Total Posts:105|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheists/Agnostics, What Do You Think

Subutai
Posts: 3,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2013 9:14:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Atheists, agnostics, non-theists, etc...: What do you think of Stephen Hawking's argument of how God could not possibly exist? His argument goes that time was created at the instant of the Big Bang, therefore, a creator cannot exist.

I'm asking this for purely intellectual purposes.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2013 9:39:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/9/2013 9:14:30 PM, Subutai wrote:
Atheists, agnostics, non-theists, etc...: What do you think of Stephen Hawking's argument of how God could not possibly exist? His argument goes that time was created at the instant of the Big Bang, therefore, a creator cannot exist.

I'm asking this for purely intellectual purposes.

That argument makes a subtle appeal to the thing it dismisses as an impossibility. Namely, the act of creation and of time would (under these premises) need time to occur, and so the existence of a timeless creator is no more absurd than the alternative.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2013 9:42:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Sounds extremely circular. This reminds me of that Michio Kaku video in which he claimed that indeterminacy proves freewill. Maybe physicists aren't as great when it comes to philosophical argumentation.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Subutai
Posts: 3,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2013 9:52:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hawking's argument is something like this:

P1: Time, according to general relativity, stops in a black hole.
C1: This means there exists a situation where there is no time.
P2: Extend this to the Big Bang Theory.
C2: There was no time before the Big Bang.
P3: If there was no time before the Big Bang theory, then there couldn't have been an act of creation.
C3: If there couldn't have been an act of creation, then there is no God.

If this seems stupid, it's probably because I left something out - this is a very bare-boned argument.

Anyway, getting more to the point, from a scientific standpoint, the argument is reasonable. But from a philosophical standpoint, it fails on a number of accounts. Is there a way to philosophically reconcile the theory, or is there a better scientific explanation as to why a god is not required for the creation of the universe?
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2013 9:54:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/9/2013 9:34:06 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
That would assume that God is bound by the laws of the universe.

Obviously he isn't.

Well that's still ultimately a copout, isn't it?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2013 9:57:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/9/2013 9:52:52 PM, Subutai wrote:
Hawking's argument is something like this:

P1: Time, according to general relativity, stops in a black hole.
C1: This means there exists a situation where there is no time.
P2: Extend this to the Big Bang Theory.
C2: There was no time before the Big Bang.
P3: If there was no time before the Big Bang theory, then there couldn't have been an act of creation.
C3: If there couldn't have been an act of creation, then there is no God.

If this seems stupid, it's probably because I left something out - this is a very bare-boned argument.

Anyway, getting more to the point, from a scientific standpoint, the argument is reasonable. But from a philosophical standpoint, it fails on a number of accounts. Is there a way to philosophically reconcile the theory, or is there a better scientific explanation as to why a god is not required for the creation of the universe?

I think what Hawking's argument proves is that a God is not necessary for the universe to exist; not necessarily that a God does not exist. Theists postulate a being that transcends space and time. You can't begin with the premise that space, time, and the mathematical conclusions thereof apply to the possibility of this being and its behavior.

Is it absurd to postulate things with no heuristic basis? Yes.
Is denying them a good premise on which to prove them false? No - that would beg the question.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Subutai
Posts: 3,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2013 10:03:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/9/2013 9:57:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/9/2013 9:52:52 PM, Subutai wrote:
Hawking's argument is something like this:

P1: Time, according to general relativity, stops in a black hole.
C1: This means there exists a situation where there is no time.
P2: Extend this to the Big Bang Theory.
C2: There was no time before the Big Bang.
P3: If there was no time before the Big Bang theory, then there couldn't have been an act of creation.
C3: If there couldn't have been an act of creation, then there is no God.

If this seems stupid, it's probably because I left something out - this is a very bare-boned argument.

Anyway, getting more to the point, from a scientific standpoint, the argument is reasonable. But from a philosophical standpoint, it fails on a number of accounts. Is there a way to philosophically reconcile the theory, or is there a better scientific explanation as to why a god is not required for the creation of the universe?

I think what Hawking's argument proves is that a God is not necessary for the universe to exist; not necessarily that a God does not exist. Theists postulate a being that transcends space and time. You can't begin with the premise that space, time, and the mathematical conclusions thereof apply to the possibility of this being and its behavior.


This is the philosophical problem - most theists would claim that God began to exist instantaneously with the creation of the universe, which can be reconciled with Hawking's argument. The philosophical challenges of the argument are many, as I now see, but it doesn't discredit the argument from a scientific standpoint.
Is it absurd to postulate things with no heuristic basis? Yes.
Is denying them a good premise on which to prove them false? No - that would beg the question.

From what I'm getting, you're saying that Hawking's argument doesn't discredit the idea of a God, but it does discredit the notion that God created the universe. Is this correct, or is it more complicated?
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2013 10:19:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/9/2013 10:03:36 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 8/9/2013 9:57:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/9/2013 9:52:52 PM, Subutai wrote:
Hawking's argument is something like this:

P1: Time, according to general relativity, stops in a black hole.
C1: This means there exists a situation where there is no time.
P2: Extend this to the Big Bang Theory.
C2: There was no time before the Big Bang.
P3: If there was no time before the Big Bang theory, then there couldn't have been an act of creation.
C3: If there couldn't have been an act of creation, then there is no God.

If this seems stupid, it's probably because I left something out - this is a very bare-boned argument.

Anyway, getting more to the point, from a scientific standpoint, the argument is reasonable. But from a philosophical standpoint, it fails on a number of accounts. Is there a way to philosophically reconcile the theory, or is there a better scientific explanation as to why a god is not required for the creation of the universe?

I think what Hawking's argument proves is that a God is not necessary for the universe to exist; not necessarily that a God does not exist. Theists postulate a being that transcends space and time. You can't begin with the premise that space, time, and the mathematical conclusions thereof apply to the possibility of this being and its behavior.


This is the philosophical problem - most theists would claim that God began to exist instantaneously with the creation of the universe, which can be reconciled with Hawking's argument. The philosophical challenges of the argument are many, as I now see, but it doesn't discredit the argument from a scientific standpoint.
Is it absurd to postulate things with no heuristic basis? Yes.
Is denying them a good premise on which to prove them false? No - that would beg the question.

From what I'm getting, you're saying that Hawking's argument doesn't discredit the idea of a God, but it does discredit the notion that God created the universe. Is this correct, or is it more complicated?

no it's not complicated. I'm just saying that it begs the question to assume that God is bound by space and time and must behave in a manner consistent with its nature. But, I kind of change my mind. Hawking makes the Big Bang, logical universality, and divine authorship mutually incompatible. You would have to reject Big Bang theory to proceed with the theistic argument, which immediately renders theism under the mercy of empirics. If inductive logic and science say that the Universe could have no prior cause, then you'd have to deny that logic applies to God to continue to claim that God created the universe anyway. And if logic does not apply to God, for what reason do you believe in him in the first place?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Subutai
Posts: 3,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2013 10:28:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/9/2013 10:19:11 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/9/2013 10:03:36 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 8/9/2013 9:57:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/9/2013 9:52:52 PM, Subutai wrote:
Hawking's argument is something like this:

P1: Time, according to general relativity, stops in a black hole.
C1: This means there exists a situation where there is no time.
P2: Extend this to the Big Bang Theory.
C2: There was no time before the Big Bang.
P3: If there was no time before the Big Bang theory, then there couldn't have been an act of creation.
C3: If there couldn't have been an act of creation, then there is no God.

If this seems stupid, it's probably because I left something out - this is a very bare-boned argument.

Anyway, getting more to the point, from a scientific standpoint, the argument is reasonable. But from a philosophical standpoint, it fails on a number of accounts. Is there a way to philosophically reconcile the theory, or is there a better scientific explanation as to why a god is not required for the creation of the universe?

I think what Hawking's argument proves is that a God is not necessary for the universe to exist; not necessarily that a God does not exist. Theists postulate a being that transcends space and time. You can't begin with the premise that space, time, and the mathematical conclusions thereof apply to the possibility of this being and its behavior.


This is the philosophical problem - most theists would claim that God began to exist instantaneously with the creation of the universe, which can be reconciled with Hawking's argument. The philosophical challenges of the argument are many, as I now see, but it doesn't discredit the argument from a scientific standpoint.
Is it absurd to postulate things with no heuristic basis? Yes.
Is denying them a good premise on which to prove them false? No - that would beg the question.

From what I'm getting, you're saying that Hawking's argument doesn't discredit the idea of a God, but it does discredit the notion that God created the universe. Is this correct, or is it more complicated?

no it's not complicated. I'm just saying that it begs the question to assume that God is bound by space and time and must behave in a manner consistent with its nature. But, I kind of change my mind. Hawking makes the Big Bang, logical universality, and divine authorship mutually incompatible. You would have to reject Big Bang theory to proceed with the theistic argument, which immediately renders theism under the mercy of empirics. If inductive logic and science say that the Universe could have no prior cause, then you'd have to deny that logic applies to God to continue to claim that God created the universe anyway. And if logic does not apply to God, for what reason do you believe in him in the first place?

Ah. Now I'm starting to see how Hawking's argument is more sweeping than it originally looks. Thanks for your insight - I haven't really questioned the philosophical side of the argument,
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 1:35:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/9/2013 9:14:30 PM, Subutai wrote:
Atheists, agnostics, non-theists, etc...: What do you think of Stephen Hawking's argument of how God could not possibly exist? His argument goes that time was created at the instant of the Big Bang, therefore, a creator cannot exist.

I'm asking this for purely intellectual purposes.

It sounds okay, but cannot be verified with our technology.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 8:03:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/9/2013 10:19:11 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/9/2013 10:03:36 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 8/9/2013 9:57:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/9/2013 9:52:52 PM, Subutai wrote:
Hawking's argument is something like this:

P1: Time, according to general relativity, stops in a black hole.
C1: This means there exists a situation where there is no time.
P2: Extend this to the Big Bang Theory.
C2: There was no time before the Big Bang.
P3: If there was no time before the Big Bang theory, then there couldn't have been an act of creation.
C3: If there couldn't have been an act of creation, then there is no God.

If this seems stupid, it's probably because I left something out - this is a very bare-boned argument.

Anyway, getting more to the point, from a scientific standpoint, the argument is reasonable. But from a philosophical standpoint, it fails on a number of accounts. Is there a way to philosophically reconcile the theory, or is there a better scientific explanation as to why a god is not required for the creation of the universe?

I think what Hawking's argument proves is that a God is not necessary for the universe to exist; not necessarily that a God does not exist. Theists postulate a being that transcends space and time. You can't begin with the premise that space, time, and the mathematical conclusions thereof apply to the possibility of this being and its behavior.


This is the philosophical problem - most theists would claim that God began to exist instantaneously with the creation of the universe, which can be reconciled with Hawking's argument. The philosophical challenges of the argument are many, as I now see, but it doesn't discredit the argument from a scientific standpoint.
Is it absurd to postulate things with no heuristic basis? Yes.
Is denying them a good premise on which to prove them false? No - that would beg the question.

From what I'm getting, you're saying that Hawking's argument doesn't discredit the idea of a God, but it does discredit the notion that God created the universe. Is this correct, or is it more complicated?

no it's not complicated. I'm just saying that it begs the question to assume that God is bound by space and time and must behave in a manner consistent with its nature. But, I kind of change my mind. Hawking makes the Big Bang, logical universality, and divine authorship mutually incompatible.

You would have to reject Big Bang theory to proceed with the theistic argument, which immediately renders theism under the mercy of empirics.

Not unless by "Big Bang theory" you mean something that necessarily precludes the involvement of a creator. But I'm pretty sure nothing observed thus far would indicate such.

If inductive logic and science say that the Universe could have no prior cause, then you'd have to deny that logic applies to God to continue to claim that God created the universe anyway. And if logic does not apply to God, for what reason do you believe in him in the first place?

Why couldn't God create himself then proceed to create the universe?
bulproof
Posts: 25,260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 8:09:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 8:03:24 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/9/2013 10:19:11 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/9/2013 10:03:36 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 8/9/2013 9:57:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/9/2013 9:52:52 PM, Subutai wrote:
Hawking's argument is something like this:

P1: Time, according to general relativity, stops in a black hole.
C1: This means there exists a situation where there is no time.
P2: Extend this to the Big Bang Theory.
C2: There was no time before the Big Bang.
P3: If there was no time before the Big Bang theory, then there couldn't have been an act of creation.
C3: If there couldn't have been an act of creation, then there is no God.

If this seems stupid, it's probably because I left something out - this is a very bare-boned argument.

Anyway, getting more to the point, from a scientific standpoint, the argument is reasonable. But from a philosophical standpoint, it fails on a number of accounts. Is there a way to philosophically reconcile the theory, or is there a better scientific explanation as to why a god is not required for the creation of the universe?

I think what Hawking's argument proves is that a God is not necessary for the universe to exist; not necessarily that a God does not exist. Theists postulate a being that transcends space and time. You can't begin with the premise that space, time, and the mathematical conclusions thereof apply to the possibility of this being and its behavior.


This is the philosophical problem - most theists would claim that God began to exist instantaneously with the creation of the universe, which can be reconciled with Hawking's argument. The philosophical challenges of the argument are many, as I now see, but it doesn't discredit the argument from a scientific standpoint.
Is it absurd to postulate things with no heuristic basis? Yes.
Is denying them a good premise on which to prove them false? No - that would beg the question.

From what I'm getting, you're saying that Hawking's argument doesn't discredit the idea of a God, but it does discredit the notion that God created the universe. Is this correct, or is it more complicated?

no it's not complicated. I'm just saying that it begs the question to assume that God is bound by space and time and must behave in a manner consistent with its nature. But, I kind of change my mind. Hawking makes the Big Bang, logical universality, and divine authorship mutually incompatible.

You would have to reject Big Bang theory to proceed with the theistic argument, which immediately renders theism under the mercy of empirics.

Not unless by "Big Bang theory" you mean something that necessarily precludes the involvement of a creator. But I'm pretty sure nothing observed thus far would indicate such.

If inductive logic and science say that the Universe could have no prior cause, then you'd have to deny that logic applies to God to continue to claim that God created the universe anyway. And if logic does not apply to God, for what reason do you believe in him in the first place?

Why couldn't God create himself then proceed to create the universe?
Because god is not created. God is the uncaused cause. If it's possible for there to be one uncaused cause then it's possible that there are an infinite number of uncaused causes. Ergo there are just as likely to be billions of gods as there is one god.
Thank you proponents of the uncaused cause scenario.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 8:23:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 8:09:05 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/10/2013 8:03:24 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/9/2013 10:19:11 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/9/2013 10:03:36 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 8/9/2013 9:57:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/9/2013 9:52:52 PM, Subutai wrote:
Hawking's argument is something like this:

P1: Time, according to general relativity, stops in a black hole.
C1: This means there exists a situation where there is no time.
P2: Extend this to the Big Bang Theory.
C2: There was no time before the Big Bang.
P3: If there was no time before the Big Bang theory, then there couldn't have been an act of creation.
C3: If there couldn't have been an act of creation, then there is no God.

If this seems stupid, it's probably because I left something out - this is a very bare-boned argument.

Anyway, getting more to the point, from a scientific standpoint, the argument is reasonable. But from a philosophical standpoint, it fails on a number of accounts. Is there a way to philosophically reconcile the theory, or is there a better scientific explanation as to why a god is not required for the creation of the universe?

I think what Hawking's argument proves is that a God is not necessary for the universe to exist; not necessarily that a God does not exist. Theists postulate a being that transcends space and time. You can't begin with the premise that space, time, and the mathematical conclusions thereof apply to the possibility of this being and its behavior.


This is the philosophical problem - most theists would claim that God began to exist instantaneously with the creation of the universe, which can be reconciled with Hawking's argument. The philosophical challenges of the argument are many, as I now see, but it doesn't discredit the argument from a scientific standpoint.
Is it absurd to postulate things with no heuristic basis? Yes.
Is denying them a good premise on which to prove them false? No - that would beg the question.

From what I'm getting, you're saying that Hawking's argument doesn't discredit the idea of a God, but it does discredit the notion that God created the universe. Is this correct, or is it more complicated?

no it's not complicated. I'm just saying that it begs the question to assume that God is bound by space and time and must behave in a manner consistent with its nature. But, I kind of change my mind. Hawking makes the Big Bang, logical universality, and divine authorship mutually incompatible.

You would have to reject Big Bang theory to proceed with the theistic argument, which immediately renders theism under the mercy of empirics.

Not unless by "Big Bang theory" you mean something that necessarily precludes the involvement of a creator. But I'm pretty sure nothing observed thus far would indicate such.

If inductive logic and science say that the Universe could have no prior cause, then you'd have to deny that logic applies to God to continue to claim that God created the universe anyway. And if logic does not apply to God, for what reason do you believe in him in the first place?

Why couldn't God create himself then proceed to create the universe?
Because god is not created. God is the uncaused cause. If it's possible for there to be one uncaused cause then it's possible that there are an infinite number of uncaused causes. Ergo there are just as likely to be billions of gods as there is one god.
Thank you proponents of the uncaused cause scenario.

Wouldn't you eventually need one thing that contains everything else, though?
bulproof
Posts: 25,260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 8:26:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 8:23:14 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/10/2013 8:09:05 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/10/2013 8:03:24 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/9/2013 10:19:11 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/9/2013 10:03:36 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 8/9/2013 9:57:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/9/2013 9:52:52 PM, Subutai wrote:
Hawking's argument is something like this:

P1: Time, according to general relativity, stops in a black hole.
C1: This means there exists a situation where there is no time.
P2: Extend this to the Big Bang Theory.
C2: There was no time before the Big Bang.
P3: If there was no time before the Big Bang theory, then there couldn't have been an act of creation.
C3: If there couldn't have been an act of creation, then there is no God.

If this seems stupid, it's probably because I left something out - this is a very bare-boned argument.

Anyway, getting more to the point, from a scientific standpoint, the argument is reasonable. But from a philosophical standpoint, it fails on a number of accounts. Is there a way to philosophically reconcile the theory, or is there a better scientific explanation as to why a god is not required for the creation of the universe?

I think what Hawking's argument proves is that a God is not necessary for the universe to exist; not necessarily that a God does not exist. Theists postulate a being that transcends space and time. You can't begin with the premise that space, time, and the mathematical conclusions thereof apply to the possibility of this being and its behavior.


This is the philosophical problem - most theists would claim that God began to exist instantaneously with the creation of the universe, which can be reconciled with Hawking's argument. The philosophical challenges of the argument are many, as I now see, but it doesn't discredit the argument from a scientific standpoint.
Is it absurd to postulate things with no heuristic basis? Yes.
Is denying them a good premise on which to prove them false? No - that would beg the question.

From what I'm getting, you're saying that Hawking's argument doesn't discredit the idea of a God, but it does discredit the notion that God created the universe. Is this correct, or is it more complicated?

no it's not complicated. I'm just saying that it begs the question to assume that God is bound by space and time and must behave in a manner consistent with its nature. But, I kind of change my mind. Hawking makes the Big Bang, logical universality, and divine authorship mutually incompatible.

You would have to reject Big Bang theory to proceed with the theistic argument, which immediately renders theism under the mercy of empirics.

Not unless by "Big Bang theory" you mean something that necessarily precludes the involvement of a creator. But I'm pretty sure nothing observed thus far would indicate such.

If inductive logic and science say that the Universe could have no prior cause, then you'd have to deny that logic applies to God to continue to claim that God created the universe anyway. And if logic does not apply to God, for what reason do you believe in him in the first place?

Why couldn't God create himself then proceed to create the universe?
Because god is not created. God is the uncaused cause. If it's possible for there to be one uncaused cause then it's possible that there are an infinite number of uncaused causes. Ergo there are just as likely to be billions of gods as there is one god.
Thank you proponents of the uncaused cause scenario.

Wouldn't you eventually need one thing that contains everything else, though?
What thing are you proposing? Infinity perhaps?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 8:38:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 8:26:32 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/10/2013 8:23:14 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/10/2013 8:09:05 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/10/2013 8:03:24 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/9/2013 10:19:11 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/9/2013 10:03:36 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 8/9/2013 9:57:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/9/2013 9:52:52 PM, Subutai wrote:
Hawking's argument is something like this:

P1: Time, according to general relativity, stops in a black hole.
C1: This means there exists a situation where there is no time.
P2: Extend this to the Big Bang Theory.
C2: There was no time before the Big Bang.
P3: If there was no time before the Big Bang theory, then there couldn't have been an act of creation.
C3: If there couldn't have been an act of creation, then there is no God.

If this seems stupid, it's probably because I left something out - this is a very bare-boned argument.

Anyway, getting more to the point, from a scientific standpoint, the argument is reasonable. But from a philosophical standpoint, it fails on a number of accounts. Is there a way to philosophically reconcile the theory, or is there a better scientific explanation as to why a god is not required for the creation of the universe?

I think what Hawking's argument proves is that a God is not necessary for the universe to exist; not necessarily that a God does not exist. Theists postulate a being that transcends space and time. You can't begin with the premise that space, time, and the mathematical conclusions thereof apply to the possibility of this being and its behavior.


This is the philosophical problem - most theists would claim that God began to exist instantaneously with the creation of the universe, which can be reconciled with Hawking's argument. The philosophical challenges of the argument are many, as I now see, but it doesn't discredit the argument from a scientific standpoint.
Is it absurd to postulate things with no heuristic basis? Yes.
Is denying them a good premise on which to prove them false? No - that would beg the question.

From what I'm getting, you're saying that Hawking's argument doesn't discredit the idea of a God, but it does discredit the notion that God created the universe. Is this correct, or is it more complicated?

no it's not complicated. I'm just saying that it begs the question to assume that God is bound by space and time and must behave in a manner consistent with its nature. But, I kind of change my mind. Hawking makes the Big Bang, logical universality, and divine authorship mutually incompatible.

You would have to reject Big Bang theory to proceed with the theistic argument, which immediately renders theism under the mercy of empirics.

Not unless by "Big Bang theory" you mean something that necessarily precludes the involvement of a creator. But I'm pretty sure nothing observed thus far would indicate such.

If inductive logic and science say that the Universe could have no prior cause, then you'd have to deny that logic applies to God to continue to claim that God created the universe anyway. And if logic does not apply to God, for what reason do you believe in him in the first place?

Why couldn't God create himself then proceed to create the universe?
Because god is not created. God is the uncaused cause. If it's possible for there to be one uncaused cause then it's possible that there are an infinite number of uncaused causes. Ergo there are just as likely to be billions of gods as there is one god.
Thank you proponents of the uncaused cause scenario.

Wouldn't you eventually need one thing that contains everything else, though?
What thing are you proposing? Infinity perhaps?

it's logically impossible for there not to be something which contains everything else. That something must be able to create itself (must not make any appeals to something outside of it), and must be able to contain anything that could ever exist.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 8:42:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 8:03:24 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/9/2013 10:19:11 PM, 000ike wrote:

no it's not complicated. I'm just saying that it begs the question to assume that God is bound by space and time and must behave in a manner consistent with its nature. But, I kind of change my mind. Hawking makes the Big Bang, logical universality, and divine authorship mutually incompatible.

You would have to reject Big Bang theory to proceed with the theistic argument, which immediately renders theism under the mercy of empirics.

Not unless by "Big Bang theory" you mean something that necessarily precludes the involvement of a creator. But I'm pretty sure nothing observed thus far would indicate such.

If inductive logic and science say that the Universe could have no prior cause, then you'd have to deny that logic applies to God to continue to claim that God created the universe anyway. And if logic does not apply to God, for what reason do you believe in him in the first place?

Why couldn't God create himself then proceed to create the universe?

You're missing my point. You can either hold that God is compatible with logic or you can hold that he isn't. If you choose the former perspective, as many academic theists do in order to be taken seriously, you must capitulate to the inductive conclusions of empirical science. The fact is that there is no such thing as cause, creation, or event prior to the big bang, because the big bang is the initiation of all cause, and cannot itself be caused (this is Hawking's argument). It is a logical consequence from what scientists know about the theory. So the only way in which there could be a cause for the big bang even if induction demands that there is no such thing, is if you sidestep logic altogether as it applies to God. But then if you do that, there's no way to justify believing in God because you've just submitted that the metric from which all beliefs arise, doesn't apply to him!
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 8:42:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/9/2013 9:14:30 PM, Subutai wrote:
Atheists, agnostics, non-theists, etc...: What do you think of Stephen Hawking's argument of how God could not possibly exist? His argument goes that time was created at the instant of the Big Bang, therefore, a creator cannot exist.

I'm asking this for purely intellectual purposes.

Stephen Hawking didn't have the knowledge of God to understand what happened during creation. This means he wasn't there as a witness to how everything was created.

Since Stephen wasn't there at the time of creation, he should NOT be trusted as someone with understanding of creation and no other man on this planet should be trusted either for the Truth of what happened.

When a scientist peers through a telescope or microscope, which is magnifying something that our human eyes can't see. he can only guess at what he sees. What I mean about guessing is that he has no knowledge as to how everything was created. This means he has to try prove to himself what happened to cause this creation.

By collecting the guesses of other scientists and adding his guesses as to what happened, he now has to make other scientists, including himself, believe that his guesses are closer to the Truth than anyone else's guess. An educated guess is called a theory, which is NOT a proven fact.

In fact, when I was a teenager in the 1960's, scientists were telling us that the universe was around 300 million years old. Now they're telling us that it's over 13 billion years old. This is a significant change in theories so there guessing is NOT to be trusted.

We saints have the knowledge of God to understand how God created us. Our testimonies of how God created everything are not of this worldly knowledge that scientists have to use for their guessing. In fact, we don't have to guess at all. We know things that no man has ever known. Therefore, what we write and speak is called the Truth.

Stephen Hawking finally admitted that everything came from nothing, which we saints know is true except that we know that there is a Creator who can't be seen by anyone. We know that our Creator created a machine called the Word, also known as His voice, where everything else was spoken into existence as wavebits of energy. Energy is totally invisible to man's eyes so when Stephen says we came from nothing, it's because he couldn't observe these wavebits of energy that existed before anything could be seen, tasted, smelled and touched.

So the testimonies of Stephen Hawking are lies because he doesn't have the Truth to tell us exactly who we are. He and all other men can only guess as to how we were created along with everything else.

It's easy to say we came from nothing like Stephen and other scientists suggest but then who created all the wavebits of energy ( which are bits of information ) that are invisible to man's eyes?
Subutai
Posts: 3,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 8:50:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 1:35:05 AM, Jack212 wrote:
At 8/9/2013 9:14:30 PM, Subutai wrote:
Atheists, agnostics, non-theists, etc...: What do you think of Stephen Hawking's argument of how God could not possibly exist? His argument goes that time was created at the instant of the Big Bang, therefore, a creator cannot exist.

I'm asking this for purely intellectual purposes.

It sounds okay, but cannot be verified with our technology.

Sooner or later, it could be. More importantly, when we formulate a grand unified theory, which would explain the universe.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 8:54:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 8:42:36 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/10/2013 8:03:24 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/9/2013 10:19:11 PM, 000ike wrote:

no it's not complicated. I'm just saying that it begs the question to assume that God is bound by space and time and must behave in a manner consistent with its nature. But, I kind of change my mind. Hawking makes the Big Bang, logical universality, and divine authorship mutually incompatible.

You would have to reject Big Bang theory to proceed with the theistic argument, which immediately renders theism under the mercy of empirics.

Not unless by "Big Bang theory" you mean something that necessarily precludes the involvement of a creator. But I'm pretty sure nothing observed thus far would indicate such.

If inductive logic and science say that the Universe could have no prior cause, then you'd have to deny that logic applies to God to continue to claim that God created the universe anyway. And if logic does not apply to God, for what reason do you believe in him in the first place?

Why couldn't God create himself then proceed to create the universe?

You're missing my point. You can either hold that God is compatible with logic or you can hold that he isn't. If you choose the former perspective, as many academic theists do in order to be taken seriously, you must capitulate to the inductive conclusions of empirical science. The fact is that there is no such thing as cause, creation, or event prior to the big bang, because the big bang is the initiation of all cause, and cannot itself be caused (this is Hawking's argument). It is a logical consequence from what scientists know about the theory. So the only way in which there could be a cause for the big bang even if induction demands that there is no such thing, is if you sidestep logic altogether as it applies to God. But then if you do that, there's no way to justify believing in God because you've just submitted that the metric from which all beliefs arise, doesn't apply to him!

This is BS -- and total BS. By this logic, the universe cannot exist! There is no fundamental difference between the universe and God in this instance, and there is no reason provided for why the universe must be the highest metaphysical language.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 8:55:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The argument works for me but, at this point, it's like how many ways can we disprove the existence of the Tooth Fairy?
Subutai
Posts: 3,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 8:57:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 8:55:56 AM, drafterman wrote:
The argument works for me but, at this point, it's like how many ways can we disprove the existence of the Tooth Fairy?

No, it's just that some atheists consider the theory invalid. I was looking for your opinion to the matter.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
bulproof
Posts: 25,260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 8:59:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 8:54:34 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
This is BS -- and total BS. By this logic, the universe cannot exist! There is no fundamental difference between the universe and God in this instance, and there is no reason provided for why the universe must be the highest metaphysical language.

no, no, no dear lad, the universe doesn't exist. I mean WOW.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 9:00:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 8:54:34 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/10/2013 8:42:36 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/10/2013 8:03:24 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/9/2013 10:19:11 PM, 000ike wrote:

no it's not complicated. I'm just saying that it begs the question to assume that God is bound by space and time and must behave in a manner consistent with its nature. But, I kind of change my mind. Hawking makes the Big Bang, logical universality, and divine authorship mutually incompatible.

You would have to reject Big Bang theory to proceed with the theistic argument, which immediately renders theism under the mercy of empirics.

Not unless by "Big Bang theory" you mean something that necessarily precludes the involvement of a creator. But I'm pretty sure nothing observed thus far would indicate such.

If inductive logic and science say that the Universe could have no prior cause, then you'd have to deny that logic applies to God to continue to claim that God created the universe anyway. And if logic does not apply to God, for what reason do you believe in him in the first place?

Why couldn't God create himself then proceed to create the universe?

You're missing my point. You can either hold that God is compatible with logic or you can hold that he isn't. If you choose the former perspective, as many academic theists do in order to be taken seriously, you must capitulate to the inductive conclusions of empirical science. The fact is that there is no such thing as cause, creation, or event prior to the big bang, because the big bang is the initiation of all cause, and cannot itself be caused (this is Hawking's argument). It is a logical consequence from what scientists know about the theory. So the only way in which there could be a cause for the big bang even if induction demands that there is no such thing, is if you sidestep logic altogether as it applies to God. But then if you do that, there's no way to justify believing in God because you've just submitted that the metric from which all beliefs arise, doesn't apply to him!

This is BS -- and total BS. By this logic, the universe cannot exist! There is no fundamental difference between the universe and God in this instance, and there is no reason provided for why the universe must be the highest metaphysical language.

Cause is necessarily bound to time. Where there is no time, there can be no cause. The concept of an atemporal cause is an infraction of classical logic. So long as the God we're speaking of is a creature of logically intelligible behavior, his existence is incompatible with the Big Bang.

No BS here.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 9:01:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 8:54:34 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/10/2013 8:42:36 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/10/2013 8:03:24 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/9/2013 10:19:11 PM, 000ike wrote:

no it's not complicated. I'm just saying that it begs the question to assume that God is bound by space and time and must behave in a manner consistent with its nature. But, I kind of change my mind. Hawking makes the Big Bang, logical universality, and divine authorship mutually incompatible.

You would have to reject Big Bang theory to proceed with the theistic argument, which immediately renders theism under the mercy of empirics.

Not unless by "Big Bang theory" you mean something that necessarily precludes the involvement of a creator. But I'm pretty sure nothing observed thus far would indicate such.

If inductive logic and science say that the Universe could have no prior cause, then you'd have to deny that logic applies to God to continue to claim that God created the universe anyway. And if logic does not apply to God, for what reason do you believe in him in the first place?

Why couldn't God create himself then proceed to create the universe?

You're missing my point. You can either hold that God is compatible with logic or you can hold that he isn't. If you choose the former perspective, as many academic theists do in order to be taken seriously, you must capitulate to the inductive conclusions of empirical science. The fact is that there is no such thing as cause, creation, or event prior to the big bang, because the big bang is the initiation of all cause, and cannot itself be caused (this is Hawking's argument). It is a logical consequence from what scientists know about the theory. So the only way in which there could be a cause for the big bang even if induction demands that there is no such thing, is if you sidestep logic altogether as it applies to God. But then if you do that, there's no way to justify believing in God because you've just submitted that the metric from which all beliefs arise, doesn't apply to him!

This is BS -- and total BS. By this logic, the universe cannot exist! There is no fundamental difference between the universe and God in this instance, and there is no reason provided for why the universe must be the highest metaphysical language.

It's much easier to understand vibrations of wavebits of energy that causes images than it is to try explain that matter exists.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 9:03:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 8:59:52 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/10/2013 8:54:34 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
This is BS -- and total BS. By this logic, the universe cannot exist! There is no fundamental difference between the universe and God in this instance, and there is no reason provided for why the universe must be the highest metaphysical language.

no, no, no dear lad, the universe doesn't exist. I mean WOW.

It only exists as an illusion because of vibrating energy, which is spoken into existence by our Creator through his first machine called the Word.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 9:06:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Universe cannot exist if nothing caused it to exist? You can't invoke silly intuitional assumptions when you're addressing the primacy of existence. It's entirely conceivable that the Big Bang occurred spontaneously.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 9:08:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 9:00:01 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/10/2013 8:54:34 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/10/2013 8:42:36 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/10/2013 8:03:24 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/9/2013 10:19:11 PM, 000ike wrote:

no it's not complicated. I'm just saying that it begs the question to assume that God is bound by space and time and must behave in a manner consistent with its nature. But, I kind of change my mind. Hawking makes the Big Bang, logical universality, and divine authorship mutually incompatible.

You would have to reject Big Bang theory to proceed with the theistic argument, which immediately renders theism under the mercy of empirics.

Not unless by "Big Bang theory" you mean something that necessarily precludes the involvement of a creator. But I'm pretty sure nothing observed thus far would indicate such.

If inductive logic and science say that the Universe could have no prior cause, then you'd have to deny that logic applies to God to continue to claim that God created the universe anyway. And if logic does not apply to God, for what reason do you believe in him in the first place?

Why couldn't God create himself then proceed to create the universe?

You're missing my point. You can either hold that God is compatible with logic or you can hold that he isn't. If you choose the former perspective, as many academic theists do in order to be taken seriously, you must capitulate to the inductive conclusions of empirical science. The fact is that there is no such thing as cause, creation, or event prior to the big bang, because the big bang is the initiation of all cause, and cannot itself be caused (this is Hawking's argument). It is a logical consequence from what scientists know about the theory. So the only way in which there could be a cause for the big bang even if induction demands that there is no such thing, is if you sidestep logic altogether as it applies to God. But then if you do that, there's no way to justify believing in God because you've just submitted that the metric from which all beliefs arise, doesn't apply to him!

This is BS -- and total BS. By this logic, the universe cannot exist! There is no fundamental difference between the universe and God in this instance, and there is no reason provided for why the universe must be the highest metaphysical language.

Cause is necessarily bound to time. Where there is no time, there can be no cause. The concept of an atemporal cause is an infraction of classical logic. So long as the God we're speaking of is a creature of logically intelligible behavior, his existence is incompatible with the Big Bang.

No BS here.

If creation can occur in a timeless realm, why couldn't the creator create himself in one and be bound to the laws he prescribes to himself? Since there is necessarily nothing outside of 'God' there would be no logic to violate.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 9:11:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 9:06:04 AM, 000ike wrote:
The Universe cannot exist if nothing caused it to exist? You can't invoke silly intuitional assumptions when you're addressing the primacy of existence. It's entirely conceivable that the Big Bang occurred spontaneously.

No, I'm saying no reason has been offered as to why the universe must be the thing that contains itself (the highest language).
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 9:15:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 9:08:23 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/10/2013 9:00:01 AM, 000ike wrote:

Cause is necessarily bound to time. Where there is no time, there can be no cause. The concept of an atemporal cause is an infraction of classical logic. So long as the God we're speaking of is a creature of logically intelligible behavior, his existence is incompatible with the Big Bang.

No BS here.

If creation can occur in a timeless realm, why couldn't the creator create himself in one and be bound to the laws he prescribes to himself? Since there is necessarily nothing outside of 'God' there would be no logic to violate.

I'm not a mathematician or physicist; I'm simply extrapolating the consequences of Hawking's argument. He claims that there is no such thing as occurrence prior to the big bang, and so there must be no creation. If you disagree with this, take it up with Hawking. I'm going to assume he's right, and say that the argument forces a exclusionary divorce of several concepts leading to the collapse of theism.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault