Total Posts:140|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Hawking final lays the (holy) ghost

Zeitgeist
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 1:36:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Modern physics leaves no place for God in the creation of the Universe, Stephen Hawking has concluded.

Just as Darwinism removed the need for a creator in the sphere of biology, Britain's most eminent scientist argues that a new series of theories have rendered redundant the role of a creator for the Universe.

In his forthcoming book, an extract from which is published exclusively in Eureka, published today with The Times, Professor Hawking sets out to answer the question: "Did the Universe need a creator?" The answer he gives is a resounding "no".

Far from being a once-in-a-million event that could only be accounted for by extraordinary serendipity or a divine hand, the Big Bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, Hawking says.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist," he writes.

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going," he finds.

From http://richarddawkins.net...

FINALLY clear thinking is making progress to debunk the "god" rubbish. Welcome to the dawn of the next age of enlightenment.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 2:27:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
So you understand the argument you have just quoted then? You would be able to break into it's components axioms for us?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Zeitgeist
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 2:51:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/5/2010 2:27:56 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
So you understand the argument you have just quoted then? You would be able to break into it's components axioms for us?

There is only one axiom.

It is that there is no such thing as a divine creator.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 2:54:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/5/2010 2:51:17 AM, Zeitgeist wrote:
At 9/5/2010 2:27:56 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
So you understand the argument you have just quoted then? You would be able to break into it's components axioms for us?

There is only one axiom.

It is that there is no such thing as a divine creator.

So what is the difference between you and an obedient sunday school child?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Zeitgeist
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 3:03:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/5/2010 2:54:43 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/5/2010 2:51:17 AM, Zeitgeist wrote:
At 9/5/2010 2:27:56 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
So you understand the argument you have just quoted then? You would be able to break into it's components axioms for us?

There is only one axiom.

It is that there is no such thing as a divine creator.

So what is the difference between you and an obedient sunday school child?

LOL!

About sixty years!
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 3:09:35 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/5/2010 3:03:27 AM, Zeitgeist wrote:
At 9/5/2010 2:54:43 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/5/2010 2:51:17 AM, Zeitgeist wrote:
At 9/5/2010 2:27:56 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
So you understand the argument you have just quoted then? You would be able to break into it's components axioms for us?

There is only one axiom.

It is that there is no such thing as a divine creator.

So what is the difference between you and an obedient sunday school child?

LOL!

About sixty years!

Hehe...

Okay lets try a different tack, Hawkins has ruled out the possibility of God. You appear to not understand his argument, but agree with him. Does that suggest that this is a faith based issue for you?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 3:58:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Hawking has not ruled out a god. He has claimed that a god is not a necessary component. There is a big difference. His book is not an argument against a god existing and really shouldn't be treated as such.
Zeitgeist
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 4:12:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/5/2010 3:09:35 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Okay lets try a different tack, Hawkins has ruled out the possibility of God. You appear to not understand his argument, but agree with him. Does that suggest that this is a faith based issue for you?

I well understand his argument and I totally agree with him.

I am also aware it opens the question that theists might ask regarding where the gravitational forces and unified field originate from but here again I see no need for a god to be involved.

For myself I am comfortable with infinity as a concept, though I am unable to visualise it, and I am comfortable with a multi-dimensional reality even though once again I am unable to visualise it.

In my opinion it is the difficulty or impossibility that many people feel about being comfortable with a thing they are unable to visualise that causes them to have to fill in the unknown with a "known" even if it a thing they have imagined as is the case of "god".

For me it's not a case of faith in Hawking or Dawkins, it's a case of cold logic.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 7:55:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
For myself I am comfortable with infinity as a concept
I should hope so even for theists, considering how God is supposed to have even fewer limits than infinity. (Because it has none, instead of simply none in one attribute).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Zeitgeist
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 8:29:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/5/2010 3:58:58 AM, Puck wrote:
Hawking has not ruled out a god. He has claimed that a god is not a necessary component. There is a big difference. His book is not an argument against a god existing and really shouldn't be treated as such.

Yes it should, especially as the primary argument for theists is the creation myth.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 9:34:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/5/2010 4:12:30 AM, Zeitgeist wrote:
At 9/5/2010 3:09:35 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Okay lets try a different tack, Hawkins has ruled out the possibility of God. You appear to not understand his argument, but agree with him. Does that suggest that this is a faith based issue for you?

I well understand his argument and I totally agree with him.

I am also aware it opens the question that theists might ask regarding where the gravitational forces and unified field originate from but here again I see no need for a god to be involved.

For myself I am comfortable with infinity as a concept, though I am unable to visualise it, and I am comfortable with a multi-dimensional reality even though once again I am unable to visualise it.

In my opinion it is the difficulty or impossibility that many people feel about being comfortable with a thing they are unable to visualise that causes them to have to fill in the unknown with a "known" even if it a thing they have imagined as is the case of "god".

For me it's not a case of faith in Hawking or Dawkins, it's a case of cold logic.

Excellent, can you show me the logical process?

I think by now my point is obvious!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 12:11:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/5/2010 12:09:44 PM, Kahvan wrote:
something coming from nothing seems more ridiculous to me than the idea of matter that has always existed.

Eh, that argument effects both sides. Because God came from absolutely nothing too.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Kahvan
Posts: 1,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 12:13:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/5/2010 12:11:07 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/5/2010 12:09:44 PM, Kahvan wrote:
something coming from nothing seems more ridiculous to me than the idea of matter that has always existed.

Eh, that argument effects both sides. Because God came from absolutely nothing too.

What if god always existed 0.0
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 12:15:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/5/2010 12:13:16 PM, Kahvan wrote:
At 9/5/2010 12:11:07 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/5/2010 12:09:44 PM, Kahvan wrote:
something coming from nothing seems more ridiculous to me than the idea of matter that has always existed.

Eh, that argument effects both sides. Because God came from absolutely nothing too.

What if god always existed 0.0

What if the Universe always existed 0.0

Note the Universe always existing is a better conclusion seeign as it's less complex than any God, and doesn't have to be concious.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Kahvan
Posts: 1,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 12:18:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/5/2010 12:15:35 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/5/2010 12:13:16 PM, Kahvan wrote:
At 9/5/2010 12:11:07 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/5/2010 12:09:44 PM, Kahvan wrote:
something coming from nothing seems more ridiculous to me than the idea of matter that has always existed.

Eh, that argument effects both sides. Because God came from absolutely nothing too.

What if god always existed 0.0

What if the Universe always existed 0.0

Note the Universe always existing is a better conclusion seeign as it's less complex than any God, and doesn't have to be concious.

Granted, but the point of my original post was not to get into a debate a god which is why I used the word matter. My point was simply that it seems ridiculous to me that something can come from nothing. I meant to approach this scientifically rather than religiously.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 12:23:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/5/2010 12:18:29 PM, Kahvan wrote:
At 9/5/2010 12:15:35 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Granted, but the point of my original post was not to get into a debate a god which is why I used the word matter. My point was simply that it seems ridiculous to me that something can come from nothing. I meant to approach this scientifically rather than religiously.

Personal intuitions are not a scientific approach. Present a scientific argument against the universe coming from nothing.
Kahvan
Posts: 1,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 12:28:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/5/2010 12:23:39 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 9/5/2010 12:18:29 PM, Kahvan wrote:
At 9/5/2010 12:15:35 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Granted, but the point of my original post was not to get into a debate a god which is why I used the word matter. My point was simply that it seems ridiculous to me that something can come from nothing. I meant to approach this scientifically rather than religiously.

Personal intuitions are not a scientific approach. Present a scientific argument against the universe coming from nothing.

You have burden of proof.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 12:35:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/5/2010 12:15:35 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Note the Universe always existing is a better conclusion seeign as it's less complex than any God, and doesn't have to be concious.

Wtf? How does this even make sense? Because the Universe is less complex than God, it is more likely for it to exist eternally?

I don't see how complexity affects longevity. Also, the Universe always existing is a better conclusion because we already know that the Universe at least exists, not because of what you said.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 12:41:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/5/2010 3:58:58 AM, Puck wrote:
Hawking has not ruled out a god. He has claimed that a god is not a necessary component. There is a big difference.

It does rule out God because if Hawking shows that God is not a necessary component yet God is a necessary being, then that rules him out. God is not just some extra accessory on the side of the Universes creation.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 12:42:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/5/2010 12:35:04 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/5/2010 12:15:35 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Note the Universe always existing is a better conclusion seeign as it's less complex than any God, and doesn't have to be concious.

Wtf? How does this even make sense? Because the Universe is less complex than God, it is more likely for it to exist eternally?

I don't see how complexity affects longevity. Also, the Universe always existing is a better conclusion because we already know that the Universe at least exists, not because of what you said.

True. There is tangible evidence that the universe exists. We can measure and quantify it, define it even, but the existence of "God" is mere human speculation.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 1:08:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/5/2010 12:28:18 PM, Kahvan wrote:
At 9/5/2010 12:23:39 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 9/5/2010 12:18:29 PM, Kahvan wrote:
At 9/5/2010 12:15:35 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Granted, but the point of my original post was not to get into a debate a god which is why I used the word matter. My point was simply that it seems ridiculous to me that something can come from nothing. I meant to approach this scientifically rather than religiously.

Personal intuitions are not a scientific approach. Present a scientific argument against the universe coming from nothing.

You have burden of proof.

What!? I'm not making the claim - you're making the claim that it's absurd to believe the universe came from nothing! I have have no burden of proof whatsoever.

The resolution is 'it is absurd to believe the universe came from nothing'. You are Pro.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 2:11:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Yeah, my friend told me about this yesterday.

He's an atheist but still said that Hawking should stay out of philosophy, especially metaphysics(the major theme of the book).

I am cripple, therefore I am.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 2:20:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/5/2010 2:11:51 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Yeah, my friend told me about this yesterday.

He's an atheist but still said that Hawking should stay out of philosophy, especially metaphysics(the major theme of the book).

I am cripple, therefore I am.

It's science, not metaphysics. You think that biological evolution is metaphysics simply because it treads on theology?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 2:31:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist," he writes.

I am so praying he expands extensively upon this.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 2:40:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/5/2010 2:31:12 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist," he writes.

I am so praying he expands extensively upon this.

The law of gravity requires no supernatural explanation,the same for the rest of the laws of the Universe, thus the Universe is self-sustaining and self-propogating.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 2:54:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/5/2010 2:40:43 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/5/2010 2:31:12 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist," he writes.

I am so praying he expands extensively upon this.

The law of gravity requires no supernatural explanation,the same for the rest of the laws of the Universe, thus the Universe is self-sustaining and self-propogating.

Gravity is a law of the universe, but gravity created the universe? Say what?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 4:20:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/5/2010 2:54:09 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/5/2010 2:40:43 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/5/2010 2:31:12 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist," he writes.

I am so praying he expands extensively upon this.

The law of gravity requires no supernatural explanation,the same for the rest of the laws of the Universe, thus the Universe is self-sustaining and self-propogating.


Gravity is a law of the universe, but gravity created the universe? Say what?

Matter that doesnt't exist is farther apart than matter that does exist can possibly be. Therefore it will attract into existence per gravitation.

It sounds almost plausible by the standards that lead to belief in reptilian overlords.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 4:25:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/5/2010 4:20:58 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/5/2010 2:54:09 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/5/2010 2:40:43 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/5/2010 2:31:12 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist," he writes.

I am so praying he expands extensively upon this.

The law of gravity requires no supernatural explanation,the same for the rest of the laws of the Universe, thus the Universe is self-sustaining and self-propogating.


Gravity is a law of the universe, but gravity created the universe? Say what?

Matter that doesnt't exist is farther apart than matter that does exist can possibly be. Therefore it will attract into existence per gravitation.

It sounds almost plausible by the standards that lead to belief in reptilian overlords.

Ha ha.