# Stephen Hawking: God did not create Universe



## Stars

Molock said:


> Right, so God, a complex "being" does not require creation but the universe does.
> 
> :mellow:


Using lame, debunked Richard Dawkins talking points isn't going to get you anywhere in this debate. God is not necessarily complex, as Richard Swinburne has pointed out. One of the things He is is infinite, which is another concept that is simple and straightforward but extremely difficult (impossible?) for the human mind to fathom.



> You cannot argue about God and creation with a creationist.


You've already proven on Vent that you're not fit to debate me on anything. Be gone.


----------



## xezene

Stars said:


> Using lame, debunked Richard Dawkins talking points isn't going to get you anywhere in this debate. God is not necessarily complex, as Richard Swinburne has pointed out. One of the things He is is infinite, which is another concept that is simple and straightforward but extremely difficult (impossible?) for the human mind to fathom.
> 
> You've already proven on Vent that you're not fit to debate me on anything. Be gone.


The words you speak make me sad.

In a court of law, the judge and the advocate are separate people. But if you were to run into a court in which the judge and the advocate were the same person, that would be a disastrous situation.

Do not be so quick. It is easy to fall into the trap of being both the judge and the advocate. Are you?


----------



## Molock

We aren't having a debate. 

First demonstrate that _your_ God exists and that the Bible is truly his "word". Otherwise there is no point in having any discussion.


----------



## Achi

There is a constant amount of energy in the universe, it cannot be created or destroyed, you believe the energy always existed, I believe the energy came from an all knowing, all powerful source.



God said:


> There are laws to be written and worlds to form. They aren't going to create themselves. It's going to be a busy week.


Edit: An object at rest or traveling in uniform motion will remain at rest or traveling in uniform motion unless acted upon by a net force."
Note: a net force cannot come from inside. As well, velocity is a vector, therefore a constant velocity is defined as a constant speed in an unchanging direction (i.e. a linear path) 

Therefore the universe could not have created itself via the big bang theory unless acted on by an outside force.


----------



## Lucretius

Stars said:


> Human beings are not necessary to explain the existence of this computer I'm typing at.
> 
> It just sort of randomly and spontaneously put itself together and works very well. All just a coincidence, of course.
> 
> What a ridiculous statement by Hawking.


The Watchmaker argument has been refuted a thousand times...
Apologia Atheos: The Watchmaker argument refuted


----------



## xezene

Achi said:


> Therefore the universe could not have created itself via the big bang theory unless acted on by an outside force.


I hate to say it, but I believe you have misunderstood the concept of net force.


----------



## Stars

Azrael said:


> The Watchmaker argument has been refuted a thousand times...
> Apologia Atheos: The Watchmaker argument refuted


"Nature is uncomplicated and random"? Did the author seriously just say that in the face of seasons, rain cycles, tidal shifts, earthquakes, predator-prey relationships and even seemingly auxiliary elements like lightning and thunder? The natural recipe for a sustainable Earth is quite complex and orderly.

"Money doesn't grow on trees" made me laugh. The finished product may not come from a tree but the ingredients like Crane paper, cotton, silk and linen, all of which are used in the making of fiat money, all come from nature. So in a way, money does grow on trees, hence the cellulose structure. 

But parts 2 and 6 are completely irrelevant because they deal with specifics when you don't need to. All you need to know is that an object exists, regardless of anything else about the object. It could be a watch or it could be the Earth as a whole. Where do objects in general come from?

Part 3 is something that I predicted in an earlier post in this thread: that the "refuter" was going to assume that the creator God has the same characteristics as the human watchmaker. Which He clearly does not. But then the refuter contradicts himself in Part 4 by saying that God doesn't have the same characteristics as the watchmaker. Which one does the refuter want us to believe?

All in all the refutation is a failure. As is every attempt at refuting the Watchmaker argument.



> First demonstrate that your God exists and that the Bible is truly his "word". Otherwise there is no point in having any discussion.


Way to completely change your approach when you realized your earlier argument was unsustainable.


----------



## Lucretius

Stars said:


> "Nature is uncomplicated and random"? Did the author seriously just say that in the face of seasons, rain cycles, tidal shifts, earthquakes, predator-prey relationships and even seemingly auxiliary elements like lightning and thunder?


Firstly, he was pointing out a contradiction in the argument, not making a blanket statement about nature.
Second, much of nature _is _uncomplicated and random; that depends on scale and perspective.


Stars said:


> The natural recipe for a sustainable Earth is quite complex and orderly.


You can calculate the improbability of getting a particular hand of cards at the end of the deal _all you want_; the fact remains that some hand was necessary.


Stars said:


> "Money doesn't grow on trees" made me laugh. The finished product may not come from a tree but the ingredients like Crane paper, cotton, silk and linen, all of which are used in the making of fiat money, all come from nature. So in a way, money does grow on trees, hence the cellulose structure.


I suppose watches rise from metal deposits in the ground then? I'm not sure you're quite grasping his contention with the false analogy.


Stars said:


> But parts 2 and 6 are completely irrelevant because they deal with specifics when you don't need to. All you need to know is that an object exists, regardless of anything else about the object. It could be a watch or it could be the Earth as a whole. Where do objects in general come from?


Actually, the "specifics" _are _ important when discussing the difference between naturally-occurring and man-made structures.
There is no "in general" for objects to come from.


Stars said:


> Part 3 is something that I predicted in an earlier post in this thread: that the "refuter" was going to assume that the creator God has the same characteristics as the human watchmaker. Which He clearly does not.


How could you _possibly _know that? Because Aquinas said so? Is he a part of the canon now?


Stars said:


> But then the refuter contradicts himself in Part 4 by saying that God doesn't have the same characteristics as the watchmaker. Which one does the refuter want us to believe?


It said nothing of the sort. 
Part 4 makes no assumptions about the characteristics of "God"; it points out that a logical induction cannot be drawn from _transmutative _creation about creation _ex nihilo_.


Stars said:


> All in all the refutation is a failure. As is every attempt at refuting the Watchmaker argument.


Then I wonder why educated apologists no longer use it.


----------



## Achi

xezene said:


> I hate to say it, but I believe you have misunderstood the concept of net force.


Yeah, I probably have. Thanks for pointing that out ^_^;;


----------



## Hiccups24-7

I did make a table to express my *opinion! 










_*my opinion._


----------



## Lucretius

Hmm, I'll have to make a more accurate table later.


----------



## Hiccups24-7

Azrael said:


> Hmm, I'll have to make a more accurate table later.


I would love to hear your "opinion". That way I can then proceed to try and deny you have having an opinion........ of your own.


----------



## Lucretius

Hiccups24-7 said:


> I would love to hear your "opinion". That way I can then proceed to try and deny you have having an opinion........ of your own.


The disclaimer that your comment is "your opinion" is a tautology; it is not a bulwark protecting it from criticism.
You are entitled to your wrong opinion.


----------



## Hiccups24-7

Azrael said:


> The disclaimer that your comment is "your opinion" is a tautology; it is not a bulwark protecting it from criticism.
> You are entitled to your wrong opinion.


lol!!! Yes yes I am! ^______________________^


just like you are 


♥


----------



## Nearsification

What a pointless article...
He's an atheist. Yea we defiantly all care..


----------



## Molock

Stars said:


> Way to completely change your approach when you realized your earlier argument was unsustainable.


Yeah I did because you clearly have a mental block of sorts. It's pretty clear in your exchanges with Azrael.


----------



## Lucretius

I tried to make it comprehensive and accurate, but due to the equivocation on these terms, it is hard to cover everything.


----------



## Hiccups24-7

azrael said:


> [snip]
> 
> ...it is hard to cover everything.


fail.
.....

♥


----------



## bionic

Stars said:


> You've already proven on Vent that you're not fit to debate me on anything. Be gone.


What fruitful inquiry will come out of arguing about God, creation, and existence with an individual who has proven to have an inconsistent stand? When people have debated with you in past, you're opened to views until something occurs that doesn't measure up to what you agree with. Then you throw out personal insults and attacks on others in a passive- agressive manner.

If anything, WE ARE not fit to debate on this further because of my hard logic and your wish-washy stance backed up with subjectivity. Thus, any discussion between us would be unwise to continue.

Glad we could fairly agree on this.


----------



## bionic

Azrael said:


> I tried to make it comprehensive and accurate, but due to the equivocation on these terms, it is hard to cover everything.


Compared to Hiccups it has more details and facts. I see the direction you are going in; it certainly has potential. Good job.


----------



## Psilocin

*Turns everyone's attention towards Neo-Platonism*

:blushed:

"If anything, WE ARE not fit to debate on this further because of my hard logic and your wish-washy stance backed up with subjectivity. Thus, any discussion between us would be unwise to continue."

That's actually a very good choice- Considering the obvious differences.
Something that should be recognized and emphasized is that your opinion is not that of objectivity(No, I'm not saying you claimed to be objective- I'm just making an emphasis hurr). It's still based within a subjective perceptive that, I would hope, is admittedly and inherently lacking information or inconsistent in its information(Such is everyone's perspective).

Either way, what it comes down to is personal belief.

I honestly believe there is Nothing.
There is Oneness.
There is form to underlying principles of this Oneness- IE: Archetypes and Deities.
And I believe everything and everyone is a representation, refraction and reflection of not only the Oneness- But also the Archetypes/Deities associated with schism'd aspects of said Oneness.

The point being that we're all God experiencing itself, subjectively.

My two cents.
(I realize Nothing and Oneness existing in tandem seems like a paradox- But... Well... There are some things that I really don't feel I have to explain or justify within my personal beliefs.)


----------



## bionic

Psilocin said:


> That's actually a very good choice- Considering the obvious differences.
> Something that should be recognized and emphasized is that your opinion is not that of objectivity(No, I'm not saying you claimed to be objective- I'm just making an emphasis hurr). It's still based within a subjective perceptive that, I would hope, is admittedly and inherently lacking information or inconsistent in its information(Such is everyone's perspective).


It is a wise choice. Either way I never stated my personal opinion and I never will because it's of no use to the subject at hand. I'm not here to debate, just observe.


----------



## Lucretius

Psilocin said:


> what it comes down to is personal belief.


Is it just your personal belief that you typed these words? - a subjective opinion as valuable and true as the next?
I find this relativistic platitude to be philosophical suicide, though many ostensibly think it to be "wise."
Personally, I don't see solipsism as a corollary of accepting one's own fallibility.



Psilocin said:


> I honestly believe there is Nothing.
> There is Oneness.
> There is form to underlying principles of this Oneness- IE: Archetypes and Deities.
> And I believe everything and everyone is a representation, refraction and reflection of not only the Oneness- But also the Archetypes/Deities associated with schism'd aspects of said Oneness.
> 
> The point being that we're all God experiencing itself, subjectively.


I would grant Neoplatonic metaphysics as having the virtue of being at least philosophically _possible _(unlike certain predominant religions), but still sorely lacking in evidence.
In fact, science seems to be on the side of Heraclitus: "There is nothing permanent except change."
The Forms of Plato have no empirical basis; they appear to be little more than hypostasization.


----------



## Psilocin

AAAGGGHHH, fuck it. lol


----------



## Lucretius

Psilocin said:


> AAAGGGHHH, fuck it. lol


I can't help it. :laughing:
But I have to admit - Neoplatonism is pretty cool, whether it's true or not.


----------



## Psilocin

Azrael said:


> I can't help it. :laughing:
> But I have to admit - Neoplatonism is pretty cool, whether it's true or not.


:laughing:
It's cool dude. 
I just use it as a basis to explain Deities- I don't believe the Deities/Archetypes truly... Exist though. It's just my attempt at rationalizing the unknown.

The only thing I truly stress/believe is Oneness. :]


----------



## firedell

Molock said:


> If you claim that the universe is God-made or intelligently designed you create another question: Who or what made/created God?
> 
> Simple stuff.


If I told you that, I would have to get some ninja's the kill you.


----------



## vel

That we have something as a derivative of nothing and that nothing doesn't really exist by itself has already been previously stated, but his comment about gravity being somehow involved in this process is very interesting. I wonder how he explains it.


----------



## xezene

I have discovered that Western philosophers compare very poorly to the Eastern philosophers. Western philosophers almost seem to love talking for the sake of talking, talking in circles about things which they presume they know but don't. Quite the opposite for the Eastern philosophers. Look there.

Once you realize, as they did, that the question of God's existence is completely irrelevant, you have gotten off to a good start.


----------



## Stars

Molock said:


> Yeah I did because you clearly have a mental block of sorts. It's pretty clear in your exchanges with Azrael.


So the one who defeats your claims earns the title of "mentally blocked"? That's being a poor sport, Molock. Dawkins' "Ultimate 747" argument just isn't very good. The term "complexity" refers to how many different parts interact with eachother inside a mechanism to allow this mechanism to achieve its ends. Dawkins is right when he says that the universe is a very complex thing but the God who created it doesn't need to be complex. What He needs to be is omnipotent and omniscient. He needs to have the knowledge of how to make a well-designed universe sustainable for life and He needs to be powerful enough to shape the universe into the form He has deemed will work. Omniscience and omnipotence. Not very complex.

The human body is made of flesh and bone but I don't claim to know what God is made out of. I don't think I'm capable of imagining it. But suppose it's made up of some supernatural substance that nothing is greater than. Would you feel comfortable saying that this substance isn't complex? I wouldn't. I don't even feel comfortable saying this. But that's not the point. The point is: if it's an objective fact that God has always existed, there is no need for Him to have been created. He exists on a level that human logic and intelligence is incapable of accessing and does not need to be created in the same way that things created out of natural matter do.

And then you bypass all this and say PROVE TO ME YOUR GOD EXISTS STARS. Do you now see why I have little to no motivation to do that for you?


----------



## xezene

Stars said:


> So the one who defeats your claims earns the title of "mentally blocked"? That's being a poor sport, Molock. Dawkins' "Ultimate 747" argument just isn't very good. The term "complexity" refers to how many different parts interact with eachother inside a mechanism to allow this mechanism to achieve its ends. Dawkins is right when he says that the universe is a very complex thing but the God who created it doesn't need to be complex. What He needs to be is omnipotent and omniscient. He needs to have the knowledge of how to make a well-designed universe sustainable for life and He needs to be powerful enough to shape the universe into the form He has deemed will work. Omniscience and omnipotence. Not very complex.


You are thinking too simply. The universe is not made, the universe grows. Look around, it's the most painfully obvious thing there is to see. Simple to complex. If evolution says anything, it says this.


----------



## skycloud86

*‎"The supreme arrogance of religious thinking: that a carbon-based bag of mostly water on a speck of iron-silicate dust around a boring dwarf star in a minor galaxy in an underpopulated local group of galaxies in an unfashionable suburb of a super-cluster would look up at the sky and declare, "It was all made so that I could exist."* - Peter Walker


----------



## Stars

xezene said:


> You are thinking too simply. The universe is not made, the universe grows. Look around, it's the most painfully obvious thing there is to see. Simple to complex. If evolution says anything, it says this.


What causes the universe to grow? Growth is an action. An object will not act unless an external force acts upon it. 



> "The supreme arrogance of religious thinking: that a carbon-based bag of mostly water on a speck of iron-silicate dust around a boring dwarf star in a minor galaxy in an underpopulated local group of galaxies in an unfashionable suburb of a super-cluster would look up at the sky and declare, "It was all made so that I could exist." - Peter Walker


 "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." -Psalms 19:1 
Christian theology doesn't teach that "God made the universe for humans"; it teaches that He made the universe as a demonstration of His power and as a temporary realm where humans could choose to accept Him or reject Him. God places Himself at the center of existence, not His creation. And if He's really as great as He says, then He's right to do that. Next time, try learning about what your opponents *actually* believe. Your ignorance show badly.


----------



## xezene

Stars said:


> What causes the universe to grow? Growth is an action. An object will not act unless an external force acts upon it.


Okay, I feel the need to clarify this.

Everything humanity knows, everything everybody thinks they know, is made up. Just made up. Words? Made up. Theories? Made up. Explanations? Made up. Even mathematics and science are made up. They are refined systems of measuring the Universe. They are thoughts, they are clever interpretations, but just that. Follow?

Alright, so let's look at your response. You give a reason why this-and-that cannot be. You give a reason, which was once made up, and instead of proving your point, you hide behind an explanation which explains nothing.

The external force bit? Read that again. Forget that I am disagreeing with you, just look at it. Look at what you wrote. Do you not see how dubious, how ridiculous, it is for you to say you understand the Universe? Those that say things are "impossible" are those that know the least of the Universe.

"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing." -- Socrates


----------



## Lucretius

Stars said:


> What causes the universe to grow?


Dark energy.


Stars said:


> "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." -Psalms 19:1
> Christian theology doesn't teach that "God made the universe for humans"; it teaches that He made the universe as a demonstration of His power and as a temporary realm where humans could choose to accept Him or reject Him. God places Himself at the center of existence, not His creation. And if He's really as great as He says, then He's right to do that. Next time, try learning about what your opponents *actually* believe. Your ignorance show badly.


I'm afraid the quote _is _actually quite representative of what his opponents believe.
Do not feign ignorance when you yourself have peddled such anthropocentric arguments as the teleological and fine-tuning varieties.
It is axiomatic to these arguments that one says to himself: "It is of supreme importance that I and my fellow primates exist in this universe."



xezene said:


> I have discovered that Western philosophers compare very poorly to the Eastern philosophers. Western philosophers almost seem to love talking for the sake of talking, talking in circles about things which they presume they know but don't. Quite the opposite for the Eastern philosophers. Look there.


I'm afraid I must disagree. There is a lot of wisdom to be found in Eastern philosophy, but there is much more rigorous logical analysis of philosophical problems in the Western.


----------



## xezene

Azrael said:


> I'm afraid I must disagree. There is a lot of wisdom to be found in Eastern philosophy, but there is much more rigorous logical analysis of philosophical problems in the Western.


True, they are very different. In fact, perhaps I shouldn't even be comparing the two. :tongue:


----------



## Ravenflight

xezene said:


> I have discovered that Western philosophers compare very poorly to the Eastern philosophers. Western philosophers almost seem to love talking for the sake of talking, talking in circles about things which they presume they know but don't. Quite the opposite for the Eastern philosophers. Look there.


Perhaps Western philosophers compare poorly to Eastern philosophers _by the standards of Eastern philosophers._

I think you're confusing Western philosophers talking in "circles" with your own confusion.



> Once you realize, as they did, that the question of God's existence is completely irrelevant, you have gotten off to a good start.


I think you assume (wrongly) that most of those who disagree with you haven't already thought of this.

You seem to be asserting a lot of things that you can't know, xezene. Why are you so sure of things?


----------



## PseudoSenator

Hiccups24-7 said:


> I did make a table to express my *opinion!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*my opinion._


 With the table you made, you essentially surpassed me in computer literacy, so kudos for that :tongue:

Anyway, I do think there are degrees of extremism. That is to say, for example, that Christian religious fundamentalists believe in an afterlife which more or less consists of either eternal sentience in the celestial realm of Heaven or infinite subjugation amid the searing fires of Hell; atheists conversely believe we are put on the earth, have a few experiences, and then perish into nonexistence. One is a fantastical scenario built upon fabricated evidence and the other is a demand for evidence. *wonders if he should post this--ah what the heck*


----------



## xezene

Brian Thornley said:


> Perhaps Western philosophers compare poorly to Eastern philosophers _by the standards of Eastern philosophers._
> 
> I think you're confusing Western philosophers talking in "circles" with your own confusion.


I have read a vast majority of Western philosophy. Much of it is fascinating and it has no doubt changed my view of the world. However, there is a reason that Western philosophy books are generally (I'm making a sweeping generalization which has notable exceptions) very lengthy. Why? It isn't the substance I refute in Western philosophy -- not at all. It is simply the delivery.

But my personal preferences aside, and getting back to the main point, a big problem with much of Western philosophy nowadays is that it has become infatuated with its own thinking ability. How many philosophers do you see that actually live true to what they say?



Brian Thornley said:


> I think you assume (wrongly) that most of those who disagree with you haven't already thought of this.
> 
> You seem to be asserting a lot of things that you can't know, xezene. Why are you so sure of things?


Thank you. Guess I've misled some to think I'm sure about these things. Words like yours will help me change my approach, so I appreciate it.


----------



## timeless

Azrael said:


> *I'm afraid *the quote _is _actually quite representative of what his opponents believe.





> *I'm afraid* I must disagree.


Let's examine the origins of your fear.


----------



## Hiccups24-7

for so long I thought those that believed in a god were some variety of crazy but then I thought no there most be a tangible reason. So I sat down and figured that, and using this particular angle I figured that if they question the after life and what happens when we die then perhaps they either fear or feel a need that our time on earth has a purpose beyond the simple experience of here and now. That they will pass on to something better and it won't be the end. 
I don't know if they are aware of it deep down, the delusion that they create, or maybe not delusion but the easing of the mind with a fairy tale to give them comfort during their time here on earth. With this it helped me be more accepting of believers.. even if I'm wrong or deluding myself into understanding their POV even if it's just on a basic level. 
To feel as though they do what they do out of fear and in a way positive thinking (even if it's not true, it's true to them) to make them feel better. It also covers the idea of how a lot of them come across as brainwashed zombies so it makes that seem easier to understand as well.

So with that I figured it is plausible to live a life in that fashion, if it works for them and they are happy then who am I to try and take that away from them with half baked "facts". What isn't cool though is those that try and push it on to others, especially when they have no idea what they are really doing and just following orders that is sad to have to see.
Also another part that isn't cool is the fact it's intertwined into our justice and legal system. That is way waaayyyyyyyy not cool.

But overall this is just the way I look at those that believe in god, it helps me be more accepting of others and like religion as a whole I'm not trying to claim this as anything more than my own observations and opinions.. that I'm sure some would love to whine about but please... please don't. Please don't try and deny me of my opinion that would be wrong, sure suggest your own but don't force feed me.. I'm still recovering from icecream and cake I had for breakfast :-/


----------



## Gracie

Stars said:


> What causes the universe to grow? Growth is an action. An object will not act unless an external force acts upon it.
> 
> 
> 
> "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." -Psalms 19:1
> Christian theology doesn't teach that "God made the universe for humans"; it teaches that He made the universe as a demonstration of His power and as a temporary realm where humans could choose to accept Him or reject Him. God places Himself at the center of existence, not His creation. And if He's really as great as He says, then He's right to do that. Next time, try learning about what your opponents *actually* believe. Your ignorance show badly.


TBH Stars, the question your posts leave me with, overall, is whether you are even capable of engaging in objective, cogent debate without personally insulting your opponents.

Not that I suppose you have any interest in what other people have to say - but really, making snide inferences as to your opponents' cognitive abilities does not make your argument look more or less passable.

If you really want to influence anyone in the direction of seeing things from your perspective, stop avoiding questions and throwing unjustified insults in everyone else's direction. It just tells everyone you're incapable of honest, logical debate, without making it personal. I have to say, actually, that it's people of a similar mentality to yours that really made me question, and later abandon, my own faith. 

So, to summarise, your approach is counter-productive.


----------



## firedell

It befuddles me why someone could believe in "God", so let me ask the believers, what in the first place has convinced you there is infact a higher power?


----------



## PhysPhil

"It all happens by chance. Now get back to work sheeple"

:bored:


----------



## whisperycat

"Confronted with the universe, with fields of space sown thick with stars, with all there is of life, the wise man, being asked the origin and destiny of all, replies: "I do not know. These questions are beyond the powers of my mind." The wise man is thoughtful and modest. He clings to facts. Beyond his intellectual horizon he does not pretend to see. He does not mistake hope for evidence or desire for demonstration. He is honest. He neither deceives himself nor others.

The theologian arrives at the unthinkable, the inconceivable, and he calls this God. The scientist arrives at the unthinkable, the inconceivable, and calls it the Unknown.

The theologian insists that his inconceivable governs the world, that it, or he, or they, can be influenced by prayers and ceremonies, that it, or he, or they, punishes and rewards, that it, or he, or they, has priests and temples.

The scientist insist that the Unknown is not changed so far as he knows by prayers of people or priests. He admits that he does not know whether the Unknown is good or bad -- whether he, or it, wants or whether he, or it, is worthy of worship. He does not say that the Unknown is God, that it created substance and force, life and thought. He simply says that of the Unknown he knows nothing"

Robert Ingersoll, from "Foundations of Faith", 1895

All of Robert Ingersoll's works have been made available, free, online.

Robert Green Ingersoll


----------



## xezene

Hiccups24-7 said:


> for so long I thought those that believed in a god were some variety of crazy but then I thought no there most be a tangible reason. So I sat down and figured that, and using this particular angle I figured that if they question the after life and what happens when we die then perhaps they either fear or feel a need that our time on earth has a purpose beyond the simple experience of here and now. That they will pass on to something better and it won't be the end.
> I don't know if they are aware of it deep down, the delusion that they create, or maybe not delusion but the easing of the mind with a fairy tale to give them comfort during their time here on earth. With this it helped me be more accepting of believers.. even if I'm wrong or deluding myself into understanding their POV even if it's just on a basic level.
> To feel as though they do what they do out of fear and in a way positive thinking (even if it's not true, it's true to them) to make them feel better. It also covers the idea of how a lot of them come across as brainwashed zombies so it makes that seem easier to understand as well.
> 
> So with that I figured it is plausible to live a life in that fashion, if it works for them and they are happy then who am I to try and take that away from them with half baked "facts". What isn't cool though is those that try and push it on to others, especially when they have no idea what they are really doing and just following orders that is sad to have to see.
> Also another part that isn't cool is the fact it's intertwined into our justice and legal system. That is way waaayyyyyyyy not cool.
> 
> But overall this is just the way I look at those that believe in god, it helps me be more accepting of others and like religion as a whole I'm not trying to claim this as anything more than my own observations and opinions.. that I'm sure some would love to whine about but please... please don't. Please don't try and deny me of my opinion that would be wrong, sure suggest your own but don't force feed me.. I'm still recovering from icecream and cake I had for breakfast :-/


I don't think most Christians or religious people deeply analyze their faith. I think it is more that they have been hypnotised into believing these things since birth.


----------



## PseudoSenator

It bugs me to no end when believers say, "That's not the God I believe in." This not only conforms to the larger tradition that religions have of altering their dogmas over time in order to be consistent with the time, but it also showcases this flaw at an individual level. For credibility's sake, you can't pick and choose which aspects of your faith to adhere too--at least when it comes to debating whether or note there is truth to the existence of a higher power. 

In my experience, most people covet their faith because they've "felt God in [them]". In definitely has more to do with feeling than rational thought.


----------



## Stars

Gracie said:


> TBH Stars, the question your posts leave me with, overall, is whether you are even capable of engaging in objective, cogent debate without personally insulting your opponents.
> 
> Not that I suppose you have any interest in what other people have to say - but really, making snide inferences as to your opponents' cognitive abilities does not make your argument look more or less passable.
> 
> If you really want to influence anyone in the direction of seeing things from your perspective, stop avoiding questions and throwing unjustified insults in everyone else's direction. It just tells everyone you're incapable of honest, logical debate, without making it personal. I have to say, actually, that it's people of a similar mentality to yours that really made me question, and later abandon, my own faith.
> 
> So, to summarise, your approach is counter-productive.


I will not apologize for my bold, firebrand approach. In fact you're lucky I don't go harder on you all after some of the bigotry and persecution I've put up with for what I believe. 

I don't wish to initiate anything. I'm on the defense, not offense. People who criticize what I believe will have their criticisms addressed.

Debates are SUPPOSED to be personal. Ethos matters in a debate. Getting inside another person's character/credibility is a good way to determine if we can take what they say seriously or not. So if someone lacks ethos, this means you hit where it hurts. 

I'm not insulting skycloud's cognitive abilities. He's a smart guy. But he simply does not know about all of Christian theology. His quote definitely isn't as bad as the "all Christians think the universe is 6,000 years old" type of statements but it was still wrong. Smart people are often ignorant too.

Interestingly, you never criticized Molock for calling me "mentally blocked", about as unfounded an insult as you can get. Why is that Gracie? 

One question from looking at your profile...if you reject Christianity, on what grounds do you claim that human beings have any rights that need to be advocated for? And don't use some form of moral relativism as your answer because as Timothy Keller points out, if morality is relative then so is social justice. Someone could claim you are a sower of injustice and inhumanity and if you asked them why they believe this, they could say "it seems that way to me" and you would be powerless to prove them wrong.


----------



## xezene

Stars said:


> Debates are SUPPOSED to be personal.


Are you kidding? To everyone on this forum, not just Stars, debates are not supposed to be personal.

Newtonians didn't try and destroy Einstein's theories by attacking his personality. That shows a lack of focus, and a lack of staying on the subject at hand. If you want others to look at your argument seriously, you can't insult the very people who are reading it. That will destroy your audience, and it makes your words worthless to anyone but yourself.

No insults please. If you can't debate objectively and in a civil fashion, without taking it to a personal level with the other person, than maybe you shouldn't be here.


----------



## Stars

xezene said:


> Are you kidding? To everyone on this forum, not just Stars, debates are not supposed to be personal.
> 
> Newtonians didn't try and destroy Einstein's theories by attacking his personality. That shows a lack of focus, and a lack of staying on the subject at hand.


For every Einstein out there, there's an equal number of Karl Marx's or Erich Fromm's: philosophers who can't really be argued against successfully without focusing on their character.

"It is a fact, and in some ways a melancholy fact, that massive works of the intellect do not spring from the abstract workings of the brain and the imagination; they are deeply rooted in the personality." -Paul Johnson


----------



## Lucretius

Stars said:


> if you reject Christianity, on what grounds do you claim that human beings have any rights that need to be advocated for?


This, ladies and gentlemen, is religious solipsism at its worst.


----------



## Stars

Azrael said:


> This, ladies and gentlemen, is religious solipsism at its worst.


Which is only a problem if Christianity is false. But if Christianity is the objective truth, can you really say that there are any others valid answers, answers other than that the Christian God demands that we respect the rights He gave to us humans? The answer is no.


----------



## SomeRandomGuy18

Stars said:


> Which is only a problem if Christianity is false. But if Christianity is the objective truth, can you really say that there are any others valid answers, answers other than that the Christian God demands that we respect the rights He gave to us humans? The answer is no.


Well that's a useless hypothetical scenario. No need to answer it.


----------



## Lucretius

Stars said:


> Which is only a problem if Christianity is false. But if Christianity is the objective truth, can you really say that there are any others valid answers, answers other than that the Christian God demands that we respect the rights He gave to us humans? The answer is no.


Thank you for this mind-numbing tautology.
Your dogmatism is a problem whether Christianity is true or false.


----------



## Stars

Azrael said:


> Thank you for this mind-numbing tautology.
> Your dogmatism is a problem whether Christianity is true or false.


I'm more ecumenical than you think. For instance I became much more Pro-Mormon over the years and in recent weeks I've become alot more Pro-Islam. When some group is being unfairly scapegoated by the political establishment (in this case, Fox News and the neocon evangelicals), they should be defended and sympathized with. I don't agree with some of the claims Muslim theology makes but I'm impressed by Islam's belief that Jesus literally rose from the dead. I didn't know that until a few days ago. As C.S. Lewis said "just as in arithmetic, there is only one right answer to a sum. But some of the wrong answers are much closer than others."


----------



## Lucretius

Stars said:


> I'm more ecumenical than you think.


That may be true, but it is pretty irrelevant to my point.


Stars said:


> I'm impressed by Islam's belief that Jesus literally rose from the dead.


So you are impressed by credulity, in the event that it matches your own.


----------



## mnemonicfx

Zhuangzi, this guy beats Stephen Hawking about spontaneous order.

Although, Hawking refined the details of this philosophy.

The belief for Christianity God is similar to the belief that intelligent alien(s) created us and the universe in some way. The difference is, the aliens do not need worship.


----------



## xezene

Stars said:


> For every Einstein out there, there's an equal number of Karl Marx's or Erich Fromm's: philosophers who can't really be argued against successfully without focusing on their character.
> 
> "It is a fact, and in some ways a melancholy fact, that massive works of the intellect do not spring from the abstract workings of the brain and the imagination; they are deeply rooted in the personality." -Paul Johnson


I'm just saying your words will be worthless. That's all, no big, but your words will be an absolute waste. No one wants to hear you crybaby over someone else's personality. We care about the issues, here, ego-man.

Go run to your quotes. Have you given us an original idea yet?

I'll let you answer that.


----------



## SomeRandomGuy18

Stars said:


> Which is only a problem if Christianity is false. But if Christianity is the objective truth, can you really say that there are any others valid answers, answers other than that the Christian God demands that we respect the rights He gave to us humans? The answer is no.


And even if this "god" deity you speak of were real, I don't think such an asshole should be worshipped or respected. Look at what he did to our ancestors!


----------



## Steve MD

I read the theory of everything, and in it, Hawking made implications all over the book that there was place for a creator......


----------



## peterk

Azrael said:


> Can you provide an example? If you're referring to the fact that physicists tend to have a proclivity to create mathematically-symmetrical models, then I would concede that point - but no one intentionally leaves anything out to protect the beauty of the model.
> 
> Again, can you provide an example?
> 
> I would not call it "intuitive" merely because it cannot be tested in a laboratory. That no doubt plays some role, but mathematics coupled with our current understanding of the universe is the essential guiding hand.
> 
> Whoa, that sentence has "fallacy" written all over it.
> Let's pretend like the first part is true for argument's sake - that there is nothing known about the existence of "God."
> Now we'll do a little experiment. Let's consider something else we do not know anything about, and plug it into the same sentence.
> "As to the existence of aliens - nothing is known, so logic and empirical evidence are no better than intuition and emotion."
> Could you really say that with a straight face? Is a person who says, "I've just got a deep feeling that aliens exist" on par with someone who says, "There are good probabilistic arguments in favor of the existence of aliens"?
> 
> Since when have intuition and emotion been a legitimate way of determining whether something exists?


*
*
On the contrary thing's are often left out of a theory in order to protect beauty of a theory if the effect is unimportant. The more beautiful and aesthetically satisfying a theory, the more probable there is some truth to it.
*
An example of leaving things out: A block of some material is sliding without friction down an inclined plane. The "differential equation" which would model Force=MassxAcceleration is simple and can be solved exactly. It can be used if the friction effects are very small. Now to complicate this IDEAL state we add a friction term to this equation. Depending on the form of the friction term the equation may become unsolvable(the mathematics has become intractable) except by approximations using a computer. We can make things more complicated by having the friction ablate mass from the block. Then the mass is a variable. The heat from the friction will have to be described using Thermodynamics...ect. We then end up with something very ugly.
*
The equations of my avatar represent the description of electricity and magnetism in the large. These "partial differential equations" must be modified when say a speeding electon approaches the speed of light. then we must use Quantumelectrodynamics.


----------



## Lucretius

peterk said:


> *
> *
> On the contrary thing's are often left out of a theory in order to protect beauty of a theory if the effect is unimportant. The more beautiful and aesthetically satisfying a theory, the more probable there is some truth to it.
> *
> An example of leaving things out: A block of some material is sliding without friction down an inclined plane. The "differential equation" which would model Force=MassxAcceleration is simple and can be solved exactly. It can be used if the friction effects are very small. Now to complicate this IDEAL state we add a friction term to this equation. Depending on the form of the friction term the equation may become unsolvable(the mathematics has become intractable) except by approximations using a computer. We can make things more complicated by having the friction ablate mass from the block. Then the mass is a variable. The heat from the friction will have to be described using Thermodynamics...ect. We then end up with something very ugly.
> *
> The equations of my avatar represent the description of electricity and magnetism in the large. These "partial differential equations" must be modified when say a speeding electon approaches the speed of light. then we must use Quantumelectrodynamics.


I think we're crossing into a realm which I have less experience in, so allow me to clarify your meaning.
Are you referring to specific simple equations like v = x/t that do not take into account other variables?
If so, that seems irrelevant to me. After all, physicists are aware that these other variables exist and often use more complicated ones when needed. For instance, Newtonian equations work quite well to predict events on certain scales - but when we move into the very large, very fast, or very small, we have other ones to deal with these problems. This doesn't represent scientists as being idealistic; it just shows that the model is incomplete - that there is no Grand Unified Theory as of yet.

Even so, how can you defend your statement that intuition and emotion are equally valid means of determining the existence of something? (compared to logic and empirical evidence, of course.)


----------



## Zic

peterk said:


> *
> *
> On the contrary thing's are often left out of a theory in order to protect beauty of a theory if the effect is unimportant. The more beautiful and aesthetically satisfying a theory, the more probable there is some truth to it.
> *
> An example of leaving things out: A block of some material is sliding without friction down an inclined plane. The "differential equation" which would model Force=MassxAcceleration is simple and can be solved exactly. It can be used if the friction effects are very small. Now to complicate this IDEAL state we add a friction term to this equation. Depending on the form of the friction term the equation may become unsolvable(the mathematics has become intractable) except by approximations using a computer. We can make things more complicated by having the friction ablate mass from the block. Then the mass is a variable. The heat from the friction will have to be described using Thermodynamics...ect. We then end up with something very ugly.
> *
> The equations of my avatar represent the description of electricity and magnetism in the large. These "partial differential equations" must be modified when say a speeding electon approaches the speed of light. then we must use Quantumelectrodynamics.


We don't have a theory of everything and don't know everything about the universe, yet.
Therefore, god exists.
Sounds like a fallacy to me.


----------



## timeless

Zic said:


> We don't have a theory of everything and don't know everything about the universe, yet.
> Therefore, god exists.
> Sounds like a fallacy to me.


I think the a more accurate construction would be to replace your "therefore, god exists" line with "therefore, god can't be ruled out". Hawking seems to be arguing that we know enough about the universe to say that there's no room for a creator.


----------



## wiarumas

timeless said:


> I think the a more accurate construction would be to replace your "therefore, god exists" line with "therefore, god can't be ruled out". Hawking seems to be arguing that we know enough about the universe to say that there's no room for a creator.


Creator, yes. Hawking is saying that God did not create the universe, but he is not saying there is no God.


----------



## PhillyFox

skycloud86 said:


> BBC News - Stephen Hawking: God did not create Universe


*peaks head in*

Anyone else find it amazingly ironic that the Big Bang Theory was proposed by a Catholic priest? 

*ducks out to avoid logic bomb*


----------



## peterk

AZRAEL
*
*
My example meant to show how and why things could be left out of a theory ( In this case the theory of a sliding block).
*
There is no GUT as of yet and therefore Prof. Hawkins does not have all the facts and his pronouncements reduce to personal opinion.
*
Instead of intuition and emotion I should have said intuition and feeling functions may be more valid in determining the existence of something than logic and empirical evidence which perhaps coincides with the thinking and sensing functions.
*
The present state of scientific knowledge does not allow one to determine anything about a God. However the logic of feeling with intuition may be better suited for this question.:happy:


----------



## Lucretius

peterk said:


> My example meant to show how and why things could be left out of a theory ( In this case the theory of a sliding block).


Again, I fail to see _how _it showed this, unless by "theory" you mean "a calculation producing macroscopic approximations."
It's not like these physicists just _ignore _the other variables; they are simply inconsequential at certain scales and situations.


peterk said:


> There is no GUT as of yet and therefore Prof. Hawkins does not have all the facts and his pronouncements reduce to personal opinion.


Again, this is just an egregious fallacy.
Do you really mean to say that my belief in the atomic theory of matter is equally valid to the ancient Greeks' belief in the five elements?
It is nothing less than absurd to say that since we don't know _everything_, every perspective is equal.


peterk said:


> Instead of intuition and emotion I should have said intuition and feeling functions may be more valid in determining the existence of something than logic and empirical evidence which perhaps coincides with the thinking and sensing functions.
> *
> The present state of scientific knowledge does not allow one to determine anything about a God. However the logic of feeling with intuition may be better suited for this question.:happy:


Ah, so now you'll go as far as saying that intuition and feeling are _better _judges of this question?
Well what argument could I make to that? Certainly not a logical or evidence-based one.
Perhaps I will go with this, "I _just know_ that you're wrong, peterk. I just have that feeling."


----------



## peterk

Azrael
*
Your feelings may be valid!! :blushed:


----------



## SomeRandomGuy18

Azrael said:


> Again, I fail to see _how _it showed this, unless by "theory" you mean "a calculation producing macroscopic approximations."
> It's not like these physicists just _ignore _the other variables; they are simply inconsequential at certain scales and situations.
> 
> Again, this is just an egregious fallacy.
> Do you really mean to say that my belief in the atomic theory of matter is equally valid to the ancient Greeks' belief in the five elements?
> It is nothing less than absurd to say that since we don't know _everything_, every perspective is equal.
> 
> Ah, so now you'll go as far as saying that intuition and feeling are _better _judges of this question?
> Well what argument could I make to that? Certainly not a logical or evidence-based one.
> Perhaps I will go with this, "I _just know_ that you're wrong, peterk. I just have that feeling."


Haha you're awesome


----------



## mnemonicfx

Judging by the amount of arguments in this thread. Those who felt that their belief are at stake will argue the most.


----------



## Gracie

mnemonicfx said:


> Judging by the amount of arguments in this thread. Those who felt that their belief are at stake will argue the most.


Absolutely.


----------



## Stella d Oro

Peterk, are you questioning SCIENCE and its Mohammad, Stephen Hawking? Didn't you read A Brief History of Time? Here let me help you...:wink:

You seem basically intelligent but you fail to see the allure of atheism. To the atheist mankind is nothing but a species of mere animals who by some cosmic ray striking a DNA helix a unknown millennias ago were led to the glories of sapience. Now dammit, that means a lot of thinking.
The atheist sees himself for what he really is...nothing. The atheist recognizes he is a mere smudge of carbon nothingness whose thoughts will die with him when he crumbles like rotten leather and his essence ends up fertilizing some eutrophic pool on a flyspeck of a planet orbiting a dim star on the edge of a crummy galaxy far, far away ….from anything important. <inhale>
B-U-T, the atheist is damned sure he is going to be the most magnificent, intelligent, infallible, unquestionable, irrefutable speck of self-aware carbolated gelatin that ever walked the face of the planet. As such, all others are inferior to the atheist, FOOL! No, humility is not for the atheist, humility is for those mealy-mouthed Agnostics (pfffft!)
The Atheist is a god! He can have no other gods above him. He cannot tolerate it. He cannot tolerate the fact that other people believe there is a god above him. Those fools! Didn’t they listen to Carl Sagan say “Billions and Billions!?!” Being a god he can’t be bound by your petty and OBVIOUSLY wrong drivel you call religion. This is especially true if your god tells him what to eat and drink, who to have sex with, yada yada yada. Remember this one thing--The atheist’s logic is PERFECT. He is the SUPREME BEING of logic. Your arguments are futile. 
I’m just trying to give you some perspective on the mindset of the atheist. Hope this helps. Also, please don’t assume that I am bashing atheists. As you all well know, no one bashes anyone else’s world view on these boards by arrogantly dismissing others views simply because they are atheists, Christians or even muslims.
I’ll go back to reading the INTJ channel now where I’m finding out how unique and special I am, it makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. 




peterk said:


> AZRAEL
> *
> *
> My example meant to show how and why things could be left out of a theory ( In this case the theory of a sliding block).
> *
> There is no GUT as of yet and therefore Prof. Hawkins does not have all the facts and his pronouncements reduce to personal opinion.
> *
> Instead of intuition and emotion I should have said intuition and feeling functions may be more valid in determining the existence of something than logic and empirical evidence which perhaps coincides with the thinking and sensing functions.
> *
> The present state of scientific knowledge does not allow one to determine anything about a God. However the logic of feeling with intuition may be better suited for this question.:happy:


----------



## mnemonicfx

Stella d Oro said:


> The Atheist is a god! He can have no other gods above him. He cannot tolerate it. He cannot tolerate the fact that other people believe there is a god above him. Those fools! Didn’t they listen to Carl Sagan say “Billions and Billions!?!” Being a god he can’t be bound by your petty and OBVIOUSLY wrong drivel you call religion. This is especially true if your god tells him what to eat and drink, who to have sex with, yada yada yada. Remember this one thing--The atheist’s logic is PERFECT. He is the SUPREME BEING of logic. Your arguments are futile.
> I’m just trying to give you some perspective on the mindset of the atheist.


This is the common misperception of atheism. I heard about this all the time until I understand the weakness of religion, and what atheism is.

Not believing in any miracles, magic, or god doesn't make someone a god. If someone is capable to be a god, then there is a god. Therefore this is not atheism. It could be some kind of Nazi cult or the Justice League of Superheroes.

General Zod is a good example of this, while Batman could be an atheist.


----------



## Lucem

Stephen Hawkings is just being an INTP troll.:laughing:

Hey, he has to have fun *somehow*!


----------



## cardinalfire

I disagree with Hawking, a lot of things in life appear to be much more just coincidence. God isn't often the entity that people hope him to be, and when one looks at how a Spider builts it's web, how complicated and efficient the human body is... hmm.. no personally i'm a man of faith, it's all too good to be coincidence. If the sun was any closer to earth, we'd melt, if we were any further away we would freeze, coincidence? hmm.. even if it isn't 'God', it's certainly something.


----------



## mnemonicfx

LemonSqueeze said:


> Stephen Hawkings is just being an INTP troll.:laughing:
> 
> Hey, he has to have fun *somehow*!


He dismissed the possibility of a creator because he realized that his life is miserable (physically).
He's just being realistic.

As to the question of coincidence. Again, we need to understand that coincidence or chances are just "unknowable" event or "unpredictable" event.

Some are predictable, and this is knowable, and we consider them as "not" mere coincidence.

It's just our intelligence and perspective. The more we know a pattern, the more we will think it's not a coincidence. It has nothing do with "who" or "what" started it, or whether it has to be a "super intelligent" being.


----------



## soul searcher

> “I don't think most Christians or religious people deeply analyze their faith. I think it is more that they have been hypnotised into believing these things since birth.”


That is true. Most of them do not. But not all. Sir Isaac Newton, probably one the greatest scientists who ever lived, based his faith in God on a deep and detailed study of the Bible, and on his own science. 

The truth is that both Theism and Atheism rest on faith. 

Webster’s definition: (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof 

The Bible’s definition: “Faith is the assured expectation of thing hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities, though not beheld.” - Hebrews 11:1

Faith is not necessarily blind, and it can be based on evidence. Just because a belief cannot be conclusively scientifically proven does not mean that the available evidence clearly disproves it. 

The real issue here is interpretation of evidence. For example:

Evidence: Complexity and precision in the Universe.

Conclusion of a Theist: The creation of the universe required intelligence.

Conclusion of an Atheist: The creation of the universe did not require intelligence.

Same piece of evidence, two opposing conclusions. 

To avoid the issue of faith, one would have to avoid making a decision, which is basically agnosticism.


----------



## Lucretius

soul searcher said:


> That is true. Most of them do not. But not all. Sir Isaac Newton, probably one the greatest scientists who ever lived, based his faith in God on a deep and detailed study of the Bible, and on his own science.


He was also an alchemist.


soul searcher said:


> The truth is that both Theism and Atheism rest on faith.
> Webster’s definition: (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof


By that definition, atheism does not require faith.
It is simply an unnecessary word given to people who reject the outlandish claims of the religious crowd.
The majority of atheists would not even say "God(s) does not exist;" they would only say "No good evidence has been presented to me to believe that it does."


soul searcher said:


> Evidence: Complexity and precision in the Universe.
> Conclusion of a Theist: The creation of the universe required intelligence.
> Conclusion of an Atheist: The creation of the universe did not require intelligence.


Perhaps we have noticed that _intelligence _requires complexity and precision, thus positing an intelligence does not answer any questions.


soul searcher said:


> To avoid the issue of faith, one would have to avoid making a decision, which is basically agnosticism.


False dichotomy.


I think I'll ignore the troll (Stella d Oro).


----------



## soul searcher

> He was also an alchemist.


I just knew someone would say that. It's irrelevant, unless you would also like to assert that his being an alchemist disproves all of his scientific findings as well.

Why did Antony Flew, one of atheism's greatest champions, change his mind? Science. DNA research to be exact. Flew was a great champion of this philosophy: follow the evidence wherever it leads. He did, and he finally felt that it led to God.



> By that definition, atheism does not require faith.
> It is simply an unnecessary word given to people who reject the outlandish claims of the religious crowd.
> The majority of atheists would not even say "God(s) does not exist;" they would only say "No good evidence has been presented to me to believe that it does."


athe·ism noun \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Definition of ATHEISM
1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness 
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity 

1ag·nos·tic noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
Definition of AGNOSTIC
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god 

Your idea of atheism sounds more like agnosticism to me. Atheism does require faith, because it cannot be proven scientifically that there is no God. So, by the definitions above, are you atheist or agnostic?



> Perhaps we have noticed that intelligence requires complexity and precision, thus positing an intelligence does not answer any questions.


This does not prove that there is no God, simply that if there is one, his eternal existance is incomprehensible. And positing that there is an intelligence does answer a lot of questions, for example: How did we get here? 




> False dichotomy.


Not if we are talking about genuine atheism versus theism.


----------



## xezene

LemonSqueeze said:


> Your objection was outlined in my first post regarding Pascal's Wager
> 
> 
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/science-...od-did-not-create-universe-13.html#post694688
> 
> Unfortunately this did not end the conversation.


----------



## Radiant Flux

I find this matter very interesting, and am inclined to stay neutral, though I do believe more in sceince. I don't really think that we will ever find the answer, and if we do we must think of the consequences of telling the world.


----------



## TurquoiseSunset

I haven't read through the whole thread (I'd rather make small talk with ESFP's) and I haven't read everything this guy has to say, but thought some of you might be interested, for what it's worth.

Please note, by posting the link I am not giving my opinion on the subject.


----------



## Versatile Leader

Prophecy is another evidence of the existence of Yahweh. IN the bible you find very many instancez in which it tells what is going to happen hundreds of years and even thousands of years. Like at the moemnt we have nations calling for two sate solution that was already said zechariah that it will happen and that because of this when russia invades it 2/3 willd ei. Even the E.U was prophesied


----------



## Socrates

If Stars didn't have 800 posts, I'd suggest Poe's law.

The fact that Stars does have 800 posts and failed to make a single coherent irrefutable point in this entire thread is a good example of how bronze age mythology rapes and ruins minds. :bored:

Best of luck, should Stars return to this thread.


----------



## Peter

xezene said:


> Basically, Pascal's Wager says it is worthwhile to believe even if you doubt it.
> 
> But you can't make yourself believe something you don't. I mean, to those who think this Pascal's Wager is correct, try it out by trying to make yourself believe that pixies are real. You can't do it! So it won't be genuine belief, it will be forced belief, and so that won't get you to heaven, assuming it exists. So Pascal's Wager defeats itself.
> 
> That's one of many basic points, but I think the strongest out of the bunch.


Doubt is by definition included in believing. If you believe without doubt, it means you know and then it's not a belief anymore.

Why else would the word "belief" exist, if it wasn't to indicate it's not the same thing as knowing.

:happy:​


----------



## Lucem

Peter said:


> Doubt is by definition included in believing. If you believe without doubt, it means you know and then it's not a belief anymore.
> 
> Why else would the word "belief" exist, if it wasn't to indicate it's not the same thing as knowing.
> 
> :happy:​


I think what Pascal's Wager means is that, based on the evidence, if you doubt something enough to not believe in the existence of God, you then you should take into account the consequences of your belief (heaven and hell) when choosing whether to be believe or not. 

Doubt is part of belief but enough doubt can rule out believe as well.

For example, when someone says "I doubt my team is going to win the game." They aren't saying they believe their team will win the game, they are saying that their is a high probablility that their team will NOT win the game. This is where doubt has overridden belief.


----------



## Peter

LemonSqueeze said:


> I think what Pascal's Wager means is that, based on the evidence, if you doubt something enough to not believe in the existence of God, you then you should take into account the consequences of your belief (heaven and hell) when choosing whether to be believe or not.


So basically he says: You better believe or else.... :happy:


----------



## xezene

Peter said:


> Doubt is by definition included in believing. If you believe without doubt, it means you know and then it's not a belief anymore.
> 
> Why else would the word "belief" exist, if it wasn't to indicate it's not the same thing as knowing.
> 
> :happy:​


Explore the meaning of "knowing." What is it to "know" something? And you will find it comes down to pure, unfiltered belief. Once doubt is introduced, you can never really go back to previously "known" beliefs.


----------



## Peter

xezene said:


> Explore the meaning of "knowing." What is it to "know" something? And you will find it comes down to pure, unfiltered belief. Once doubt is introduced, you can never really go back to previously "known" beliefs.


To know is to be 100% sure. Doesn't mean you´re right though. Just means you have no doubt in your mind.

Take for example Einstein's theory of relativity. There's no doubt in my mind it's correct. But that doesn't necessarily mean it is. I don't believe it's correct, I know it is correct. It's not possible to know and believe at the same time. It's either one or the other.

So no, I will not find that to know is to believe. These 2 concepts are very different from eachother.


----------



## xezene

Peter said:


> To know is to be 100% sure. Doesn't mean you´re right though. Just means you have no doubt in your mind.
> 
> Take for example Einstein's theory of relativity. There's no doubt in my mind it's correct. But that doesn't necessarily mean it is. I don't believe it's correct, I know it is correct. It's not possible to know and believe at the same time. It's either one or the other.
> 
> So no, I will not find that to know is to believe. These 2 concepts are very different from each other.


All knowledge is belief. More complex, thought out, and refined belief, but belief nonetheless.

To use a rudimentary example, I once knew Santa existed. But in reality, this is not so. The universe did not change so I could keep my 'knowledge' intact, but my knowledge was forced to change. This is where we see that all we know or observe in life is a belief. For example, (I'm assuming) you and I believe this reality is not a dream. It very well could be. But it is a belief that you and I share, and at that point we feel the need to call it knowledge.

I 'know' that when I jump up, I will come back down. This is because of conditioning, because it is logical, and because I have never observed otherwise. However, that is not to say it could not happen. The universe is not required to make sense, we just make sense of it, and it appears that this is so.

Obviously I'm not advocating that people should blindly follow their beliefs because they are 'knowledge' -- this is not the case at all. Belief is not knowledge, but knowledge is a belief. It is hard to express such a complex concept in words, due to how we rely on such definitions of knowledge and belief in today's world. I wish there was another word we have in our language that I could use in place of 'belief,' as our definition doesn't quite do this concept justice. But strictly speaking, what I have said is logical.


----------



## Lucem

Knowledge is a justified true belief


----------



## timeless

LemonSqueeze said:


> Knowledge is a justified true belief


You have to at least believe it's true. :3


----------



## Lucem

timeless said:


> You have to at least believe it's true. :3


Can you have a belief that you think is false?

I thought belief implied that what you believed you believed to be true.....


----------



## Peter

xezene said:


> All knowledge is belief. More complex, thought out, and refined belief, but belief nonetheless.
> 
> To use a rudimentary example, I once knew Santa existed. But in reality, this is not so. The universe did not change so I could keep my 'knowledge' intact, but my knowledge was forced to change. This is where we see that all we know or observe in life is a belief. For example, (I'm assuming) you and I believe this reality is not a dream. It very well could be. But it is a belief that you and I share, and at that point we feel the need to call it knowledge.
> 
> I 'know' that when I jump up, I will come back down. This is because of conditioning, because it is logical, and because I have never observed otherwise. However, that is not to say it could not happen. The universe is not required to make sense, we just make sense of it, and it appears that this is so.
> 
> Obviously I'm not advocating that people should blindly follow their beliefs because they are 'knowledge' -- this is not the case at all. Belief is not knowledge, but knowledge is a belief. It is hard to express such a complex concept in words, due to how we rely on such definitions of knowledge and belief in today's world. I wish there was another word we have in our language that I could use in place of 'belief,' as our definition doesn't quite do this concept justice. But strictly speaking, what I have said is logical.


I still can't agree with you. You make one logical error by saying that "belief is not knowledge but knowledge is a belief." You´re saying: A =/= B but B = A. That's not possible.

Whether or not something is true in the real world (outside the brain) is not relevant. Knowledge is by definition correct within the available set of limits the brain has on a subject. New information can break the logic behind the knowledge. Either the knowledge is completely destroyed or the result is doubt, but not enough to come to the conclusion it's certain to be wrong. Then we´re believing again.


The important thing here is to get rid of the notion of whether or not it's true in the real world. Knowing and believing are 2 states your mind can be in, but not at the same time.


----------



## Peter

LemonSqueeze said:


> Can you have a belief that you think is false?
> 
> I thought belief implied that what you believed you believed to be true.....


True, but if you can't prove it to yourself, you may believe without being 100% sure. In other words, you accept and are unwilling to really figure it out. There's nothing wrong with that unless you´re fanatic about something. Then you need to make sure.


----------



## Zic

Peter said:


> True, but if you can't prove it to yourself, you may believe without being 100% sure. In other words, you accept and are unwilling to really figure it out. There's nothing wrong with that unless you´re fanatic about something. Then you need to make sure.


I'd say that's the worst thing one can do to himselh/herself. To believe without questioning is, perhaps, the abomination of the world.


----------



## Peter

Zic said:


> I'd say that's the worst thing one can do to himselh/herself. To believe without questioning is, perhaps, the abomination of the world.


It's what most people do though.


----------



## Lucem

Peter said:


> I still can't agree with you. You make one logical error by saying that "belief is not knowledge but knowledge is a belief." You´re saying: A =/= B but B = A. That's not possible.


I'm not sure if he wrote this wrong or that you're reading it wrong.
But knowledge is a type of belief.
Not all beliefs are knowledge but all knowledge are beliefs.

Not all Bs are As but all As are Bs.



> Whether or not something is true in the real world (outside the brain) is not relevant. Knowledge is by definition correct within the available set of limits the brain has on a subject. New information can break the logic behind the knowledge. Either the knowledge is completely destroyed or the result is doubt, but not enough to come to the conclusion it's certain to be wrong. Then we´re believing again.


Knowledge is the subset of beliefs which we classify with a certain level of certainty. Unless you're subscribing to skepticism about the ability to arrive at systematic knowledge of the world to any certainty, we can say that our certainty of our beliefs go up according to the likelihood of it's truth outside our brain. 



> The important thing here is to get rid of the notion of whether or not it's true in the real world. Knowing and believing are 2 states your mind can be in, but not at the same time.


How else are we to know things if not by testing it against the real world?


----------



## peterk

STELLA d'ORO,
*
I don't see why people have to be atheists at all! Why not be an agnostic? Then one doesn't have the burden of proving that God doesn't exist.
*
It's an open question that requires the mysticism of an INTP or more likely an INFP.:tongue:


----------



## Isildin

peterk said:


> STELLA d'ORO,
> *
> I don't see why people have to be atheists at all! Why not be an agnostic? Then one doesn't have the burden of proving that God doesn't exist.
> *
> It's an open question that requires the mysticism of an INTP or more likely an INFP.:tongue:


Personally i don't see why i would have to prove anything to you, at all.

For the same matter though, why aren't all theists agnostics?
Then they wouldn't have the burden of proving that god(s) exist!


----------



## Lucem

peterk said:


> STELLA d'ORO,
> *
> I don't see why people have to be atheists at all! Why not be an agnostic? Then one doesn't have the burden of proving that God doesn't exist.
> *
> It's an open question that requires the mysticism of an INTP or more likely an INFP.:tongue:


I'm an agnostic atheist.

All agnostics are by my definition, atheists.

They are without a belief in a God or Gods. That's all you need to be an atheist.


----------



## xezene

Peter said:


> I still can't agree with you. You make one logical error by saying that "belief is not knowledge but knowledge is a belief." You´re saying: A =/= B but B = A. That's not possible.
> 
> Whether or not something is true in the real world (outside the brain) is not relevant. Knowledge is by definition correct within the available set of limits the brain has on a subject. New information can break the logic behind the knowledge. Either the knowledge is completely destroyed or the result is doubt, but not enough to come to the conclusion it's certain to be wrong. Then we´re believing again.
> 
> 
> The important thing here is to get rid of the notion of whether or not it's true in the real world. Knowing and believing are 2 states your mind can be in, but not at the same time.


As LemonSqueeze mentioned, not all beliefs are knowledge (ie. well thought out, and logical) but all knowledge is belief.

Let me put it this way. Does it make sense to say that you don't believe what you know? Of course not. We can clearly see that knowledge is a type of belief.


----------



## Lucretius

peterk said:


> I don't see why people have to be atheists at all! Why not be an agnostic? Then one doesn't have the burden of proving that God doesn't exist.


Atheists don't have the burden of proof.


----------



## peterk

LemonSqueeze said:


> I'm an agnostic atheist.
> 
> All agnostics are by my definition, atheists.
> 
> They are without a belief in a God or Gods. That's all you need to be an atheist.


*
NOT SO!
*
Agnostic--One who holds that ultimate causes (as GOD) are unknowable.
*
Atheist--One who holds the doctrine that their is no God.
*
Thus an atheist is no better than a deist because they both believe in something for which there is insufficient evidence! So hedge your bets and be an agnostic if you find it too much to be a deist. (how about that Azrael?)roud:


----------



## xezene

peterk said:


> *
> NOT SO!
> *
> Agnostic--One who holds that ultimate causes (as GOD) are unknowable.
> *
> Atheist--One who holds the doctrine that their is no God.
> *
> Thus an atheist is no better than a deist because they both believe in something for which there is insufficient evidence! So hedge your bets and be an agnostic if you find it too much to be a deist. (how about that Azrael?)roud:


That is such a huge oversimplification, it would make Glenn Beck proud.


----------



## Lucem

peterk said:


> *
> NOT SO!
> *
> Agnostic--One who holds that ultimate causes (as GOD) are unknowable.
> *
> Atheist--One who holds the doctrine that their is no God.
> *
> Thus an atheist is no better than a deist because they both believe in something for which there is insufficient evidence! So hedge your bets and be an agnostic if you find it too much to be a deist. (how about that Azrael?)roud:


If someone holds the position that the existence of God if unknowable then can they also say that they don't believe there is a God? This is the difference between knowledge and belief.


----------



## Peter

Knowledge Vs. Belief : Which is Which? - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com

About how Carl Jung him self looked at it.

He separates the 2 as belief requiring no proof or evidence while knowledge does. Beliefs can not be changed by other's beliefs, while knowledge can be changed by new knowledge.

Knowledge and beliefs are 2 different things. Don't confuse one to be a certain type of the other. The best you can say is that beliefs are sometimes confused for knowledge. But that's not the same thing as saying that knowledge is a type of belief. (you are then in fact, confusing some beliefs for knowledge.)


----------



## Empurple

Here we go again with the anti-faith bandwagon... Don't fall for it.


----------



## xezene

Peter said:


> Knowledge Vs. Belief : Which is Which? - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com
> 
> About how Carl Jung him self looked at it.
> 
> He separates the 2 as belief requiring no proof or evidence while knowledge does. Beliefs can not be changed by other's beliefs, while knowledge can be changed by new knowledge.
> 
> Knowledge and beliefs are 2 different things. Don't confuse one to a certain type of the other. The best you can say is that beliefs are sometimes confused for knowledge. But that's not the same thing as saying that knowledge is a type of belief. (you are then in fact, confusing some beliefs for knowledge.)


I do not agree with Carl Jung on this issue. I think what it is coming down to is that your definition of belief is narrower than mine. Which is not bad, per se, just a gap in communication between us.


----------



## Peter

xezene said:


> I do not agree with Carl Jung on this issue. I think what it is coming down to is that your definition of belief is narrower than mine. Which is not bad, per se, just a gap in communication between us.


I'm sure MBTI type has something to do with it too. I don't like to believe because it's unsure. When not sure of something, I'll figure it out. Even though it is not possible to know everything, you can set limits in which your knowledge is correct. Within the framework I set my knowledge is knowledge.

Without frameworks, nothing can ever be 100% correct. Thus it is pointless. Endless discussions almost always lack an agreed upon framework. This seems to be the case here too.

At least we got to that conclusion. :happy:


----------



## Lucretius

peterk said:


> *
> NOT SO!
> *
> Agnostic--One who holds that ultimate causes (as GOD) are unknowable.
> *
> Atheist--One who holds the doctrine that their is no God.
> *
> Thus an atheist is no better than a deist because they both believe in something for which there is insufficient evidence! So hedge your bets and be an agnostic if you find it too much to be a deist. (how about that Azrael?)roud:


Grrrr...:frustrating:

Okay, reiterating this (though hopefully with better verbiage) for the umpteenth time. *cracks knuckles* 
*IF* you are referring to "agnostic" by its informal modern usage - as someone who is "undecided" - then I would have to ask: _is it reasonable to be "agnostic" about leprechauns?_
*IF* you are referring to "agnostic" by Huxley's original definition - as a general skepticism toward certainty about the matter - then:_ how is this incompatible with atheism?_

The term "atheist" is indeed polysemic, but one thing is pretty clear: the only people using your very narrow definition are religious people and ill-informed "agnostics."
In its broadest sense, anyone who merely _lacks _theistic belief is an "atheist." This would include infants and people whom have not been exposed to the idea.
A slightly stricter definition requires that one consciously reject theistic claims. It should be noted that they have _not _asserted a counter-claim by rejecting theistic claims.
The definition you use - normally called a "strong atheist" - is rare. This fraction of the atheist population positively asserts that the proposition "there is at least one god" is false. This is the only portion of atheists that have any sort of burden to meet.


----------



## AEIOU

*God:* Stephen Hawking did not create Universe.


----------



## peterk

AZRAEL,
*
AGNOSTICISM--The thesis that, CONTRARY to what atheists and theists alike assume, it is either in practice or in principle impossible to know whether or not God exists.---Dictionary of Philosophy by A. Flew.
*
I like the way you were splitting hairs but the above definition shows that agnosticism, atheism, and theism are different philosophical positions.
*
In the same article it goes on to say: Faith may, however, be possible were knowledge strictly so-called is not, and hence there is a sense in which it is logically possible, even if psychologically difficult, to be both a philosophical agnostic and a religious believer.
*
This seems to be my position on the matter.


----------



## peterk

READERS, Please note: In the new issue of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN (october 2010) there is an article by Hawkins on the theory of everything. It's kind of a synopsis of his new book "The Grand Design" with co-author L. Mlodinow. In it he comes to the conclusion that only a network of theories can explain reality. He mentions M-theory in particular.:happy:


----------



## Lucretius

peterk said:


> AZRAEL,
> *
> AGNOSTICISM--The thesis that, CONTRARY to what atheists and theists alike assume, it is either in practice or in principle impossible to know whether or not God exists.---Dictionary of Philosophy by A. Flew.
> *
> I like the way you were splitting hairs but the above definition shows that agnosticism, atheism, and theism are different philosophical positions.
> *
> In the same article it goes on to say: Faith may, however, be possible were knowledge strictly so-called is not, and hence there is a sense in which it is logically possible, even if psychologically difficult, to be both a philosophical agnostic and a religious believer.
> *
> This seems to be my position on the matter.


*sigh* I don't know how this escapes so many people. I'm gonna have to do a video on it.
(And if you think Flew's definition contradicted anything I said, you're mistaken.)


----------



## Zic

peterk said:


> AZRAEL,
> *
> AGNOSTICISM--The thesis that, CONTRARY to what atheists and theists alike assume, it is either in practice or in principle impossible to know whether or not God exists.---Dictionary of Philosophy by A. Flew.


OK OK, but if one is agnostic and claims it's impossible to know whether god exists or not; does he BELIEVE in his existence? Agnosticism DOES NOT describe BELIEF, it describes CERTAINTY. Ever heard of "gnostic theist; agnostic theist, agnostic atheist, gnostic "strong" atheist etc)


----------



## Lucem

Let's look at the originator of the word Agnostic:

"That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism." - *Thomas Henry Huxley *

And also Robert Flint (a theologian) who combined Atheism with Agnosticism.

""If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist... if he goes farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist – an agnostic-atheist – an atheist because an agnostic... while, then, it is erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other..."" - *Robert Flint*


----------



## timeless

LemonSqueeze said:


> Can you have a belief that you think is false?
> 
> I thought belief implied that what you believed you believed to be true.....


I'm saying that you have to believe that it's true first, before you "know" it. As you've said, belief in its truth value is a necessary part of this. You can't say something like "it's true because it's knowledge, and it's knowledge because I believe it, and I can't believe something unless I think it's true."


----------



## timeless

LemonSqueeze said:


> Let's look at the originator of the word Agnostic


It's kind of funny how the website that the image is taken from equates "freethinker" with some level of atheism/agnosticism.


----------

