternity of conscious burning in fire for people you consider "evil" or "greedy" is overwhelmingly sick. Jesus taught "love your enemy", "bless those who curse you". No wonder people don't take Christianity seriously- how many Christians or church leaders have considered how the very words of Jesus stab a giant hole in their ridiculous views of hell?
I wouldn't wish such a thing as eternal torment on my very worst enemy. But I can't fault you- you are only able to make such a ridiculous comment because you have clearly not even thought about what "eternity" means. Either way, eternal punishment for finite sins is grossly unjust and absurdly out of proportion. And it's a huge reason people simply do not accept this interpretation of Christianity.
If God is Love, and Love keeps no record of wrongs, then eternal hellfire makes no sense.
#7.9 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 6:47 PM EDT
Melvin-2260629
Actually, Hell is technically not a punishment. Sure, it is horrible, it's painful and it sucks. It will for all eternity. But it would be worse to be 'cover in sin' and in God's presence. God is perfect. To clarify, sin means 'to miss the mark' (used in Archery), in other words, imperfect. Anything that is imperfect in God's sight burns worse than the fiery pits of Hell, meaning that Hell is a 'reprieve' from the torture and pain that is caused by Hell (which although labeled as a fiery lake the true torture is being separate from God). In the end, God IS being merciful because although you are being punished (as is just), He is allowing you to be somewhere that is infinitely less painful than being around Him.
#7.10 - Fri Sep 3, 2010 5:43 AM EDT
Mrs. Georgia Peech
Religion is a choice everyone gets to make. You can choose to believe or not believe. As for the opinion of Hawkings...it is like a**holes, everybody has one.
  • 1 vote

#7.11 - Fri Sep 3, 2010 9:23 AM EDT
j-son
EdFL
How would you explain prophecy and its accurate fulfillment in the Bible,the nation of Israel for instance?#8 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 12:53 AM EDT
The Gardener
Prophesy is easy. Finding someone to listen is hard. What of unwritten prophesy?
  • 1 vote

#8.1 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:00 AM EDT
Former Sailor, Current Soldier
Have you ever heard of 'History repeats itself'?
Or what about that quack John Edwards spouting off general questions to make you believe that he is talking to your dead relative?
  • 1 vote

#8.2 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 3:02 AM EDTWes-1021970
Take the batteries out of your mechanical clock, stare closely for 24 hours. If you pay attention and don't blink you'll notice it's correct twice within every 24 hour period. Most things come to pass given enough time waiting for them to occur.
Write a "prophecy" about the founding of a nation based on some group of people and wait a couple of thousand years. If you pay attention and don't blink.....
Or, here's a truly bizarre idea. Maybe the people who founded the nation of Israel had read the bible and got the idea from there? If someone has written about an idea and published it to the whole world why wouldn't someone try to do it at some point to fulfill the prophecy?
Weak minds, simple thoughts, and circular logic, the whole lot of you....
  • 5 votes

#8.3 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 9:43 AM EDT
Ferrosynthesis II
What prophesy? Those written in the bible after the fact? Some prophecy!!
#8.4 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 10:33 AM EDT
karen whiddon
Right on!
#8.5 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 12:31 PM EDT
CM-6969
There are several ways to make accurate predictions without having any actual "prophetic" powers.
One could simply "predict" something that has already been planned. I predict there will be a Presidential Election in November of 2012!
Or one could use predictable natural patterns to make predictions. I predict there will be snowstorms in November in Colorado.
Or one could put forth effort to make a prediction happen. I predict that my yard will have beautiful blossoms next summer. (and then I plant the seeds next spring)
Or the easiest way of all - Retroprediction, or claiming to have predicted the event after it happened! I predicted that George Bush would be re-elected in 2004! (well, not really, but you see how easy it is?)
If all that fails, then make hundreds of predictions in the hopes that one or two are close enough to stick, and hope your followers conveniently forget all the failed predictions.
#8.6 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 9:49 PM EDTTom-2152344
And I suppose Stephen, that you decided when you were to be born and on precisely what day you will die? No, my friend, it is God who determines everything that has happened and what will occur in this Universe.
  • 5 votes#9 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 12:56 AM EDTTripjack

ROFL.
Get yourself to a mental institution.
  • 8 votes

#9.1 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:40 AM EDTAlumMe
No, my friend, it is God who determines everything that has happened and what will occur in this Universe.
What happened to the christian notion of free will? if there is no free will, how can someone be condemned to eternal hellfire for something that he had no control over? what about a psychopath who is mentally disturbed? Did god will that person to do evil things to other people and then will send that unwitting sap to hell for something he had no control over? that's sick and if that was my own biological father, i would reject him and have nothing to do with him. if my own dad told me to kill my daughter to show my love for him and then say, "just testing!" - what kind of lunacy is that?
To be clear, I have no issue with people who want to believe in a higher power. That's your business (free will?). But when your religion starts to encroach in my own affairs, be they politics or anything else, well that's where I say, "NO! The lunacy stops here."
  • 9 votes

#9.2 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 4:27 AM EDT
captainthursday
If it were up to God, Stephen Hawking would have died 40 years ago due to his condition. Science has helped him live far beyond his initail diagnosis. Or is it God's will that he continue living in perpetual pain for his heretical ways? Or If God is all powerful then He is the one that is giving Dr Hawking the inspiration for the thoeries he has come up with. So which is it? Is God punishing him or controlling him. Do Hawkings theories come from divine inspiration or from a deep seated understanding of the laws of physics?
  • 1 vote

#9.3 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 3:48 PM EDTAbyssoft
aThe "Purpose" of religion is to explain God the creator, or for polytheist gods.
The "Purpose" of science is to explain the creation.
I still hold Dr. Hawking in highest esteem, for the work he has done on the second part.
The lack of evidence does not provide proof of lack of the thing itself. argumentum ad ignorantiam
Argument from Ignorance (a logical fallacy)
General forms of the argument:
  1. P has never been disproven therefore P is/(must be) true.
  2. P has never been proven therefore P is/(must be) false.

Personal aside...
Dr. Hawking, I must admit that it does pain me some that I cannot at this time expect to see you in what I believe to be the hereafter based on your expressed ideology. I wish you further success and peace.
Good post. Just because God's existence has never been proven by scientific methods does not mean that there is no god, or that God's existence will not be proven in the future. To illustrate, ask yourself this: What did we breathe before oxygen was "discovered" by science?
  • 6 votes

#10.1 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 11:02 AM EDT
DJ1512
flbikerchick - that is probably the most ignorant post I've ever seen on a forum board - and I've seen plenty (many of them today on this board). Get off your bike and go take a basic science class.
  • 1 vote

#10.2 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:44 PM EDT
C HAMPTON
The very God Mr. Hawking says we don't need will be the God that judges him after he dies., because when he saw the universe he did not see the wonder of the Almighty God, he saw his own reflection. Believing he was God.
  • 2 votes

#10.3 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 5:27 PM EDTmtsr1
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," Hawking and his co-author, Caltech physicist Leonard Mlodinow, write
If theres nothing, nothing at all, anywhere, then that would include a law of gravity not existing as well,
therefore the universe could not create itself out of nothing.
  • 7 votes#11 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:00 AM EDT

Tripjack
Learn to read before you comment.
  • 4 votes

#11.1 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:41 AM EDT
Phil Commander
The one problem I have with scientist and those who esteem them is that they can only believe in what they can prove. They can't prove the spirit world so they feel it does not exist. They are unable to say "we can't prove their is a spirit world...but it may still exist".
The universe (and life) is far more complex than they can imagine and it is a shame that their inability to grasp and believe in things that they can't prove leads them to turn their science into their religion.
  • 2 votes#12 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:03 AM EDT

Ben-1268009
The one problem I have with scientist and those who esteem them is that they can only believe in what they can prove. They can't prove the spirit world so they feel it does not exist.
They can't prove 11 dimenions exist either, but they believe they do because if they do then maybe there's not a god. Or even that maybe they haven't yet found a solution that fits a 4-dimension universe and that they'll have to think about it differently and come up with a different solution.
#12.1 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:17 AM EDTTripjack
You believe in things you can't prove?
I have a bridge in Manhattan I want to sell you. Really, I do. I can't prove it, but I do.
  • 5 votes

#12.2 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:42 AM EDTPhil Commander
Yes, I believe in things I can't prove when there is evidence of its existence. Evidence is not proof. Scientist will only accept evidence that fits into their view of the world...one that is devoid of a spirit world. I believe that there is an amazing body of evidence that a spirit world does exist...but it is rejected by scientist and their supporters because it presents a conflict with their view of the universe.
I don't hate them for that or anything...I just wish they could experience the universe and life in its fullness (not foolishness which unfortunately is their view).
  • 7 votes

#12.3 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 2:44 AM EDT
livinginwoodstock74
You know (maybe not), there are many scientists who have faith in the divine and attend worship. But they know the difference between an objective understanding of the universe (i.e. an objective examination of God's creation) and a faith-based understanding of the universe. In particular, they understand what constitutes scientific evidence, which as such does not depend on someone's world view to exist (yes, I take the liberty of speaking for those scientists).
They know the difference between what can be scientifically demonstrated and what relies upon an assumption of the existence of God. Do you know the difference? Given that difference, is it fair for people to insist that others accept an argument that relies on the existence of God, which is tantamount to forcing others to have a particular belief?
  • 4 votes

#12.4 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 5:25 AM EDTShawn in AZ
This makes me sad. Our education system has really not done a good job of teaching science.
Science explains nature through observation. "I see it, I test it, from the evidence of my testing I form a point of view. I explain that point of view and other people test it. The community discusses the evidence and debates what it means. Eventually a consensus is reached on what the evidence means. Sometimes other evidence is found that contradicts aspects of the point of view we had. The process repeats itself and we adjust the consensus point of view to fit the new evidence."
Carl Sagan: "Science delivers the goods."
Things that we have a lot of evidence for and, therefore, accept as reliable aspects of nature (true).
-Gravity
-Quantum Mechanics
-Germ theory (microbes cause disease)
-EVOLUTION
-The Sun is the center of the solar system
Reigion explains naturre through indoctrination and authoritarianism: "Someone in authority (parents, preacher, politician) told me this is how it is and I will either dismiss or persecute anyone who tells me different."
Is this really the 21st century?
  • 6 votes

#12.5 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 10:18 AM EDT
jabbausaf
You're confusing religious faith with scientific fact. Scientists don't believe as fact anything that can't be proven (especially if it has no evidence) because it can't be proven. They may be religious, but religion and science are rightly two very separate things. When you try to forcibly apply the moral guidelines and theological philosophy of religion to the real world, the physical world, it makes as much sense as saying that you have faith that 2+2=5, so 2+2=5.
#12.6 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 10:22 AM EDT
Ferrosynthesis II
Scientist will only accept evidence that fits into their view of the world...one that is devoid of a spirit world
Phil You do not understand science. Science will only accept a view of the world that is consistent with the evidence.
Big difference.
Your claim is in fact a biased claim that is promoted mostly by those for political or some other reasons need to denigrate science, while using their computers......funny actually.
  • 1 vote

#12.7 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 10:38 AM EDT
rch101196
Spirit world! Ghosts and faeries! Ogres and gods! Vampires and werewolves! Sea monsters and devils! Omnipotence! Creation! Religion!
  • 2 votes

#12.8 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 11:16 AM EDT
collapseofamerica
Yet science has not been able to prove yours or anyone elses theory. For any human to disprove God we must understand completely the workings of everything around us. Until then it is just speculation. Man kind is thousands of years from understanding the workings of the universe. Do you really think we could have begun to scratch the surface of knowledge over a few hundred years when the universe has taken billions to create? Who says there was a big bang? It has never been proven. Very little science is proven on fact. When a man can create the power of a vastly superior human being then I will review and replicate your theory. Until then, it remains your opinion versus mine. Nothing more and nothing less. Remember, we set the standard for what we believe to be fact. We have nothing to base this on except for opinion. Since none of these questions will be answered in mine or your life time, better hope that whatever side you choose is correct. Morality as we know it would have never made it this far without the belief in a higher power. Those who think so are as ignorant as anyone else. No one on this planet can prove or disprove God or science for that matter. One thing I can assure you of, if we ever find a higher life form out there, everything we have believed to be fact will not stand on a childs thought.
  • 2 votes

#12.9 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 12:28 PM EDT
collapseofamerica
jabba, your an idiot and there is no other explanation. If science only spoke of facts then they would not have much to talk about. Again, we set the standard. How do you know it is right?
  • 1 vote

#12.10 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 12:31 PM EDT
jabbausaf
Apparently the answer to "what would Jesus do" is "hurl childish insults"
I can see debate with you would be as fruitful as the fig tree in Mark 11:13.
#12.11 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:58 PM EDT
ddhartma
Tripjack Stated: "You believe in things you can't prove?
I have a bridge in Manhattan I want to sell you. Really, I do. I can't prove it, but I do."
I find this funny as it could be written to those on the side of science or those on the side of theology, as neither has the ability to "prove" their beliefs at this time.
  • 1 vote

#12.12 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 3:42 PM EDT
Barry-NJ
For any human to disprove God we must understand completely the workings of everything around us.
collapseofamerica ... it is not necessary to "disprove" God. Instead, it is necessary to "prove" the existence of God.
#12.13 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 9:30 PM EDT
Tom-2152344
Stephen, have you ever read the book "The Evidence That Demands A Verdict"?
  • 1 vote#13 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:05 AM EDT

jabbausaf
I suspect Hawking prefers nonfiction books.
I also suspect Josh McDowell discovered there was a lot more money in fleecing the unquestioning faithful than in being an agnostic. Smart guy, he was right about that much at least.
  • 3 votes

#13.1 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 9:55 AM EDT
ddhartma
jabbausaf,
You speak as if you believe that Hawking has written a book based on facts, but he really has done nothing more than posed a hypothetical proposition and provides no proof of it being more than a theory. Is this of greater truth than "fiction".
  • 1 vote

#13.2 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 3:48 PM EDT
rova
Man (like Hawking) need understand himself to understand creation. Present truths have all been written in the Bible before science made assertions about them.#14 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:07 AM EDTJohn S-400329
The bible was written by men, in the bronze age... a time when man knew almost nothing about the way the Universe worked. That goes a long way towards explaining why the bible is so scientifically inacurate its not even funny.
If you honestly open a bible and expect to find "facts" about... well, anything really you are an irrational person incapable of intelligent thought. Its not an attack on religious belife, but an attack on fundamentalist beliefe that the bible has some great significance other then a collection of stories from the mind of early men trying to explain how things worked without and knowledge.
As an example: The people who wrote the bible also believed witch craft was real, that god told them to hunt down the witchs, that keeping slaves was good (its even in the bible if you actually read it), that sea monsters were an actual threat, and that the earth was the center of the universe.... and the bible goes along with all of these things which we now know to be false, or morally wrong. Yet you claim it had the answers before modern science? Try actually reading the bible.
  • 15 votes

#14.1 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:17 AM EDTTheZenMonkey
Yes, and once upon a time we thought ill humors and evil spirits caused disease. Today we know about bacteria and viruses.
  • 6 votes

#14.2 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:24 AM EDTSean-336944
Right. For being an omniscient God, you'd think He could explain science better than a six year old could, wouldn't you? And yet, there's His literal word in the Bible... You've got to admit, Hawking's ability to articulate it pretty much schools God's attempts, and He's had a few billion more years to revise His own theories compared to Hawking's 50 some-odd. Just saying.
  • 5 votes

#14.3 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:50 AM EDT
voice of reason-2248957
john s----you can't possibly be that uneducated with the bible that when you make reference to the lack of "facts" by the bronze age men that you should also acknowledge all the "facts" that were known thousands of years BEFORE the bronze age ie., exact mathematical formulas developed by men using sticks and dirt to promulgate the Pythagoran theory, Archimides and the radius of the circle, etc. More ancient cities and artifacts have recently been located EXACTLY where the bible said they were to be. the same could be said for the prophecies that have come true also-------why isn't science and mr. hawking explaining that it was really gravity that put these findings in these locations after the big bang happened because the gravity knew that the bible would be written thousands of years later and people needed a way to prove that the bible was factual.
  • 3 votes

#14.4 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 2:29 AM EDTinthegrae
I'm sure in a few thousand years, when they find that New York City is exactly where Marvel said it was that Spiderman will be held as a factual story of heroism. Even better will be the hunt to locate Gotham City once comic books are considered gospel.
  • 12 votes

#14.5 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 3:17 AM EDT
bill-1260019
i think the bible makes reference to the world being flat like a circle instead of a ball. the defenders state that circle means spherical, but that is a really big stretch.
  • 1 vote

#14.6 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 10:01 AM EDT
Big thinker-2291415
I thought God said the world would end in 2000? I had lots of people on the street telling me so.... Glad he's got his "facts" straight.... I guess 2012 is the new big apocalypse date... I'm not holding my breath
  • 1 vote

#14.7 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 10:22 AM EDTjabbausaf
@inthegrae
I can just see it, 10,000 years from now:
"Unlike other contemporary books, these were often kept preserved in protective plastic coverings. As early man had only just recently discovered plastic, these works must have had great importance, like an ancient king buried in a coffin of gold. Clearly they were important religious works documenting the acts of the heroic prophets. Using these works as a guide, we have discovered the holy City of New York!"
"We located a hill with a cave in it, near the ancient ruins of a mansion, and despite what the secular nonheroicists would want you to believe, we think the evidence points to this being the Bat Cave spoken of in the Book of Batman, and the nearby metropolitan area would then have been Gotham. This was further verified by the discovery in the metropolitan area of a decks of 'playing cards' with a 'Joker' in them, and a number of ancient video recording discs chronicling the life of the Holy Batman."
  • 5 votes

#14.8 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 10:24 AM EDT
collapseofamerica
John, you need to read. Everything you stated is inaccurate. The idiots speaking with false authority. Glad you don`t speak for me. You have yet to make any common sense.
  • 2 votes

#14.9 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 12:34 PM EDT
collapseofamerica
jabba, still an idiot. Become engaged in the coversation. Your a poor example of what any human being should ascribe to be.
  • 2 votes

#14.10 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 12:36 PM EDT
karen whiddon
Very funny! Only a true nerd comic book collector can appreciate this! We have written some of our own comics depicting scenarios very similar to this. As chronicled in the 'zine FKA and the comic, The Universe of Mr Phoosy. (And I'm an old retired grandma, but I love a good comic book.)
#14.11 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 12:53 PM EDT
jabbausaf
collapse:
Proverbs 12:18 - There is one whose rash words are like sword thrusts, but the tongue of the wise brings healing.
Colossians 3:8 - But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips.
Ephesians 4:31-32 - Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.
I'd put more weight behind the credibility of Christianity if more purported Christians read their Bibles and lived by it. Your hypocrisy puts the lie to your proclaimed beliefs.
  • 1 vote

#14.12 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 2:05 PM EDT
Bebop Bob
We need to heed the good words of Theodoric of York!
Theodoric of York: Well, I'll do everything humanly possible. Unfortunately, we barbers aren't gods. You know, medicine is not an exact science, but we are learning all the time. Why, just fifty years ago, they thought a disease like your daughter's was caused by demonic possession or witchcraft. But nowadays we know that Isabelle is suffering from an imbalance of bodily humors, perhaps caused by a toad or a small dwarf living in her stomach.
Theodoric of York: Yes. The Caladrius Bird is placed beside a patient. If the bird looks at a patient's face, she will live; but if it looks at her feet, she will die. Okay, now, Freddy, come on out. [ unleashes bird from cage, but it just flies off ] I don't know how to interpret that.
Theodoric of York: Wait a minute. Perhaps she's right. Perhaps I've been wrong to blindly follow the medical traditions and superstitions of past centuries. Maybe we barbers should test these assumptions analytically, through experimentation and a "scientific method". Maybe this scientific method could be extended to other fields of learning: the natural sciences, art, architecture, navigation. Perhaps I could lead the way to a new age, an age of rebirth, a Renaissance! [ thinks for a minute ] Naaaaaahhh!
Announcer: Tune in next week for another episode of "Theodoric of York: Medieval Barber", when you'll hear Theodoric say:
Theodoric of York: A little bloodletting and some boar's vomit, and he'll be fine!
  • 3 votes

#14.13 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 2:08 PM EDT
Barry-NJ
More ancient cities and artifacts have recently been located EXACTLY where the bible said they were to be.
My favorite author of detective stories sets her books in real places. One of her books, set in Louisville, had the major landmarks and roads all in the right location, for instance. Yet, none of that means that the events and people chronicled in her books are real.
#14.14 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 9:37 PM EDTRakesh Sharma
Mr Hawking,
I think we don't understand the universe at all to answer whether God is needed or not. We can't even explain the big bang well or why it happened at all. Or what the 95% of the universe is made of. Or why there should be a universe at all. We'll need much more time to answer this, if at all we can. You recently threw another curveball when you said, we need to get off Earth by 2110. And now this. Maybe you are done doing useful science and want people to listen to you because you're a celebrity physicist?
There is nothing wrong with pondering about God's role in our lives, we all do it. But I thought a bright man like you would think several times before passing such a quick judgement, knowing well that we started to study science just 5000 year ago. Blissful ignorance!
There is nothing wrong with pondering about God's role in our lives, we all do it.
I stopped pondering about God's role in my life at age 7 when it was obvious he was as fake as the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.
Blissful ignorance indeed. How's all that faith BS working out for ya?
  • 10 votes

#15.1 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:44 AM EDT
Sean-336944
What is "useful science" exactly - counting the number of angels dancing on the tip of a pin? Exactly how much time do you feel before I'm ready to understand what Hawking is articulating? You decide for yourself when you're ready, you keep your eyes closed, capiche?
What is there to fear by what Hawking's theories expose to you? Gallileo met the same response as you give to him as he received from the omniscient Church. Would you deny Gallileo's findings today?
I only have questions for you, but I know I can only expect some sort of answer from someone like Hawking. As it has always been with religion - you learn nothing from it or from the people involved.
  • 1 vote

#15.2 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:59 AM EDT
green lion
sharma- umm..the universe is made up of matter, like us and everything else around us (with the exception of anti-matter-the opposite-without which matter would not exist) and as a matter of fact we don't all ponder god and existence. Glancing at these comments those of us not pondering god seem to be outweighing those that do, so please don't speak for us all. And on the topic of quick judgement..well I wouldn't even know where to begin, there are just too many examples of a church or religion passing judgement, crucifying and/or terrorizing.
  • 1 vote

#15.3 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 9:17 AM EDT
collapseofamerica
trip will be the first one crying the loudest. Idiot, go tongue punch your buddies fart box and leave the conversation to people who have a valid opinion.
  • 2 votes

#15.4 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 12:38 PM EDT
collapseofamerica
Sean would be the smartest of us all. Better listen to the wisdom. regardless of the fact he can prove none of it. Must have been that professor he had a crush on. Whisper sweet wisdom in his ear.
  • 1 vote

#15.5 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 12:40 PM EDT
Rakesh Sharma
green lion wrote:-
..the universe is made up of matter, like us and everything else around us (with the exception of anti-matter-the opposite-without which matter would not exist) and as a matter of fact we don't all ponder god and existence. Glancing at these comments those of us not pondering god seem to be outweighing those that do, so please don't speak for us all.
Glancing at these comments on this forum to decide whether people pondering over God outweigh that don't is not the right sampling, in my opinion. You need to look at people across all nations/cultures on Earth to find out if the majority believe in a God. I think they do and to each his own.
The universe is made of matter etc, but that doesn't say anything about God. And I doubt physical science can ever prove or disprove the existence of God or intelligent design. Science is based on objective methods and profess "I don't know" when asked about God. Which is why its based on inquiry. Religious people forgo the power of "I don't know" and prefer faith. This debate is never ending.
Bottomline - Humankind is like a baby out of the crib and has a lot to learn. We devise mathematics and crude physical laws to explain this amazingly complex universe and it calls for humility when we cannot explain so much. But Dr Hawking doesn't seem to show such with his sweeping statements.
#15.6 - Fri Sep 3, 2010 7:13 AM EDT
Kibz
When we look at the universe and add up all the forms of positive and negative energies in the universe we arrive at 0 net energy. What does that tell us about the first state of the universe when it was all together? Simply put existence is the the fluctuation between the positive and negative energies of the universe.
or
1 + (-1) = 0
The universe is a imbalance between these forces. Eventually due to the laws of thermodynamics the universe will return to that balance at some future point and will cease to be. Time is and space are mearly measurements we use to measure the universes increasing entropy and are meaningless when the universe returns to maximum entropy.
Finally to answer the question what created the imbalance, maximum entropy means maximum entropy fluctuations will always occur and universe's are popping in to existence and falling back into the chaos all the "time". Existence is inevitable...
  • 3 votes#16 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:08 AM EDT

inthegrae
Kibz, I'm not on the religious side of things at all, but what you just did was present a theory as infallible fact. Considering we're trying to show the Bible thumpers that they are pushing belief as infallible fact, I'd say this is counterproductive. lol
I just got done telling Apostle Rick that he needs to pray for some humility. I'm starting to think science needs to also. Even with all that we can observe and our best efforts to understand the universe, most of our conclusions are still theories, no matter how widely accepted. Don't make the mistake of falling into scientific dogma. It is much worse than religious dogma because science is the key to our progression, and if we get mired in near truth instead of keeping our minds open to possibilties, we may stunt that progress.
  • 3 votes

#16.1 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 2:59 AM EDT
Shawn in AZ
Well put!
Science is a tool we use to understand nature. It is not meant to be an ideaology.
The idea of there not being a god is not a scientific theory, it's atheism.
Science is not a religion. Religion is not a science.
  • 1 vote

#16.2 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 11:42 AM EDTAl-2290517
Religious people are like children trying to be convinced by a stranger that Santa Claus isn't real, they will come up with all sorts of rationalizations on how his miracles are created.
  • 9 votes#17 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:16 AM EDT

CM-6969
Worse, it is sometimes like parents making up stuff to convince their children that Santa Claus exists!
And then believing their own tall tales...
#17.1 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 10:10 PM EDTfeedotter
Man created God to explain things which are not understood and because of a need to believe they don't just die but somehow their spirit goes to a better (or worse) place. Personally I've outgrown fairy tales.
  • 9 votes#18 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:18 AM EDT

Tripjack
Amen to that!
Stop being scared of death and God suddenly becomes a lot less necessary. Remember what it was like before you were born? That's what Death is like.
  • 2 votes

#18.1 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:46 AM EDT
Sean-336944
Tripjack - you mean death is in black and white? That's not so bad I guess, but I'll be really cheesed if it's in sepia. ;)
  • 3 votes

#18.2 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 2:03 AM EDT
green lion
fairy tales indeed. As adults we are supposed to outgrow them, yet hollywood is always retelling them to give us that warm fuzzy feeling all over. Kind of like humans making up tales of religion, learning the truth in sceince, but still retelling them over and over.. personally i'm over warm fuzzies, knowing that i'm just a little speck on a tiny planet orbiting an average star is comforting enough.
  • 1 vote

#18.3 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 9:04 AM EDT
karen whiddon
Is it reasonable to be afraid of death? Of a painful death, yes, but of the nothingness that follows? Why? Why should an adult who has lived a few years fear the approaching cessation of being? I am confused about this.
  • 1 vote

#18.4 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:02 PM EDT
thinkoutsidethebox-2290522
If time is curvilinear, then there need not be a begining and end. The problem is that we humans cannot comprehend this because of the limitations of our thought process....which has been shaped into a box. We have always been taught that time should have a begining and end. Think outside the box! Invoking God has always been the lazy answer to scientific questions - none of which is necessarily by God's choice, but by the mere mortals that don't have the answers. God can coexist, for those that choose, but he doesn't need to tread on science.
  • 3 votes#19 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:18 AM EDT

ddhartma
It's interesting that a scientific argument can be made that time has no beginning and no end, but then it is argued by many that an eternal God could never exist.
  • 2 votes

#19.1 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 4:00 PM EDT
D DeMilo
regardless your belief or disbelief in God or creationism, starting with a conclusion and postulating a theory backwards to support it is always bad science. add this to his latest on E.T.'s and I would have to wonder if he hasn't taken a walk off the map.
  • 3 votes#20 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:25 AM EDT

Tripjack
Go back to high school and take science again, I think you missed a few years.
  • 3 votes

#20.1 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:48 AM EDT
Sean-336944
DeMilo, can you say 'hypothesis?'
#20.2 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 2:05 AM EDT
captainthursday
So an Picture they had in Discovery mag recently showed direct imaging (in the infrared) of aprox one billion galaxies in one shot. Think about that, a billion seperate galaxies that each have the potential for 100 billion stars. With that much substance out there it is the height of ego to believe that we are the only planet in existance with some kind of life on it. With enough time the near impossible becomes almost guaranteed. If there's only a one in a billion chance that a planet has life on it (in any form) then there should be 100 planets in our galaxy alone that harbor life. Times that by a billion galaxies and you can see where I'm going. And to say that if God made us then he must have made them too is not gonna fly. I think the odds are on ET's side.
#20.3 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 5:26 PM EDTLisa Varley
Man created"God".
Man created"God". Period.
  • 9 votes#22 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:28 AM EDTAlumMe

And man created religion because it was a good way to scare people and control their lives and resources.
  • 11 votes

#22.1 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 4:38 AM EDTTuna-1135982
I'd like to be a mouse in the corner when, one day, you stand before the Creator of the Universe and tell Him we created Him.
  • 6 votes

#22.2 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 9:46 AM EDT
Larry-554572
If your concept of God created the universe, is he really so petty and so vindictive that he would punish one of his perfect creations for using the brain that He gave him? Is your God that insecure that everybody has to pick him for their dodge ball team? Seems to me, if I created the universe, I'd be a little more understanding. Just sayin....
  • 4 votes

#22.3 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 10:15 AM EDT
Jim-372206
Tuna,,, You can't talk to spirits... Spiritualism is a man made construct created from social needs & the politics of the time --- OMG,,,, Christianity is "Socialism", we are all dooomed
  • 2 votes

#22.4 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 10:47 AM EDT
Dennis-816242
Man created"God". Period.
Oh right! There you go, blame the men! I say it's WOMAN's fault! :P
#22.5 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:51 PM EDT
elijahblue
There is no basis for "God." Too many religions have a supreme "being." Only man communicated these "beings" existence....folklore. These folklores hold forth hope that we will be more in death than we are in life so that life can continue after the finality of death.
#22.6 - Fri Sep 3, 2010 7:56 AM EDTBenignFun
Hawking's quote and book present a cogent, well articulated case for a rational person to consider, evaluate and to reconcile with their own beliefs and perspectives. His claim is that we can use our current level of understanding to satisfactorily explain the origin of the universe and the source of our own common misunderstandings about the origin of the universe.
His case is laid out for anyone to examine and he presents his logic and evidence in a very clear headed manner. It's wonderful he has such a gift of insight and the skill to communicate it.
Within Hawking's paradigm there's no need to use a supernatural being to tell a complete narrative of the origin of all the beauty and majesty we see in the universe and there's a profound regard for the awe inspiring capacity of man to grasp some of the fundamental forces of nature that shape everything we see and experience. It's a deeply satisfying, empowering and humbling perspective of who we are, what we're capable of and what lies behind what we behold with our senses and our mind.
Inside Hawking's paradigm is also this wonderful sense of exploration that out understanding is unfolding and that new discoveries and insight that are coming will reveal another layer of the beauty and take us even deeper. He sees the gaps are the exciting places yet to go.
I personally find all this as at least as meaningful and satisfying as my relationship with a universal spiritual force and far more soul/mind nourishing than any past relationship I've had with a religion. I appreciate all that Stephen has given us with his gifts. It's inspiring to see what human beings are capable of, thorugh his example.
  • 6 votes#23 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:30 AM EDT

captainthursday
I agree and I wonder how many people who deride him and his theories will even take the time to read his books.
For the record I have read his Breif history of time, the Universe in a Nutshell, also The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins and I've read the bible.
#23.1 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 5:32 PM EDTkeith-423973
Next time you hear a piece of religious music or experience any art form that brings tears to your eyes with the beauty of the idea of God, try this: Think to yourself, "people made that". That's right, people created the whole thing. All religion. Everything about it, good and bad. They made up the stories, they wrote the books, they burned people at the stake and they sacrificed for the good of others. We did it. Humans did it.
Ya, Man made God in his own Image.
  • 6 votes#25 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:33 AM EDT

AlumMe
a white guy. what a coincidence.
  • 3 votes

#25.1 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 4:58 AM EDT
karen whiddon
God is white? First time I've heard that one. Funny how all of mankind is thought to have originated in Africa. Don't think those folks were white. If they were, they were all dying of skin cancer.
#25.2 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:08 PM EDT
apples and apples
I love it... Man made God in his own image. That sort of says it all. I consider myself agnostic. I would never begin to try to put words to something no one can understand. I do not believe that God is a human being in the sky. A force, yes. We have tried to pin all kinds of human attributes on God. I do not believe in the gods of our own making.
#25.3 - Thu Sep 2, 2010 1:42 PM EDT
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/09/01/5028472-hawking-says-gods-not-needed-so

God

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the term "God" in the context of monotheism and henotheism. For the general polytheistic concept, see Deity. For other uses, see God (disambiguation).
Part of a series on
God

General conceptions
Atheism · Deism · Henotheism
Monolatrism · Monotheism · Panentheism
Pantheism · Polytheism · Transtheism

Specific conceptions
Creator · Architect · Demiurge · Devil
Sustainer · Lord · Father · Monad
Oneness · Supreme Being · The All
Personal · Unitarianism · Ditheism · Trinity
in Abrahamic religions
(Bahá'í Faith, Christianity, Islam, Judaism)
in Ayyavazhi · in Buddhism · in Hinduism
in Jainism · in Sikhism · in Zoroastrianism

Attributes
Eternalness · Existence · Gender
Names (God) · Omnibenevolence
Omnipotence · Omnipresence · Omniscience

Experience and practices
Faith · Prayer · Belief · Revelation
Fideism · Gnosis · Metaphysics
Mysticism · Hermeticism · Esotericism

Related topics

Philosophy · Religion · Ontology
God complex · Neurotheology
Euthyphro dilemma · Problem of evil
Portrayal in popular media
List of religious texts

This box: view • talk • edit

God is the English name given to the singular omnipotent being in theistic and deistic religions (and other belief systems) who is either the sole deity in monotheism, or a single deity in polytheism.[1]

God is most often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. God has also been conceived as being incorporeal, a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent".[1] These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologian philosophers, including Maimonides,[2] Augustine of Hippo,[2] and Al-Ghazali,[3] respectively. Many notable medieval philosophers and modern philosophers developed arguments for the existence of God.[3] Many notable philosophers and intellectuals have, in contrast, developed arguments against the existence of God.

Contents

[hide]

Etymology and usage

Main article: God (word)

The earliest written form of the Germanic word god comes from the 6th century Christian Codex Argenteus. The English word itself is derived from the Proto-Germanic * ǥuđan. Most linguists agree that the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European form * ǵhu-tó-m was based on the root * ǵhau(ə)-, which meant either "to call" or "to invoke".[4] The Germanic words for god were originally neuter—applying to both genders—but during the process of the Christianization of the Germanic peoples from their indigenous Germanic paganism, the word became a masculine syntactic form.[5]

The capitalized form God was first used in Ulfilas's Gothic translation of the New Testament, to represent the Greek Theos. In the English language, the capitalization continues to represent a distinction between monotheistic "God" and "gods" in polytheism.[6][7] In spite of significant differences between religions such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, the Bahá'í Faith, and Judaism, the term "God" remains an English translation common to all. The name may signify any related or similar monotheistic deities, such as the early monotheism of Akhenaten and Zoroastrianism.

When used in English within a community with a common monotheistic background, "God" always refers to the deity they share. Those with a background in different Abrahamic religions will usually agree on the deity they share, while still differing on details of belief and doctrine—they will disagree about attributes of [the] God, rather than thinking in terms of "my God" and "your (different) God".

Names of God

Main article: Names of God

Conceptions of God can vary widely, but the word God in English—and its counterparts in other languages, such as Latinate Deus, Greek Θεός, Slavic Bog, Sanskrit Ishvara, or Arabic Allah—are normally used for any and all conceptions. The same holds for Hebrew El, but in Judaism, God is also given a proper name, the tetragrammaton (usually reconstructed as Yahweh or YHWH, or Jehovah), believed to be a mark of the religion's henotheistic origins. In many translations of the Bible, when the word "LORD" is in all capitals, it signifies that the word represents the tetragrammaton.[8] God may also be given a proper name in monotheistic currents of Hinduism which emphasize the personal nature of God, with early references to his name as Krishna-Vasudeva in Bhagavata or later Vishnu and Hari.[9] For aboriginal Guanches (Tenerife, Spain) God is called Achamán.[10]

It is difficult to distinguish between proper names and epitheta of God, such as the names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament, the names of God in the Qur'an, and the various lists of the thousand names of Hindu gods and List of titles and names of Krishna in Vaishnavism.

Throughout the Hebrew and Christian Bible there are many names for God that portray his (God is always characterised as male) nature and character. One of them is elohim,[11][12]. Another one is El Shaddai, meaning "God Almighty".[13] A third notable name is El Elyon, which means "The Most High God".[14]

Conceptions of God

Main article: Conceptions of God
Detail of Sistine Chapel fresco Creation of the Sun and Moon by Michelangelo (c. 1512), a well known example of the depiction of God the Father in Western art.

Conceptions of God vary widely. Theologians and philosophers have studied countless conceptions of God since the dawn of civilization. The Abrahamic conceptions of God include the monotheistic definition of God in Judaism, the trinitarian view of Christians, and the Islamic concept of God. The dharmic religions differ in their view of the divine: views of God in Hinduism vary by region, sect, and caste, ranging from monotheistic to polytheistic to atheistic; the view of God in Buddhism is almost non-theist. In modern times, some more abstract concepts have been developed, such as process theology and open theism. Conceptions of God held by individual believers vary so widely that there is no clear consensus on the nature of God.[15] The contemporaneous French philosopher Michel Henry has however proposed a phenomenological approach and definition of God as phenomenological essence of Life.[16]

Existence of God

Main article: Existence of God

Many arguments which attempt to prove or disprove the existence of God have been proposed by philosophers, theologians, and other thinkers for many centuries. In philosophical terminology, such arguments concern schools of thought on the epistemology of the ontology of God.

There are many philosophical issues concerning the existence of God. Some definitions of God are sometimes nonspecific, while other definitions can be self-contradictory. Arguments for the existence of God typically include metaphysical, empirical, inductive, and subjective types, while others revolve around perceived holes in evolutionary theory and order and complexity in the world. Arguments against the existence of God typically include empirical, deductive, and inductive types. Conclusions reached include: "God does not exist" (strong atheism); "God almost certainly does not exist"[17] (de facto atheism); "no one knows whether God exists" (agnosticism); "God exists, but this cannot be proven or disproven" (weak theism); and "God exists and this can be proven" (strong theism). There are numerous variations on these positions.

Some theologians, such as the scientist and theologian A.E. McGrath, argue that the existence of God cannot be adjudicated on for or against by using scientific method.[18][19] Agnostic Stephen Jay Gould argues that science and religion are not in conflict and do not overlap. (Non-overlapping magisteria)

Theological approaches

Main article: Theology

Theologians and philosophers have ascribed a number of attributes to God, including omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, perfect goodness, divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. God has been described as incorporeal, a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the greatest conceivable being existent.[1] These attributes were all claimed to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and Muslim scholars, including St Augustine,[2] Al-Ghazali,[3] and Maimonides.[2]

Many medieval philosophers developed arguments for the existence of God,[3] while attempting to comprehend the precise implications of God's attributes. Reconciling some of those attributes generated important philosophical problems and debates. For example, God's omniscience may seem to imply that God knows how free agents will choose to act. If God does know this, their apparent free will might be illusory, or foreknowledge does not imply predestination; and if God does not know it, God may not be omniscient.[20]

However, if by its essential nature, free will is not predetermined, then the effect of its will can never be perfectly predicted by anyone, regardless of intelligence and knowledge. Although knowledge of the options presented to that will, combined with perfect-infinite intelligence, could be said to provide God with omniscience if omniscience is defined as knowledge or understanding of all that is.

The last centuries of philosophy have seen vigorous questions regarding the arguments for God's existence raised by such philosophers as Immanuel Kant, David Hume and Antony Flew, although Kant held that the argument from morality was valid. The theist response has been either to contend, like Alvin Plantinga, that faith is "properly basic"; or to take, like Richard Swinburne, the evidentialist position.[21] Some theists agree that none of the arguments for God's existence are compelling, but argue that faith is not a product of reason, but requires risk. There would be no risk, they say, if the arguments for God's existence were as solid as the laws of logic, a position summed up by Pascal as: "The heart has reasons which reason knows not of."[22]

Most major religions hold God not as a metaphor, but a being that influences our day-to-day existences. Many believers allow for the existence of other, less powerful spiritual beings, and give them names such as angels, saints, djinni, demons, and devas.

Theism and Deism

Theism generally holds that God exists realistically, objectively, and independently of human thought; that God created and sustains everything; that God is omnipotent and eternal; personal and interacting with the universe through for example religious experience and the prayers of humans.[23] It holds that God is both transcendent and immanent; thus, God is simultaneously infinite and in some way present in the affairs of the world.[24] Not all theists subscribe to all the above propositions, but usually a fair number of them, c.f., family resemblance.[23] Catholic theology holds that God is infinitely simple and is not involuntarily subject to time. Most theists hold that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent, although this belief raises questions about God's responsibility for evil and suffering in the world. Some theists ascribe to God a self-conscious or purposeful limiting of omnipotence, omniscience, or benevolence. Open Theism, by contrast, asserts that, due to the nature of time, God's omniscience does not mean the deity can predict the future. "Theism" is sometimes used to refer in general to any belief in a god or gods, i.e., monotheism or polytheism.[25][26]

Deism holds that God is wholly transcendent: God exists, but does not intervene in the world beyond what was necessary to create it.[24] In this view, God is not anthropomorphic, and does not literally answer prayers or cause miracles to occur. Common in Deism is a belief that God has no interest in humanity and may not even be aware of humanity. Pandeism and Panendeism, respectively, combine Deism with the Pantheistic or Panentheistic beliefs discussed below.

History of monotheism

Main article: Monotheism
The Name of God written in Arabic calligraphy by 17th century Ottoman artist Hâfız Osman. In Islam, it is considered a sin to anthropomorphize God.

Some writers such as Karen Armstrong believe that the concept of monotheism sees a gradual development out of notions of henotheism and monolatrism. In the Ancient Near East, each city had a local patron deity, such as Shamash at Larsa or Sin at Ur. The earliest known claims of global supremacy of a specific god date to the Late Bronze Age, with Akhenaten's Great Hymn to the Aten, and, depending on dating issues, Zoroaster's Gathas to Ahura Mazda. Currents of monism or monotheism emerge in Vedic India in the same period, with e.g. the Nasadiya Sukta. Philosophical monotheism and the associated concept of absolute good and evil emerges in Classical Antiquity, notably with Plato (c.f. Euthyphro dilemma), elaborated into the idea of The One in Neoplatonism.

According to The Oxford Companion To World Mythology, "The lack of cohesion among early Hebrews made monotheism – even monolatry, the exclusive worship of one god among many – an impossibility...And even then it can be argued that the firm establishment of monotheism in Judaism required the rabbinical or Talmudic process of the first century B.C.E. to the sixth century C.E.".[27] In Islamic theology, a person who spontaneously "discovers" monotheism is called a ḥanīf, the original ḥanīf being Abraham.

Austrian anthropologist Wilhelm Schmidt in the 1910s postulated an Urmonotheismus, "original" or "primitive monotheism", a thesis now widely rejected in comparative religion but still occasionally defended in creationist circles.

Monotheism and pantheism

Monotheists hold that there is only one god, and may claim that the one true god is worshiped in different religions under different names. The view that all theists actually worship the same god, whether they know it or not, is especially emphasized in Hinduism[28] and Sikhism.[29] Adherents of different religions, however, generally disagree as to how to best worship God and what is God's plan for mankind, if there is one. There are different approaches to reconciling the contradictory claims of monotheistic religions. One view is taken by exclusivists, who believe they are the chosen people or have exclusive access to absolute truth, generally through revelation or encounter with the Divine, which adherents of other religions do not. Another view is religious pluralism. A pluralist typically believes that his religion is the right one, but does not deny the partial truth of other religions. An example of a pluralist view in Christianity is supersessionism, i.e., the belief that one's religion is the fulfillment of previous religions. A third approach is relativistic inclusivism, where everybody is seen as equally right; an example in Christianity is universalism: the doctrine that salvation is eventually available for everyone. A fourth approach is syncretism, mixing different elements from different religions. An example of syncretism is the New Age movement.

Pantheism holds that God is the universe and the universe is God, whereas Panentheism holds that God contains, but is not identical to, the Universe; the distinctions between the two are subtle. It is also the view of the Liberal Catholic Church, Theosophy, some views of Hinduism except Vaishnavism which believes in panentheism, Sikhism, some divisions of Buddhism, some divisions of Neopaganism and Taoism, along with many varying denominations and individuals within denominations. Kabbalah, Jewish mysticism, paints a pantheistic/panentheistic view of God — which has wide acceptance in Hasidic Judaism, particularly from their founder The Baal Shem Tov — but only as an addition to the Jewish view of a personal god, not in the original pantheistic sense that denies or limits persona to God.

Dystheism and nontheism

Dystheism, which is related to theodicy is a form of theism which holds that God is either not wholly good or is fully malevolent as a consequence of the problem of evil. One such example would be Satanism.

Nontheism holds that the universe can be explained without any reference to the supernatural, or to a supernatural being. Some non-theists avoid the concept of God, whilst accepting that it is significant to many; other non-theists understand God as a symbol of human values and aspirations. Many schools of Buddhism may be considered non-theistic.

Non-religious views regarding God

See also: Evolutionary origin of religions and Evolutionary psychology of religion

Stephen Jay Gould proposed an approach dividing the world of philosophy into what he called "non-overlapping magisteria" (NOMA). In this view, questions of the supernatural, such as those relating to the existence and nature of God, are non-empirical and are the proper domain of theology. The methods of science should then be used to answer any empirical question about the natural world, and theology should be used to answer questions about ultimate meaning and moral value. In this view, the perceived lack of any empirical footprint from the magisterium of the supernatural onto natural events makes science the sole player in the natural world.[30]

Another view, advanced by Richard Dawkins, is that the existence of God is an empirical question, on the grounds that "a universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference."[17]

Carl Sagan argued that the doctrine of a Creator of the Universe was difficult to prove or disprove and that the only conceivable scientific discovery that could challenge it would be an infinitely old universe.[31]

Anthropomorphism

See also: Anthropomorphism

Pascal Boyer argues that while there is a wide array of supernatural concepts found around the world, in general, supernatural beings tend to behave much like people. The construction of gods and spirits like persons is one of the best known traits of religion. He cites examples from Greek Mythology, which is, in his opinion, more like a modern soap opera than other religious systems.[32] Bertrand du Castel and Timothy Jurgensen demonstrate through formalization that Boyer's explanatory model matches physics' epistemology in positing not directly observable entities as intermediaries.[33] Anthropologist Stewart Guthrie contends that people project human features onto non-human aspects of the world because it makes those aspects more familiar. Sigmund Freud also suggested that god concepts are projections of one's father.[34]

Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings. In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing morality. In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as gossip or reputation. However it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. He indicates that by including ever watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.[35]

Distribution of belief in God

Main article: List of religious populations
The percentage of population in European countries who responded in a 2005 census that they "believe there is a God". Countries with Roman Catholic (e.g.: Poland, Portugal) Eastern Orthodox (Greece, Romania) or Muslim (Turkey) majorities tend to poll highest.

As of 2000, approximately 53% of the world's population identifies with one of the three Abrahamic religions (33% Christian, 20% Islam, <1% Judaism), 6% with Buddhism, 13% with Hinduism, 6% with traditional Chinese religion, 7% with various other religions, and less than 15% as non-religious. Most of these religious beliefs involve a god or gods.[36]

See also

References


Notes

  1. ^ a b c Swinburne, R.G. "God" in Honderich, Ted. (ed)The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 1995.
  2. ^ a b c d Edwards, Paul. "God and the philosophers" in Honderich, Ted. (ed)The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 1995.
  3. ^ a b c d Platinga, Alvin. "God, Arguments for the Existence of," Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Routledge, 2000.
  4. ^ The ulterior etymology is disputed. Apart from the unlikely hypothesis of adoption from a foreign tongue, the OTeut. "ghuba" implies as its preTeut-type either "*ghodho-m" or "*ghodto-m". The former does not appear to admit of explanation; but the latter would represent the neut. pple. of a root "gheu-". There are two Aryan roots of the required form ("*g,heu-" with palatal aspirate) one with meaning 'to invoke' (Skr. "hu") the other 'to pour, to offer sacrifice' (Skr "hu", Gr. χεηi;ν, OE "geotàn" Yete v). OED Compact Edition, G, p. 267
  5. ^ Barnhart, Robert K (1995). The Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology: the Origins of American English Words, page 323. HarperCollins. ISBN 0-06-270094-7
  6. ^ Webster's New World Dictionary; "god n. ME < OE, akin to Ger gott, Goth guth, prob. < IE base * ĝhau-, to call out to, invoke > Sans havaté, (he) calls upon; 1. any of various beings conceived of as supernatural, immortal, and having special powers over the lives and affairs of people and the course of nature; deity, esp. a male deity: typically considered objects of worship; 2. an image that is worshiped; idol 3. a person or thing deified or excessively honored and admired; 4. [G-] in monotheistic religions, the creator and ruler of the universe, regarded as eternal, infinite, all-powerful, and all-knowing; Supreme Being; the Almighty
  7. ^ Dictionary.com; "God /gɒd/ noun: 1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. 2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute. 3. (lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs. 4. (often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy. 5. Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle. 6. (lowercase) an image of a deity; an idol. 7. (lowercase) any deified person or object. 8. (often lowercase) Gods, Theater. 8a. the upper balcony in a theater. 8b. the spectators in this part of the balcony.
  8. ^ Barton, G.A. (2006). A Sketch of Semitic Origins: Social and Religious. Kessinger Publishing. ISBN 142861575X. 
  9. ^ Hastings 2003, p. 540
  10. ^ Guanche Religion
  11. ^ Isa. 45:18; 54:5; Jer. 32:27; Gen. 1:1; Deut. 5:23; 8:15; Ps. 68:7
  12. ^ Bible Gateway, http://www.biblegateway.com/. . .
  13. ^ Gen. 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; Ex. 6:31; Ps. 91:1, 2
  14. ^ Gen. 14:19; Ps. 9:2; Dan. 7:18, 22, 25
  15. ^ "DOES GOD MATTER? A Social-Science Critique". by Paul Froese and Christopher Bader. http://www.hds.harvard.edu/news/bulletin/articles/does_god_matter.html. Retrieved 2007-05-28. 
  16. ^ Michel Henry : I am the Truth. Toward a philosophy of Christianity (Stanford University Press, 2002)
  17. ^ a b Dawkins, Richard. "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God". The Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl_b_32164.html. Retrieved 2007-01-10. 
  18. ^ View at Google Books
    Citation will soon be automatically completed. In the meantime, please check that you have correctly copied the book identifier.
  19. ^ View at Google Books
    Citation will soon be automatically completed. In the meantime, please check that you have correctly copied the book identifier.
  20. ^ Wierenga, Edward R. "Divine foreknowledge" in Audi, Robert. The Cambridge Companion to Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 2001.
  21. ^ Beaty, Michael (1991). "God Among the Philosophers". The Christian Century. http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=53. Retrieved 2007-02-20. 
  22. ^ Pascal, Blaise. Pensées, 1669.
  23. ^ a b Smart, Jack; John Haldane (2003). Atheism and Theism. Blackwell Publishing. p. 8. ISBN 0631232591. 
  24. ^ a b Lemos, Ramon M. (2001). A Neomedieval Essay in Philosophical Theology. Lexington Books. p. 34. ISBN 0739102508. 
  25. ^ "Philosophy of Religion.info - Glossary - Theism, Atheism, and Agonisticism". Philosophy of Religion.info. http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/definitions.html. Retrieved 2008-07-16. [dead link]
  26. ^ "Theism - definition of theism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia". TheFreeDictionary. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theism. Retrieved 2008-07-16. 
  27. ^ The Oxford Companion To World Mythology (David Leeming, Oxford University Press, 2005, page 153)
  28. ^ See Swami Bhaskarananda, Essentials of Hinduism (Viveka Press 2002) ISBN 1-884852-04-1
  29. ^ Sri Granth: Sri Guru Granth Sahib
  30. ^ Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Great Britain: Bantam Press. ISBN 0-618-68000-4. 
  31. ^ Sagan, Carl (1996). The Demon Haunted World p.278. New York: Ballantine Books. ISBN 0-345-40946-9. 
  32. ^ Boyer, Pascal (2001). Religion Explained,. New York: Basic Books. pp. 142–243. ISBN 0-465-00696-5. http://books.google.com/?id=wreF80OHTicC&pg=PA142&lpg=PA142&dq=boyer+modern+soap+opera. 
  33. ^ du Castel, Bertrand; Jurgensen, Timothy M. (2008). Computer Theology,. Austin, Texas: Midori Press. pp. 221–222. ISBN 0-9801821-1-5. 
  34. ^ Barrett, Justin (1996) (PDF). Conceptualizing a Nonnatural Entity: Anthropomorphism in God Concepts. http://www.yale.edu/cogdevlab/People/Lab_Members/Frank/Frank%27s%20papers%20pdfs%20/Frank%27s%20articles/conceptualizingnonnaturalentity.pdf. 
  35. ^ Rossano, Matt (2007) (PDF). Supernaturalizing Social Life: Religion and the Evolution of Human Cooperation. http://www2.selu.edu/Academics/Faculty/mrossano/recentpubs/Supernaturalizing.pdf. Retrieved 2009-06-25. 
  36. ^ National Geographic Family Reference Atlas of the World p. 49

External links

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: God
Wikimedia Commons has media related to: God
Wikinews has related news:
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God"


Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)