thehomer:

Except when he was e.g wandering the garden of Eden, in a burning bush, wandering with the Israelites as a pillar of fire and as a cloud pillar etc.

See! Here you are fighting the God of the bible or you are fighting the biblical perception of God. If only you and Hawkins would admit that you are fighting a religious battle. It is no different when two different religions fight each other. Your religious view (Atheism) is your own perception of life and God; the Biblical religionist's view is also another perception of life and God.

God and people’s perception of Him are two different things. If you succeed in proving that the biblical view of God is flawed, you have not done anything in proving that God does not exist or that He did not create the universe.

thehomer:

On the issue with Hawking, it is exactly what he has done. He is talking about this physical universe and the fact that a God doesn't need to be introduced into the equation.

Firstly: On the contrary that is opposite of what Hawkins did. Hawkins used science beyond its physical limitation. You cannot expect that the physical universe (everything physical that exists) was created by anything physical; if something physical already exists, then how did that come into being?? The physical could not have been created by the physical, otherwise you are not dealing with origin or the creating of the physical; you will only be dealing with transition. That which already exists need not be created again, it can only transform. Thus whatever created the physical has to be non-physical; otherwise you are not dealing with the origin of the physical, you are only dealing with transition from one physical state to another physical state.

Claiming that that which created the physical can be physical violets the very definition and idea of the phrase: “to create.” Perhaps we should seek help from the dictionary:

transitive verb
1: to bring into existence <God created the heaven and the earth — Genesis 1:1(Authorized Version)>
2a: to INVEST with a new form, office, or rank <was created a lieutenant> b: to produce or bring about by a course of action or behavior <her arrival created a terrible fuss> <create new jobs>
3: CAUSE, OCCASION <famine creates high food prices>
4a: to produce through imaginative skill <create a painting> b: DESIGN <creates dresses>
intransitive verb
1: to make or bring into existence something new
2: to set up a scoring opportunity in BASKETBALL <create off the dribble>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/create

Here we are using the word “create” in the context of definition 1. That is to “bring into existence something new”; this already precludes the weird assumption that the physical can create the physical. If any physical substance or phenomena already exists then the physical has already been created. By the definition of the word, “creation of the physical” can only imply or start at the point where the very first physical substance or physical phenomena, be it the smallest atom or the smallest particle of a quark, emerged from a non-physical substance or came into existence.

And since that which created the physical has to be non-physical, applying science, which is only limited to the physical, to it is misguided. I repeat: “Science is a tool designed for the physical; using it otherwise would yield unhealthy results.

Secondly: why bring in the word “God” into it? Is “God” a scientific word? If he had simply said that the universe has no creator, it would have been different. Bringing in God into it simply reveals that Hawkins is attacking the religionist's view God, Hawkins is simply fighting a religious war and hence should not hide under the false cloak of standing on scientific bases or theories. Hawkins might have as well concluded from his scientific speculations that the Tooth Fairy or Sponge Bob did not create the universe; but why pick on God?; especially when you guys claim that God is as fictitious a character as Sponge Bob or the Tooth Fairy. Hawkins is simply fighting a religious battle and using science to propagate his religion, atheism.

How would you feel if a religionist claims that science has validated every story in the bible? You will definitely feel outraged!! But that’s exactly what Hawkins did; he used science to back up his religious views.

Let it be said once and for all that Atheism is not science; atheism is not more scientific than theism. Neither of the two perceptions has been confirmed by science; nor can either of them be proven by science, because they both venture beyond the realms of science. They both seek to understand the creation of the physical existence, an origin which cannot be physical, and hence cannot be assessed by science. But most theists are honest enough to admit that their view is based on faith, the bible, conviction, personal non-physical perception, personal inclination, thinking or choice, and not science; the atheist is hardly this honest, he always tries to claim that science has confirmed his views. This is deception!!!!!

thehomer:

How does this non-physical realm interact with the physical realm? You may also need to realize that non-believers who meditate actually are able to feel all sorts of sensations but they simply accept that it is physical and based on the brain. You're introducing this non-physical realm and I simply have to ask for some evidence of it.

I keep telling you that I have no scientific evidence; science is a very limited tool of perception. Some people perceive beyond the realms of science; and for one who does not have this perception, there is no way I can convince you of it.

It’s like a dog asking a man to prove to it that there are seven colors in the color spectrum. Every picture of the seven colors presented by the man will simply be filtered by the dog’s eye which is incapable of perceiving the seven colors of the spectrum.

Please in this dog and man analogy, I do not mean to sound derogatory. You are definitely not a dog; for the sake of cordiality, I will give another analogy.

You know dogs can perceive odor where a man cannot. So your demand for evidence is like a man asking a dog to provide evidence that it can perceive odor where a man cannot. Any evidence provided by the dog will simply be filtered by the man’s organs of perception which are not as sensitive as that of the dog. If the dog presents the man with a piece of cloth from which it can perceive a certain odor, on smelling the cloth the man will perceive no odor and declare the dog as being delusional or lying. If the dog is able to trace the location of something from the odor that the thing leaves behind, the man would simply call it a coincidence, and still would not believe that the dog can perceive something that he is incapable of perceiving. Wouldn’t you consider such a man strange? Especially now that science has confirmed that every creature has a perception of reality which is limited or relative to its organs of perception; and no two creatures perceive reality exactly the same way.

As a scientist you should know that it is possible for another person to perceive that which is imperceptible to you. Existence is not limited to one individual’s organs of perception; hence, one should also logically conclude that existence cannot be limited to the scientist’s perception of it or the scientific perception of it.

There are people who claim to see sounds, and they actually do! Atheist do not ridicule them; scientific atheists know that it is possible that such people’s eyes are able to detect the forms formed by the sound waves which we perceive as sound on our ears. I.e. some people claim to see a cloud of red smoke-like forms emanate from a musical instrument when the musical note “C” is played on the instrument; nobody ridicules them. But when religionists claim that he is able to perceive the power of God or some non-physical beings, they become an object of ridicule and mockery.

Today police dogs are employed by the police and used for investigation; when they are able to help in solving a crime by their heightened ability to perceive odor, the society rewards them and even celebrates them. No scientist or atheist would dare ridicule the dog or claim that it was through a coincidence that the dog was able to solve the crime. But today when a psychic helps in solving a crime or claims to see the beyond; or when a religionist makes a prophecy that turns out to be true, he/she would be ridiculed by atheists who claim that the non-physical does not exist. They will consider the success of the psychic or the fulfillment of a prophesy to be mare coincidence; and soon such a gifted one will be put to silence, ashamed and utterly ridiculed.

Reminds me of the Hausa saying: “Where one person dances and receives money, another person dances and receives a beating!!!” This is injustice that is done by evangelical atheists.

Gradually, it’s becoming a repetition of the mediaeval witch trials in ancient Europe: where one is tied to a steak and burned as witch, just because he/she possessed some knowledge or ability that others do not. Today as soon as a religionist claims to perceive the non-physical, modern-day atheists will tie him/her to a steak of mockery and throw pseudo-science at him/her as stones till he/she is silenced.

thehomer:

Just to be clear, is it okay with you that persecutions continue?

Persecution of the religionist's views and beliefs in the way that Hawkins does it definitely needs to stop. In his blind rage to fight the religionist's views, he does more harm to science than he does to the religionist or religion. He places the very formidable filed of knowledge that we call science on a slippery ground; on a ground where it will collapse or fall at the weakest whims of any objective person.

Persecuting the evils of the society should continue; but by persecuting I only mean objective opposition, not violent and unbounded attacks. One should not resort to lies, trickery or false claims in his/her opposition to evil; one must remain honest, gracious, and objective. Such objective opposition (I.e. persecution against slavery) is justified.

Thanks

@ thehomer

Please read about synesthesia and see how variant perception of reality can be even within the same specie!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050528144241.htm


Synesthetes (people with the ability to see the forms and colors of sounds) actually see sounds and musical notes as smoke-like clouds of colors. If scientists can investigate and validate such phenomena as synesthesiae, which the medieval and ignorant people of the by-years would have frowned on, called fallacy or witchcraft, why can’t today's atheists accept that those who claim to perceive God's power or the non-physical may not be delusional; they may, as Synesthetes are, be gifted which perceptive abilities that the average man does not have.

Some people, on looking at nature, perceive nature as an orderly designed piece of work; some go as far as perceiving the Will of the designer. Asking such people to give you scientific evidence of the existence of the designer and His Will is like asking a Synesthetes to show you scientific evidence that the musical note "C" has a bright red color. At best science can suggest or may incline one to believer that the universe has a creator, but it cannot conclusively prove the existence of this creator or His non-existence. It’s simply beyond the scope of science.

justcool:

See! Here you are fighting the God of the bible or you are fighting the biblical perception of God. If only you and Hawkins would admit that you are fighting a religious battle. It is no different when two different religions fight each other. Your religious view (Atheism) is your own perception of life and God; the Biblical religionist's view is also another perception of life and God.

It isn't a fight but a well supported assertion. Really? Do you think atheism is a religion too or are you simply making an assertion? You would need to demonstrate this you know.

justcool:

God and people’s perception of Him are two different things. If you succeed in proving that the biblical view of God is flawed, you have not done anything in proving that God does not exist or that He did not create the universe.

Showing you that the Biblical God is wrong totally upsets Christianity because it would mean you've just been making things up and declaring them to be true.

justcool:

Firstly: On the contrary that is opposite of what Hawkins did. Hawkins used science beyond its physical limitation. You cannot expect that the physical universe (everything physical that exists) was created by anything physical; if something physical already exists, then how did that come into being?? The physical could not have been created by the physical, otherwise you are not dealing with origin or the creating of the physical; you will only be dealing with transition. That which already exists need not be created again, it can only transform. Thus whatever created the physical has to be non-physical; otherwise you are not dealing with the origin of the physical, you are only dealing with transition from one physical state to another physical state.

Have you considered that maybe the physical has always existed?

justcool:

Claiming that that which created the physical can be physical violets the very definition and idea of the phrase: “to create.” Perhaps we should seek help from the dictionary:

transitive verb
1: to bring into existence <God created the heaven and the earth — Genesis 1:1(Authorized Version)>
2a: to INVEST with a new form, office, or rank <was created a lieutenant> b: to produce or bring about by a course of action or behavior <her arrival created a terrible fuss> <create new jobs>
3: CAUSE, OCCASION <famine creates high food prices>
4a: to produce through imaginative skill <create a painting> b: DESIGN <creates dresses>
intransitive verb
1: to make or bring into existence something new
2: to set up a scoring opportunity in BASKETBALL <create off the dribble>
  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/create

Here we are using the word “create” in the context of definition 1. That is to “bring into existence something new”; this already precludes the weird assumption that the physical can create the physical. If any physical substance or phenomena already exists then the physical has already been created. By the definition of the word, “creation of the physical” can only imply or start at the point where the very first physical substance or physical phenomena, be it the smallest atom or the smallest particle of a quark, emerged from a non-physical substance or came into existence.

And who says it had to be created? Why do you assume that it had to be created? This is the problem with holding on so tightly to a religious view. It stunts your perception such that you seem unable to consider that maybe just maybe it wasn't created.

justcool:

And since that which created the physical has to be non-physical, applying science, which is only limited to the physical, to it is misguided. I repeat: “Science is a tool designed for the physical; using it otherwise would yield unhealthy results.

For some reason, you seem to forget that religions make lots of physical claims that clearly fall withing the purview of science.

justcool:

Secondly: why bring in the word “God” into it? Is “God” a scientific word? If he had simply said that the universe has no creator, it would have been different. Bringing in God into it simply reveals that Hawkins is attacking the religionist's view God, Hawkins is simply fighting a religious war and hence should not hide under the false cloak of standing on scientific bases or theories. Hawkins might have as well concluded from his scientific speculations that the Tooth Fairy or Sponge Bob did not create the universe; but why pick on God?; especially when you guys claim that God is as fictitious a character as Sponge Bob or the Tooth Fairy. Hawkins is simply fighting a religious battle and using science to propagate his religion, atheism.

We've been through the issue of who can use the word God so I won't address it again here. If he said the universe has no creator, how is that different from saying the Christian God isn't needed for the universe to exist? Really? He's fighting a religious war? It seems you don't know what religious wars look like.
Why not pick on God? He's very popular and has so many things attributed to him.
If you think atheism is a religion, then I suspect that you don't have a coherent concept of religion.

justcool:

How would you feel if a religionist claims that science has validated every story in the bible? You will definitely feel outraged!! But that’s exactly what Hawkins did; he used science to back up his religious views.

No I won't feel outraged. Please outline the religious views he presented for us to examine them and see how religious they are.

justcool:

Let it be said once and for all that Atheism is not science; atheism is not more scientific than theism. Neither of the two perceptions has been confirmed by science; nor can either of them be proven by science, because they both venture beyond the realms of science. They both seek to understand the creation of the physical existence, an origin which cannot be physical, and hence cannot be assessed by science.  But most theists are honest enough to admit that their view is based on faith, the bible, conviction, personal non-physical perception, personal inclination, thinking or choice, and not science; the atheist is hardly this honest, he always tries to claim that science has confirmed his views. This is deception!!!!!

No one says atheism is science. The point is present your God for scrutiny. You're still assuming some sort of creation without evidence.
Really? You want to go with poisoning the well by saying the atheist isn't honest? Somehow, you don't seem to realize how heavy the burden of proof is upon the Christians making their outrageous claims.

justcool:

I keep telling you that I have no scientific evidence; science is a very limited tool of perception. Some people perceive beyond the realms of science; and for one who does not have this perception, there is no way I can convince you of it.

How do you know they have this perception? Did they tell you and you just believed it?

justcool:

It’s like a dog asking a man to prove to it that there are seven colors in the color spectrum. Every picture of the seven colors presented by the man will simply be filtered by the dog’s eye which is incapable of perceiving the seven colors of the spectrum.

Please in this dog and man analogy, I do not mean to sound derogatory. You are definitely not a dog; for the sake of cordiality, I will give another analogy.

How do you think we were able to determine the range of colour vision in the dog?

justcool:

You know dogs can perceive odor where a man cannot. So your demand for evidence is like a man asking a dog to provide evidence that it can perceive odor where a man cannot. Any evidence provided by the dog will simply be filtered by the man’s organs of perception which are not as sensitive as that of the dog. If the dog presents the man with a piece of cloth from which it can perceive a certain odor, on smelling the cloth the man will perceive no odor and declare the dog as being delusional or lying. If the dog is able to trace the location of something from the odor that the thing leaves behind, the man would simply call it a coincidence, and still would not believe that the dog can perceive something that he is incapable of perceiving. Wouldn’t you consider such a man strange? Especially now that science has confirmed that every creature has a perception of reality which is limited or relative to its organs of perception; and no two creatures perceive reality exactly the same way.

Again, how do you think we were able to determine that the dog had such a sense of smell?

justcool:

As a scientist you should know that it is possible for another person to perceive that which is imperceptible to you. Existence is not limited to one individual’s organs of perception; hence, one should also logically conclude that existence cannot be limited to the scientist’s perception of it or the scientific perception of it.

You're forgetting the numerous tools that can be and have been brought to bear when using science.

justcool:

There are people who claim to see sounds, and they actually do! Atheist do not ridicule them; scientific atheists know that it is possible that such people’s eyes are able to detect the forms formed by the sound waves which we perceive as sound on our ears. I.e. some people claim to see a cloud of red smoke-like forms emanate from a musical instrument when the musical note “C” is played on the instrument; nobody ridicules them. But when religionists claim that he is able to perceive the power of God or some non-physical beings, they become an object of ridicule and mockery.

How were those scientists able to determine that they could do this? It is quite different from religious claims since they are unable to do more than simply claim that they perceive this power of God. Well what did this power of God tell them? When we check, they turn out to be wrong more often than not.

justcool:

Today police dogs are employed by the police and used for investigation; when they are able to help in solving a crime by their heightened ability to perceive odor, the society rewards them and even celebrates them. No scientist or atheist would dare ridicule the dog or claim that it was through a coincidence that the dog was able to solve the crime. But today when a psychic helps in solving a crime or claims to see the beyond; or when a religionist makes a prophecy that turns out to be true, he/she would be ridiculed by atheists who claim that the non-physical does not exist. They will consider the success of the psychic or the fulfillment of a prophesy to be mare coincidence; and soon such a gifted one will be put to silence, ashamed and utterly ridiculed.

You're forgetting the countless times where the psychics and the religious people have been so wrong that it would be hilarious if not for the gravity of the situation. This is a confirmation bias which is one of the cognitive biases that the process of science eliminates.

justcool:

Reminds me of the Hausa saying: “Where one person dances and receives money, another person dances and receives a beating!!!” This is injustice that is done by evangelical atheists.

You're already starting to echo some misinformation already.

justcool:

Gradually, it’s becoming a repetition of the mediaeval witch trials in ancient Europe: where one is tied to a steak and burned as witch, just because he/she possessed some knowledge or ability that others do not. Today as soon as a religionist claims to perceive the non-physical, modern-day atheists will tie him/her to a steak of mockery and throw pseudo-science at him/her as stones till he/she is silenced.

This is simply false. All we ask for as reasonable people is that people who make such claims need to back them up with evidence yet for some reason, they run and hide. If they could actually do the things they claim, they should step right up and receive fame and fortune rather than skulking around with gullible victims.

justcool:

Persecution of the religionist's views and beliefs in the way that Hawkins does it definitely needs to stop. In his blind rage to fight the religionist's views, he does more harm to science than he does to the religionist or religion. He places the very formidable filed of knowledge that we call science on a slippery ground; on a ground where it will collapse or fall at the weakest whims of any objective person.

Persecuting the evils of the society should continue; but by persecuting I only mean objective opposition, not violent and unbounded attacks. One should not resort to lies, trickery or false claims in his/her opposition to evil; one must remain honest, gracious, and objective. Such objective opposition (I.e. persecution against slavery) is justified.

Thanks

Using the word "persecution" the way you have above is committing a fallacy of ambiguity because the same word within this context means two different things.
Also, Hawkins is simply expressing his views. All I see is religious people complaining that he does so and science seems to support his claim. I think he does much more damage to religion since as we can see, the religious people are already in a state of fear over the whole thing.
Do you think criminals should be put in jails and kept there?
Do you think you're being objective in your attempted "persecution" of Hawkings?

justcool:

@ thehomer

Please read about synesthesia and see how variant perception of reality can be even within the same specie!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050528144241.htm


Synesthetes (people with the ability to see the forms and colors of sounds) actually see sounds and musical notes as smoke-like clouds of colors. If scientists can investigate and validate such phenomena as synesthesiae, which the medieval and ignorant people of the by-years would have frowned on, called fallacy or witchcraft, why can’t today's atheists accept that those who claim to perceive God's power or the non-physical may not be delusional; they may, as Synesthetes are, be gifted which perceptive abilities that the average man does not have.

Some people, on looking at nature, perceive nature as an orderly designed piece of work; some go as far as perceiving the Will of the designer. Asking such people to give you scientific evidence of the existence of the designer and His Will is like asking a Synesthetes to show you scientific evidence that the musical note "C" has a bright red color.

This still doesn't support your claims since we're somehow able to tell that they are actually able to perceive these things. Comparing those with synesthesia to religious people claiming to see all sorts of demons and what not actually cheapens what these synesthetes perceive because they can actually demonstrate that they perceive these things but the religious people when checked are simply found to be wrong. If you think those religious fellows have something to say, please let them know that there are prizes waiting for them if they can demonstrate it. You really should try to be skeptical of people who make outrageous claims for on them lies the heavier burden of proof.

justcool:

At best science can suggest or may incline one to believer that the universe has a creator, but it cannot conclusively prove the existence of this creator or His non-existence. It’s simply beyond the scope of science.

Sorry, what scientific evidence are you looking at that made you arrive at this belief of the universe having a creator? What does this creator look like? If you think that this creator is so unknown, why are you worshiping it? You know, continuing this worship to the wrong creator may just make the real one angrier and angrier.

thehomer:

It isn't a fight but a well supported assertion. Really? Do you think atheism is a religion too or are you simply making an assertion? You would need to demonstrate this you know.

Yes Atheism, especially your own type of atheism is[b] most definitely [/b]a religion.

It involves all that religion involves especially bind faith. You believe that the universe could have just always existed. This belief is not based on any scientific or observable fact; it is purely based on faith.

If you can demonstrate to me or show me an example of something that has always existed, something (anything physical) that was not created, then this your belief that the universe was not created may no longer be considered blind faith.

Honestly it takes more faith to accept this weird belief than it takes to accept the wildest belief of any religion.

thehomer:

Showing you that the Biblical God is wrong totally upsets Christianity because it would mean you've just been making things up and declaring them to be true.

Okay it upsets Christianity. But why upset Christianity?? It goes to prove that you are fighting a religious battle and nothing more. You are not concerned about finding the truth, you are simply eager to upset Christianity. Christianity (the religion) and God are two different things.

I haven’t been making things up, and upsetting Christianity does nothing to what have said. I do not belong to any religion.

thehomer:

Have you considered that maybe the physical has always existed?

This is not backed by any science or logic. It carries no weight than me telling, “Have you considered that the universe was created.” Please back your statement up with science or known facts, otherwise you are just employing blind faith.

Your resorting to one liners will not help you here, neither will your unfounded attack on Christianity; let facts speak against facts. Let’s examine the facts dispassionately and we will easily see what makes more sense.


And who says it had to be created? Why do you assume that it had to be created? This is the problem with holding on so tightly to a religious view. It stunts your perception such that you seem unable to consider that maybe just maybe it wasn't created.

thehomer:

For some reason, you seem to forget that religions make lots of physical claims that clearly fall withing the purview of science.

We are not dealing with any of those claims here; we are dealing with only one of their claims that “God created the universe.” Or better, here we are dealing with Hawkin’s claim that “God did not create the universe.” Let’s stick to one thing at a time; there is no point allowing passion to make you jump from thing to another; you are too eager to fight religionists. Why?

Why fight a religious war if you are not a religionist yourself Is it what sussicorn commanded you to do?

thehomer:

We've been through the issue of who can use the word God so I won't address it again here. If he said the universe has no creator, how is that different from saying the Christian God isn't needed for the universe to exist? Really? He's fighting a religious war? It seems you don't know what religious wars look like.
Why not pick on God? He's very popular and has so many things attributed to him.
If you think atheism is a religion, then I suspect that you don't have a coherent concept of religion.

Why pick on God We didn’t deal with this issue; I brought it up but you gave no reasonable explanation; once again you took shelter in the arms of resorting to one liners. Why bring in the Christian God in a scientific speculation?? Please answer!!!

Because God is popular?? Wow!!! What an answer! So it is right to fight against something or someone just because that thing or that person is popular?

So Michael Jackson deserved all the bad press that he got because he was popular. Talk about jungle justice!

Ok! God is not the only popular idea or being; Obama is popular too. Hawkin might have concluded from his speculations that Obama does not exist or did not create the universe. Would that have been equally good?

thehomer:

No I won't feel outraged. Please outline the religious views he presented for us to examine them and see how religious they are.

He said “God did not create the universe.” This view is purely religious and has nothing to do with science. The terms used are religious terms, not scientific ones, except the word “universe.”

The word “God” has no scientific bearing; it is found in religion not science. So Hawkin presented a religious view and not a scientific one.

Mind you that there are some religions that believe that the universe was not created by God but by angels of God or servants of God.

Where are you most likely to find the word God? In a religious book or in a science book? Please answer, and while you are at give me the scientific definition of God.

thehomer:

No one says atheism is science. The point is present your God for scrutiny. You're still assuming some sort of creation without evidence.

I’m happy that you have been forced to say that atheism is not science. So why do you guys always run to science and try to bend it to support your views?

God is there to be scrutinized but you fail to do so; rather you fight against regions.

thehomer:

Really? You want to go with poisoning the well by saying the atheist isn't honest? Somehow, you don't seem to realize how heavy the burden of proof is upon the Christians making their outrageous claims.

Don’t start with you guy’s burden of proof jargon. That is meant to frighten people who do not know philosophy. The burden of proof is equally upon you since you assert that the physical has always been. The implication is that (1)the physical has the power to sustain itself eternally, (2) the physical has the power to evade requiring a beginning.
(3) the physical has the power to evade requiring a creator.

The burden to prove these two facts is one you. Here nobody is asking you to prove the negative; those three implications of your assertion are in the positive, and hence they require proof.

thehomer:

How do you know they have this perception? Did they tell you and you just believed it?

This means absolutely nothing!

thehomer:

How do you think we were able to determine the range of colour vision in the dog?

Again, how do you think we were able to determine that the dog had such a sense of smell?

Through unbiased scrutiny and experimentation, and through evidence. If only you will scrutinize the evidence of the perception of the non-physical with the same unbiased attitude with which you approach dog.

There has been numerous occasions where psychics have through clairvoyance solved crimes. There has been numerous cases where a believer's prophesy turned out accurate.

But whenever any human does anything that is beyond physical ability, anything that hints that humans may have a dimension that is beyond the physical, you guys close your eyes and refuse to it.

thehomer:

You're forgetting the numerous tools that can be and have been brought to bear when using science.

This means nothing.

thehomer:

How were those scientists able to determine that they could do this? It is quite different from religious claims since they are unable to do more than simply claim that they perceive this power of God. Well what did this power of God tell them? When we check, they turn out to be wrong more often than not.

They don’t just make claims; they have demonstrated more than enough. You just don’t want to see and investigate. Prophesies have come true; sick people have been healed, even the dead raised! I wonder why the police employ the help of psychics.

Of course there are charlatans among the believers in God claiming to have non-physical abilities, as much as there are charlatans in all walks of life, even in science.

thehomer:


You're forgetting the countless times where the psychics and the religious people have been so wrong that it would be hilarious if not for the gravity of the situation. This is a confirmation bias which is one of the cognitive biases that the process of science eliminates.

The above proves absolutely nothing!!!

Countless times dogs have been wrong too; does this mean that dogs do not have a heightened sense of smell?

thehomer:

You're already starting to echo some misinformation already.

What misinformation?

thehomer:

This is simply false. All we ask for as reasonable people is that people who make such claims need to back them up with evidence yet for some reason, they run and hide. If they could actually do the things they claim, they should step right up and receive fame and fortune rather than skulking around with gullible victims.

You make claims too that you cannot back with evidence; extremely outrageous claims. You claim that the universe has always been, or does not require a creator, yet you provide no evidence to back up this claim.

thehomer:

Using the word "persecution" the way you have above is committing a fallacy of ambiguity because the same word within this context means two different things.
Also, Hawkins is simply expressing his views. All I see is religious people complaining that he does so and science seems to support his claim. I think he does much more damage to religion since as we can see, the religious people are already in a state of fear over the whole thing.
Do you think criminals should be put in jails and kept there?
Do you think you're being objective in your attempted "persecution" of Hawkings?

I will not let the use of the word “persecution” deviate us from the topic at hand. I sense you completely understand the context in which I used the word. There is no ambiguity involved.

If Hawkin was just expressing his views on science, why bring God into it? This is a question you still have not been able to answer. Is God a scientific word? Why do damage to religion if he is really discussing science? Can’t one talk about science without bring in religion? How many scientific laws involves the word God??

thehomer:

This still doesn't support your claims since we're somehow able to tell that they are actually able to perceive these things. Comparing those with synesthesia to religious people claiming to see all sorts of demons and what not actually cheapens what these synesthetes perceive because they can actually demonstrate that they perceive these things but the religious people when checked are simply found to be wrong. If you think those religious fellows have something to say, please let them know that there are prizes waiting for them if they can demonstrate it. You really should try to be skeptical of people who make outrageous claims for on them lies the heavier burden of proof.

People with non-physical abilities have demonstrated more than enough. Any unbiased investigator will easily arrive at the Truth. There are genuine psychics, healers, prophets and etc. You simply refused to leave your bias alone.

I will not waste my time here.

thehomer:

Sorry, what scientific evidence are you looking at that made you arrive at this belief of the universe having a creator? What does this creator look like? If you think that this creator is so unknown, why are you worshiping it? You know, continuing this worship to the wrong creator may just make the real one angrier and angrier.

The scientific evidence that I am looking at is the scientific law that “every action has a reaction.” In other words, every reaction was preceded by an action. The ever changing, expanding universe is simply a reaction to an action that preceded it. That action is the creation of the universe.

The universe, even if it has always existed, would not be able to transform from one state to another without the input of an external force. Otherwise the law of thermodynamics would be violated.

Why try to deviate from the topic. Are we dealing with worshiping the creator? Whether you worship or not, that does not change a thing about the existence of the creator. Once again you are dealing with religion!

Thanks

Did God create the universe? Ask God, he would stand confused even more than humans! It surprises me how God is lost about what he created.

justcool:

Yes Atheism, especially your own type of atheism is[b] most definitely [/b]a religion.

Okay? Please demonstrate how atheism is a religion like say Christianity.

justcool:

It involves all that religion involves especially bind faith. You believe that the universe could have just always existed. This belief is not based on any scientific or observable fact; it is purely based on faith.

If you can demonstrate to me or show me an example of something that has always existed, something (anything physical) that was not created, then this your belief that the universe was not created may no longer be considered blind faith.

Actually, there are some pretty good reasons for thinking that the universe may have always existed in some form. Another error you're making here is that you're confusing two meanings of creation. One is making something from pre-existing parts, the other is making something from nothingness. And that is a fallacy of equivocation.

justcool:

Honestly it takes more faith to accept this weird belief than it takes to accept the wildest belief of any religion.

In that case, you simply don't know what religious faith is. How much faith does it take to believe that someone could be resurrected? At the very least, what we can say is that we simply do not know but someone rising up from the dead? If I told you that I had two friends that were resurrected, would you believe that? How about a belief that the earth is flat? How much faith do you need for that?

justcool:

Okay it upsets Christianity. But why upset Christianity?? It goes to prove that you are fighting a religious battle and nothing more. You are not concerned about finding the truth, you are simply eager to upset Christianity. Christianity (the religion) and God are two different things.

I haven’t been making things up, and upsetting Christianity does nothing to what have said. I do not belong to any religion.

No, it shows that Christianity is in the wrong business. The earth revolving round the sun upsets Christianity. The absence of any first man and woman in the garden of Eden with a talking snake upsets Christianity. Please tell me how you wish to separate the Christian God from Christianity. Also, you don't belong to any religion? Then please answer these questions. Was Jesus the son of God? Is Mohammed the last prophet of God?

justcool:

This is not backed by any science or logic. It carries no weight than me telling, “Have you considered that the universe was created.” Please back your statement up with science or known facts, otherwise you are just employing blind faith.

Your resorting to one liners will not help you here, neither will your unfounded attack on Christianity; let facts speak against facts. Let’s examine the facts dispassionately and we will easily see what makes more sense.

And who says it had to be created? Why do you assume that it had to be created? This is the problem with holding on so tightly to a religious view. It stunts your perception such that you seem unable to consider that maybe just maybe it wasn't created.

I will use one liners when I see no reason to be verbose.
One fact is that we have never experienced anything physical being created without a physical basis to it.
Another fact is that given a law like energy is neither created nor destroyed, it implies that the universe consisting of energy was never created.
Another fact is that all we know about the universe is that it started expanding a long time ago at the very least from something physical.
Another fact is that claiming that some mind created the universe raises these among other questions like where was this mind, how many are they, what was it doing before it performed these acts of creation?
I'll give you more facts depending on how you respond.

Now, I think it is your turn to offer us something more than simply making mere assertions.

justcool:

We are not dealing with any of those claims here; we are dealing with only one of their claims that “God created the universe.” Or better, here we are dealing with Hawkin’s claim that “God did not create the universe.” Let’s stick to one thing at a time; there is no point allowing passion to make you jump from thing to another; you are too eager to fight religionists. Why?

What he said was that God wasn't needed for the universe to exist. i.e there is no need to introduce God into explaining the origin of the universe.

justcool:

Why fight a religious war if you are not a religionist yourself Is it what sussicorn commanded you to do?

Why pick on God We didn’t deal with this issue; I brought it up but you gave no reasonable explanation; once again you took shelter in the arms of resorting to one liners. Why bring in the Christian God in a scientific speculation?? Please answer!!!

Because God is popular?? Wow!!! What an answer! So it is right to fight against something or someone just because that thing or that person is popular?

So Michael Jackson deserved all the bad press that he got because he was popular. Talk about jungle justice!

Ok! God is not the only popular idea or being; Obama is popular too. Hawkin might have concluded from his speculations that Obama does not exist or did not create the universe. Would that have been equally good?

The point I'm making is why do you think God should be somehow free from being discussed? When I say God is popular, I mean consider the effect the concept of God has on people. It can pretty much be used to justify anything. So why should it be free from being discussed?

justcool:

He said “God did not create the universe.” This view is purely religious and has nothing to do with science. The terms used are religious terms, not scientific ones, except the word “universe.”

The word “God” has no scientific bearing; it is found in religion not science. So Hawkin presented a religious view and not a scientific one.

Mind you that there are some religions that believe that the universe was not created by God but by angels of God or servants of God.

Where are you most likely to find the word God? In a religious book or in a science book? Please answer, and while you are at give me the scientific definition of God.

We've been through this before. e.g is saying Atlantis did not exist a purely religious view? How about saying that faeries, bigfoot and dragons do not exist? You seem to ignore what fields like archaeology, psychology and anthropology show us.
And some religions say it was created from a cosmic egg. Who is right?

justcool:

I’m happy that you have been forced to say that atheism is not science. So why do you guys always run to science and try to bend it to support your views?

I never said it was science. No one is bending science. Those are simply the conclusions that were reached based on what we know about the universe, human psychology and human culture.

justcool:

God is there to be scrutinized but you fail to do so; rather you fight against regions.

Which God are we scrutinizing? Why don't you pick the God you're talking about? It isn't a fight when one shows using evidence and discussion that religion is wrong.

justcool:

Don’t start with you guy’s burden of proof jargon. That is meant to frighten people who do not know philosophy. The burden of proof is equally upon you since you assert that the physical has always been. The implication is that (1)the physical has the power to sustain itself eternally, (2) the physical has the power to evade requiring a beginning.
(3) the physical has the power to evade requiring a creator.

The burden to prove these two facts is one you. Here nobody is asking you to prove the negative; those three implications of your assertion are in the positive, and hence they require proof.

Like I said before, the burden of proof is more on you since you're making such incredible claims. The so called facts you're putting up aren't really facts some are meaningless unless you're willing to clarify what you're saying. Let's take them one after the other.

1) The physical has the power to sustain itself eternally. - What on earth does this mean? Do refrigerators sustain themselves? Or is someone sustaining the refrigerator?
2) The physical has the power to evade requiring a beginning. - What does this also mean?
3) The physical has the power to evade requiring a creator. - This and the 2) above are alike. What does it mean? Being charitable, I could simply look at them as begging the question but since they're not properly expressed, I'm not sure that I can even say that.

Also, what you're doing here is that you're attempting to shift the burden of proof.

justcool:

This means absolutely nothing!

Saying this doesn't make it so. Finding out how you know something is the core of the problem you're having with contemplating the universe. If all you have is just information that you were told and you accepted on faith, then say so.

justcool:

Through unbiased scrutiny and experimentation, and through evidence. If only you will scrutinize the evidence of the perception of the non-physical with the same unbiased attitude with which you approach dog.

There has been numerous occasions where psychics have through clairvoyance solved crimes. There has been numerous cases where a believer's prophesy turned out accurate.

But whenever any human does anything that is beyond physical ability, anything that hints that humans may have a dimension that is beyond the physical, you guys close your eyes and refuse to it.

That is just the problem. When these claims of non-physical perception are examined through unbiased scrutiny and experimentation, they simply fail. Those examinations would have produced some evidence but that too is lacking.

justcool:

This means nothing.

This is funny. How can it mean nothing when that is a core element of objectivity in science?

justcool:

They don’t just make claims; they have demonstrated more than enough. You just don’t want to see and investigate. Prophesies have come true; sick people have been healed, even the dead raised! I wonder why the police employ the help of psychics.

No they haven't. If they can, there are prizes available to them. If they were that good, why couldn't they find bin Laden or other most wanted criminals? Now those would have been some basis for consideration. Or do you think they weren't interested?

justcool:

Of course there are charlatans among the believers in God claiming to have non-physical abilities, as much as there are charlatans in all walks of life, even in science.

Which ones do you think actually have these non-physical abilities? Do you have these abilities?

justcool:

The above proves absolutely nothing!!!

Sorry, but it does demonstrate a lot of things. e.g it demonstrates the cognitive biases and poor reasoning in which such beliefs flourish.

justcool:

Countless times dogs have been wrong too; does this mean that dogs do not have a heightened sense of smell?

We already know that dogs have a heightened sense of smell. You're free to look into how we know this.

justcool:

What misinformation?

That atheism is a religion.

justcool:

You make claims too that you cannot back with evidence; extremely outrageous claims. You claim that the universe has always been, or does not require a creator, yet you provide no evidence to back up this claim.

I said it was a plausible possibility and that isn't outrageous. I've provided you with some reasons why. You're free to read up on what actual cosmologists say and what they think about your God creating the universe.

justcool:

I will not let the use of the word “persecution” deviate us from the topic at hand. I sense you completely understand the context in which I used the word. There is no ambiguity involved.

I just told you that it is ambiguous and I demonstrated this. What part of my statement did you not understand?

justcool:

If Hawkin was just expressing his views on science, why bring God into it? This is a question you still have not been able to answer. Is God a scientific word? Why do damage to religion if he is really discussing science? Can’t one talk about science without bring in religion?

I already answered this. As long as the concept is available and has been described and interacts with this universe, it can be checked.

justcool:

How many scientific laws involves the word God??

None. Because he is not needed.

justcool:

People with non-physical abilities have demonstrated more than enough. Any unbiased investigator will easily arrive at the Truth. There are genuine psychics, healers, prophets and etc. You simply refused to leave your bias alone.

I will not waste my time here.

How do you know that they have these abilities? Compare that to how we know a dog has a good sense of smell. Of course you won't since it answers a core problem of how we come to know things and check them against the world.

justcool:

The scientific evidence that I am looking at is the scientific law that “every action has a reaction.” In other words, every reaction was preceded by an action. The ever changing, expanding universe is simply a reaction to an action that preceded it. That action is the creation of the universe.

That is an Newtonian method of considering physics and we've gone far beyond this. e.g consider radioactive decay. The release of a particle during the decay wasn't preceded by any action.

justcool:

The universe, even if it has always existed, would not be able to transform from one state to another without the input of an external force. Otherwise the law of thermodynamics would be violated.

This too is wrong because as we know radioactive decay transforms one element to another without the input of an external force without violating the law of thermodynamics.

justcool:

Why try to deviate from the topic. Are we dealing with worshiping the creator? Whether you worship or not, that does not change a thing about the existence of the creator. Once again you are dealing with religion!

Thanks

I'm not deviating since those are intrinsic to your creator. Trying to separate them fails because it makes your creator meaningless.

@ thehomer

With all due respect, I feel that you did not really respond to anything in your last post. This thread has degenerated to arguing just for the sake of it; therefore I will not continue. Here are some of the reasons why I would not continue:

1)I asked you to prove how the physical universe poses the power to avoid being created, to avoid having a bigining; you simply cannot. You falsely pretended that you didn't understand what I meant, accusing me of not expressing myself well. The bottom line is that the belief that the physical was has always been is simply blind faith; it has no logic or science backing it.

2) You talked about Newtonian physics as if it holds no water, as if it has been debunked. Coming from you, who supposedly base your arguments on science, I am terribly disappointed. Is this falsehood or ignorance?

3)You talked about radioactive decay, as if you don't know what causes the decay. The decay is actually caused by the unstability of the atom. If you cannot see how this relates to two things influencing each other, I will not educated you. Or to put it in your own words, "I will not spoonfeed it to you."

Thanks, its been a pleasure.

^^^^
I think fundamental particles seem more as evidences that creation. The decay of radioactive particle is due to unstable condition of element(which you are right about with little explanation) but why they do so scientists don't know - they are getting there some day.

However, even if at the end Albert Einstein theory of relativity, E=mc^2 is found to be discarded for others, there are evidences that matter changes into energy and vice versa. We find out that, in the real sense, nothing is actually destroyed. There are things not seen by the physicals eyes yet they are part of the physical laws of nature. For example the human detectors, the eyes, can only see three dimension yet the forth which is time is not. There are other many dimensions, like Supersymmetry, etc which we haven't understood yet but it is not proves they are spirituals because we haven't understood or can not see them.

I still think God(as religions postulate) can be left out of the equation on how come about the universe. There are nothing as close to explaining the origin of the universe as close to god than fundamental particles,not the way we have understood them now, but the actual unknown infinite fundamentals - there the facts lie!

@all4naija

Thanks for addressing my post. I will reply to you as follows:

all4naija:

^^^^
I think fundamental particles seem more as evidences that creation. The decay of radioactive particle is due to unstable condition of element(which you are right about with little explanation) but why they do so scientists don't know - they are getting there some day.

I wonder how bringing radioactive decay helps his argument.  If anything it goes against it, because even in radioactive decay we see cause and effect. The decay is actually caused by the unstability of the nucleus of the atom. The nucleus is the densest part of the atom, contain protons and neutrons. Most of the times it is the interaction between the protons and neutrons in the nucleus that results in the unstability; but sometimes it could be as a result of the interaction of the nucleus and the inner electrons of the radioactive element that causes the unstability.

In a nut shell, the atom is not just one thing, or one single entity; it is a system of many things – electrons, protons, neutrons. Within the system, as within all system there is cause and effect.

In time scientist will be able to delve more into these components of the atoms, they will discover that within each component lies worlds of systems. Today we know that within these components, there are hadrons, and within hadrons, there are quarks. Soon scientists will delve more into what makes up the quark. It goes on and on, there is no end.

This is only but scratching the surface; in reality, each atom is a universe of its own.

all4naija:

However, even if at the end Albert Einstein theory of relativity, E=mc^2 is found to be discarded for others, there are evidences that matter changes into energy and vice versa. We find out that, in the real sense, nothing is actually destroyed. There are things not seen by the physicals eyes yet they are part of the physical laws of nature. For example the human detectors, the eyes, can only see three dimension yet the forth which is time is not. There are other many dimensions, like Supersymmetry, etc which we haven't understood yet but it is not proves they are spirituals because we haven't understood or can not see them.

Not only does matter transform to energy; that’s one way to look at it. Matter and energy are actually the same thing. Matter is condensed energy or matter is made up of energy. The fact that energy can condense into matter does not mean that there is no creator. The question remains who created the energy or where did it come from; the question of a creator, of an outside for remains open.

You are right that there are physical things not seen by the physical eyes. That’s the point I have been making to thehomer. It will be very uneducated for a creature to say that existence ends with its perception, that what it does not perceive does not exist. Each creature has a limited perception of reality and no creature can perceive everything that exists. I never said that whatever was not perceived with the physical eyes are spiritual. We are only like TV’s or radios, each TV or radio is tuned or designed to receive a particular range of frequency. There could unlimited number or range of frequencies so no TV should laugh at another for claiming to receive something that others do not.

Just as there are so many physical things that we do not see, it is also possible that there are so many things non-physical as well. It is only a logical conclusion. We should never view reality as a concrete limited or fixed thing, after all everything is energy. In reality nothing is tangible or solid like we perceive it.

If you tell the ancient man that a clear glass of water has uncountable number of microorganisms not see with the physical eyes, he will not believe you. To him, if he doesn’t see it then it doesn’t exist! But science has told us that this is not so; that even within the physical realm there are almost uncountable ranges, frequencies, or dimensions. It is also logical to expect that there are countless dimensions that are not even physical. Where most everything has to stop with the physical? If we put an end to the range of existence which we call physical, how are different from the ancient that puts an end to existence based on what his eyes can see?

After taking all these into consideration, you how wrong it is to laugh at somebody just because he/she claims to perceive something non-physical? Perhaps there is a dimension that is non-physical! Don’t we live in a holographic universe?

all4naija:

I still think God(as religions postulate) can be left out of the equation on how come about the universe. There are nothing as close to explaining the origin of the universe as close to god than fundamental particles,not the way we have understood them now, but the actual unknown infinite fundamentals - there the facts lie!

I will not quarrel with the above because you said God(as the religions postulate).  The religious view of God may be wrong or right; it is only a perception. Most atheists spend their time fighting this perception, hence fighting a religious battle.

Even if the religions view of God can be left out of the question; it is not a proof that the universe does not have a creator or was not created.

Thanks

justcool:

@ thehomer

With all due respect, I feel that you did not really respond to anything in your last post. This thread has degenerated to arguing just for the sake of it; therefore I will not continue. Here are some of the reasons why I would not continue:

No, I addressed all your attempted points but you addressed none of mine. I showed you why it is reasonable to consider that the universe doesn't need a creator, why we should be skeptical of psychic and other claims that turn out to be false when considered, I showed you why the burden of proof was more on you, I showed you that as long as something has been described that has physical effects, it can be tested and many other things. You wish to simply evade some of them by simply saying, "this proves nothing!" as though saying that would make it so.

justcool:

1)I asked you to prove how the physical universe poses the power to avoid being created, to avoid having a bigining; you simply cannot. You falsely pretended that you didn't understand what I meant, accusing me of not expressing myself well. The bottom line is that the belief that the physical was has always been is simply blind faith; it has no logic or science backing it.

Did you read what I said apart from the poor questions you posed? I'll post them again below. Simply declaring that there is no logic or science to that consideration while avoiding the logical reasons I presented is a poor tactic.

thehomer:

Actually, there are some pretty good reasons for thinking that the universe may have always existed in some form. Another error you're making here is that you're confusing two meanings of creation. One is making something from pre-existing parts, the other is making something from nothingness. And that is a fallacy of equivocation.

I will use one liners when I see no reason to be verbose.
One fact is that we have never experienced anything physical being created without a physical basis to it.
Another fact is that given a law like energy is neither created nor destroyed, it implies that the universe consisting of energy was never created.
Another fact is that all we know about the universe is that it started expanding a long time ago at the very least from something physical.
Another fact is that claiming that some mind created the universe raises these among other questions like where was this mind, how many are they, what was it doing before it performed these acts of creation?
I'll give you more facts depending on how you respond.

Now, I think it is your turn to offer us something more than simply making mere assertions.

And now, you've chosen not to offer anything better than mere assertions.

justcool:

2) You talked about Newtonian physics as if it holds no water, as if it has been debunked. Coming from you, who supposedly base your arguments on science, I am terribly disappointed. Is this falsehood or ignorance?

No, you're misstating what I said. I never said or implied that it wasn't valid. Here is what I said.

thehomer:

That is an Newtonian method of considering physics and we've gone far beyond this. e.g consider radioactive decay. The release of a particle during the decay wasn't preceded by any action.

All I meant was that we had gone beyond this i.e we now know much more so that a statement whose entire basis doesn't consider information received from radioactivity is not advanced enough. So in your case, it is simply ignorance.

justcool:

3)You talked about radioactive decay, as if you don't know what causes the decay. The decay is actually caused by the unstability of the atom. If you cannot see how this relates to two things influencing each other, I will not educated you. Or to put it in your own words, "I will not spoonfeed it to you."

No we do not know what causes the decay. The decay isn't caused by instability of the atom instead, we say an atom is unstable when we detect such decay. So you have the idea the wrong way around. I'm not asking you to spoonfeed me. Simply look it up here.
Simply ask yourself this, why do we say an isotope is unstable? It spontaneously emits particles.

Also consider that saying an isotope is unstable simply means it spontaneously emits particles if one is to be more precise and that is the relationship. And realize that this decay is a random process.

justcool:

Thanks, its been a pleasure.

You're welcome. The pleasure is all mine.

Please note the things that you failed to address e.g creation from nothing, how atheism is a religion like Christianity, how to separate the Christian God from Christianity, your claim of not belonging to any religion, why God shouldn't be discussed, the problems with claims of psychics, the method by which we know dogs have a keen sense of smell and other minor points.

Honestly this thread just showcased the incredible brilliance and lucidity of Justcool.

.

I can see that I'm very late into this thread. I spotted it in the morning, opened windows to reply, but I'm only just getting round to actually typing out my responses. Apologies if I'm bringing up things that have already been discussed or settled.

EDIT: I just realised this is a very old post so I have quietly deleted my contribution as the topic is no longer under discussion. Apologies once again.

If you say there was a creator then you have to explain who created the creator and why the universe can't be the creator

davidylan:
3 ingredients to design the universe:

1. matter - anything that has weight (dust, gases, e.t.c.)

2. Energy

3. Space

But how does science explain the origin of each and how do all 3 coalesce to design a universe that obeys extremely specific laws of "nature"?

Update - E=mc2  - means matter and energy are simply the same thing, 2 sides of one coin.

The big slam purports to explain the appearance of energy and matter? But what about space?

Interesting note from Hawking - if the universe is created by positive energy from the big bang balanced out by the corresponding negative energy stored in space (i.e +ive E + -ive E = 0), then you dont need God to create the universe? Interesting postulation without any shred of evidence. Kinda like saying . . . since we dont know what caused the big bang itself then God must exist.

Supposing that Hawkins was right in saying that the universe was created by +ve energy from the big bàng balanced out by the corresponding -ve energy. This would imply that the creation of the universe represents a lowering of the state of entropy in the system.
And from the laws of thermodynamics such reduction in the state of entropy can only occur if work is done on the system from an external enviroment.
Hawkins argument is like saying that the cold generated by a heat pump such as a refrigerator is balanced by the heat it expels from its radiators, as such neither a fridge nor work is required to seperate the heat from the cold.

manichukk56:
If you say there was a creator then you have to explain who created the creator and why the universe can't be the creator

God by definition is uncreated. But let us suppose that you are right that if God created the universe, then God was created by a second God. This would imply that the second God was in turn created by a third, and so on till infinity.
Now, remember that in mathematics however large a number is, subtracted from infinity, the answer is still infinty.
So we can dispens with all the intermediate Gods and still be left with the uncreated infinite God.

dorox:

God by definition is uncreated. But let us suppose that you are right that if God created the universe, then God was created by a second God. This would imply that the second God was in turn created by a third, and so on till infinity.
Now, remember that in mathematics however large a number is, subtracted from infinity, the answer is still infinty.
So we can dispens with all the intermediate Gods and still be left with the uncreated infinite God.

if you say God is uncreated then you spoil the logic of cause and effects, the question now is what caused an uncaused creator.. However there are no evidence for God, what if the universe came through quantum effects, not God

manichukk56:


if you say God is uncreated then you spoil the logic of cause and effects, the question now is what caused an uncaused creator.. However there are no evidence for God, what if the universe came through quantum effects, not God

Please, educate me on what quantum effect is.

As is usual, those who blab about being "educated" would rather refer you to websites even they dont understand. Its way too difficult to expect them to actually sit down and analyse their position.

We know all about the big slam . . . that was not the question of the thread. The question is quite simple - where did the big slam come from? Nothing?

Just to humor myself . . . i got this off the wikipedia page thehomer links to . . . of course since he has no knowledge of his own . . .

According to the Big Bang model, the universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today.

this is a silly claim - where did this "extremely dense and hot state" come from? So is the claim that matter and energy have ALWAYS existed? How did this "dense and hot state" result in the complex organisms we have today? How did it create such a delicately balanced universe that depends on such fine tuned laws of nature with very little room for flexibility?

How then can we claim that net energy in space = 0 if matter had ALWAYS existed in the form of a "dense and hot state"?

Hopefully thehomer isnt going to answer by telling us to "link here". That's all he seems capable of doing despite bleating about "knowledge".

Gbam!!!!!

blueAgent:


Gbam!!!!!

You would do well to actually make an argument. You should have considered my response to that character further down the thread. I've posted my response to him below.

thehomer:

davidylan:

As is usual, those who blab about being "educated" would rather refer you to websites even they dont understand. Its way too difficult to expect them to actually sit down and analyse their position.

We know all about the big slam . . . that was not the question of the thread. The question is quite simple - where did the big slam come from? Nothing?

Just to humor myself . . . i got this off the wikipedia page thehomer links to . . . of course since he has no knowledge of his own . . .

thehomer:
And I guess you have all this knowledge of your own? Beware the Dunning-Kruger effect.

davidylan:

According to the Big slam model, the universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today.

this is a silly claim - where did this "extremely dense and hot state" come from? So is the claim that matter and energy have ALWAYS existed? How did this "dense and hot state" result in the complex organisms we have today? How did it create such a delicately balanced universe that depends on such fine tuned laws of nature with very little room for flexibility?

thehomer:
Which part of the claim is silly? You're one hilarious fellow. Are you disagreeing with the fact that the universe expanded or that it continues to expand? How's that for comprehension?
It could be that this matter and energy always existed in some form. Do you not understand this possibility?
Delicately balanced universe? That is an example of what is known as "puddle thinking". I wonder what your answer is.

davidylan:

How then can we claim that net energy in space = 0 if matter had ALWAYS existed in the form of a "dense and hot state"?

thehomer:
So this is the root of your entire problem. The point isn't that the net energy in space is zero because recall that space is as a result of the expanding matter and energy. Hawking's point is that gravity when considered as negative energy counterbalances the matter and energy of the universe. Keep in mind that it wasn't matter that was in that hot and dense state but the universe in another state.

davidylan:

Hopefully thehomer isnt going to answer by telling us to "link here". That's all he seems capable of doing despite bleating about "knowledge".

thehomer:
No. Since you were able to clearly point out what you were unable to understand, I simply had to try to help you along. I hope you're now better informed.