God did not create the universe, says Hawking

[Guest Guy N. Cognito]

I always wonder when someone tells me to live by the word of the bible: which one? There are literally hundreds of versions, each being edited to fit the whims of those writing it.

BTW, I'm agnostic, and believe that religion is nothing more than a way for some to explain the unexplainable. Hawkings has it right.

[Guest Jamie]

live on in the memories of your loved ones."

I am thinking that is about all that happens after we die.

Well, now that we have the internet and forums like this, our words, at least, will be read for as long as anybody keeps a copy of 'em on their servers.

So in a sense, we all now have a certain kind of immortality that the average person didn't, not all too long ago.

[enfield]

Gee - now I wish I had said something smarter.

[Guest Jamie]

Gee - now I wish I had said something smarter.

You ain't dead yet, so keep tryin'.

And remember, Scire tuum nihil est, nisi te scire hoc sciat alter.

( Your knowledge is nothing when no one else knows that you know it. )

Edited September 4, 2010 by Jamie

[enfield]

Romani ite domum!

[Guest trigem]

Wrong perspective. Think of it in these terms. When I'm watching my children learn I generally know the outcome of their simple choices. They however have no idea the consequences of their choices. Sometimes they do, but they test it anyway thinking i didn't mean what i told them. So is there no value in their attempts? Absolutely not. It's everything. Without that discovery of what is unknown to them yet known to me, THEY gain knowledge and grow to maturity. I also become more important because I am the teacher, comforter, and rescuer of their lives. Although the analogy has some holes in relation to God, the principal is the same. God wants to be that same guide as we grow and discover truth. By discovering truth we discover his greatness. In fact Jesus stated his whole purpose was to testify to truth.

This is why i agree with some of you folks like Jaime who have a healthy skepticism (to an extent ). More in the church should and more of the world shouldn't emotionally respond to those who don't. If you are truly seeking truth, I believe you will come to a point where a decision has to be made.

However, Just like that child you can either choose wise things or foolish things. Just because you have great parents doesn't mean you won't be rebellious and end up a junkie on the streets and vice versa. I've seen it both ways. God's purpose is for us to seek him. God gets no joy from us being forced to choose him just like I would get no joy from forcing my kids to love me. However, I can tell you that there is no greater feeling than when I get home and my kids come running to meet me and wrap their arms, legs, and anything else they can hug with around my neck. That is real and that is a real relationship. It is no different than with God.

+1

[Guest Letereat!]

And remember, Scire tuum nihil est, nisi te scire hoc sciat alter.

JAMIE

On This I must respectfully disagree strongly Sir. What I know that I know inspite of anyones elses ignorance makes my knowledge exponentially more meaningful and in fact gives me such an advantage over them that know not what I do (depending on just how vast my knowledge is is directly proportianate to the size and signifigance of the advantage) that one could disrupt or enhance society in many ways. I could lead people to believe all sorts of falicious nonsense. The possibilities would only be limited by your knowledge and the ignorance of those around you.

[Guest Letereat!]

The Catholic Church if you recall translated the original Greek and Hebrew scripts to Latin . They specifically forbade any common person to learn Latin and the Penalty for translating the Vulgate to The common mans language was DEATH period. Look up Wickliffe, hunted down and murdered for doing just that. Translating the Scriptures into the tongue of the commoner. Having knowledge that others are not privy too is the root of much evil and unscrupulous behavior.

[Guest Jamie]

On This I must respectfully disagree strongly Sir.

Disagree all you like. ( Seems like that's what we're all here for. )

1st... go watch Tombstone.

2nd... don't take what I said to Enfield literally. Latin is as much about the context as the actual words. And in this context, I was telling him to get to typing, so's people would know how smart he is.

[Guest Jamie]

Romani ite domum!

Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare.

( I think some people in togas are plotting against me. )

[Guest Jamie]

And lastly... and also to no one in particular: Sapiens nihil affirmat quod non probat.

[USMCJG]

Sapiens nihil affirmat quod non probat.

And that is my problem with the pushiest zealots, whether they be religious or atheist.

In this instance Hawking is no different than any religious person or atheist, he believes something that he cannot prove. If you study theoretical physics for very long, you'll realize that it has much more in common with religion than it does with science(atheism is also a religion in the strictest sense, since it is based on belief, aka faith, and not proven fact). I have no problem with anyone believing whatever they want, I just don't care to have anyone else's beliefs pushed on me. And atheists are some of the most condescending and overbearing in this regard, in spite of the fact that they really have no more evidence to support their beliefs than any Christian, Jew, Hindu, or Muslim.

I shall climb down from my soapbox now.

[Guest Jamie]

Wrong perspective.... *we've seen it more than twice already, so no need for another go-'round. - J.*

+1

You're just not very good at this whole debate thing, are ya Trigem?

[Oh Shoot]

.... And atheists are some of the most condescending and overbearing in this regard, in spite of the fact that they really have no more evidence to support their beliefs than any Christian, Jew, Hindu, or Muslim. ..

I see proselytizing atheists and Christians as equally arrogant.

- OS

[enfield]

Who are you assuming (believing without proof) is an atheist? I didn't see anybody describe himself as an atheist, but maybe I missed something?

[Guest Jamie]

And that is my problem with the pushiest zealots, whether they be religious or atheist.

Yep, fanatics and zealots of any ilk are pain in the ass and to be avoided, if possible.

I have to say though, that I've never had to post a "no trespassing" sign to keep the Atheists away from the door, with their "There is no god" literature. Nor have I ever spent a Sunday morning surfing around the various TV channels, trying to find something to watch other than some guy or gal saying there is no god, and I'm not going to hell if I don't send him/her any money.

I've also never heard of 2 different groups of atheists going to war over which of them was more correct in their disbelief. :-\

In this instance Hawking is no different than any religious person or atheist, he believes something that he cannot prove.

I'm not quite sure exactly what Stephen Hawking believes or doesn't, but from what I've read - despite whatever title somebody sticks on the article - he isn't saying that god certainly didn't start the universe, only that he believes he's found theoretical evidence that he didn't have to, in order for it to exist.

As far as proof, I'm sure the math works out and the numbers all add up to get to what he's claiming, even if there's no practical way to build a model or demonstrate it in a lab... which is far more than can be said for most religions or religious beliefs.

If you study theoretical physics for very long, you'll realize that it has much more in common with religion than it does with science(atheism is also a religion in the strictest sense, since it is based on belief, aka faith, and not proven fact).

I'm not so sure about that one either, since, as I mentioned above, theoretical physics is based in mathematical calculations, and observations on how things work. It's an extrapolation based in fact, even if sometimes those facts turn out to be other than what they first appear. In which case the theory is either revised, or thrown out altogether, once the accuracy - or lack thereof - is discovered.

I don't remember ever having heard of any religion revising it's self and saying "oops, wrong god", or "we have evidence now that says our previous beliefs were in error".

I have no problem with anyone believing whatever they want, I just don't care to have anyone else's beliefs pushed on me.

Here we are in full agreement.

And atheists are some of the most condescending and overbearing in this regard, in spite of the fact that they really have no more evidence to support their beliefs than any Christian, Jew, Hindu, or Muslim.

I suppose they can be, just as anyone else can, but then again, see what I wrote above for reasons why they may have a little justification for being that way.

I mean, constantly being told you're going to hell for not agreeing with someone tends to make a person more than a little... grumpy and disgusted, and inclined to give as good - or better - that they've been getting.

I shall climb down from my soapbox now.

Hey, don't climb down on my account... At least you haven't just been throwing the same old material at everybody.

Edited September 5, 2010 by Jamie

[clarky07]

I'm not so sure about that one either, since, as I mentioned above, theoretical physics is based in mathematical calculations, and observations on how things work. It's an extrapolation based in fact, even if sometimes those facts turn out to be other than what they first appear. In which case the theory is either revised, or thrown out altogether, once the accuracy - or lack thereof - is discovered.

Actually somebody in this thread was really angry about Christians changing their beliefs based on new information. You can't be pissed both ways.

[Guest Jamie]

Actually somebody in this thread was really angry about Christians changing their beliefs based on new information. You can't be pissed both ways.

Hey, I said I didn't remember, not that it didn't ever happen. Besides, different denominations could be viewed as "changing their minds", but that's not exactly what I meant.

Might've been a bad example, but what I was getting at was it's very unlikely for, say, Christians to ever say "We were mistaken, Jesus is NOT the son of god, he's just another prophet".

Edit: Also, I just went back and scanned over the previous 29 pages of this thread. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anybody getting really angry over Christians changing their beliefs based on new information.

Edited September 5, 2010 by Jamie

[Oh Shoot]

Who are you assuming (believing without proof) is an atheist? I didn't see anybody describe himself as an atheist, but maybe I missed something?

Who are you talking to? Me? (hard to tell without quoting, most of the time)

As you can see by MY quote, it was a response to USMCJG's statement.

If your question was for USMCJG, you should have quoted him.

- OS

Edited September 5, 2010 by OhShoot

[Guest Jamie]

Who are you talking to? Me? (hard to tell without quoting, most of the time)

As you can see by MY quote, it was a response to Jamie's statement.

If your question was for Jamie, you should have quoted him.

- OS

Now I'm confused... because in your post, #289, you quoted USMCJG, not me...

[Guest Letereat!]

2nd... don't take what I said to Enfield literally. Latin is as much about the context as the actual words. And in this context, I was telling him to get to typing, so's people would know how smart he is.

Jamie

I stand corrected, It is true. I do have a tendancy to take things too literally at times and can even come across as being a bit arrogant, I beg your pardon for my lack of insight sir.

[Guest Jamie]

I stand corrected, It is true. I do have a tendancy to take things too literally at times and can even come across as being a bit arrogant, I beg your pardon for my lack of insight sir.

Oh, don't worry about it. I figured the entire exchange would confuse most people, but that Enfield would get it.

[Oh Shoot]

Now I'm confused... because in your post, #289, you quoted USMCJG, not me...

Doh.

Edited my post to reflect that.

- OS

[Guest Letereat!]

So as not to offend anyone I have formed a new religious conglomerate.

AgnostiFarianisticTheocentricScientificism

Ist meeting to be announced,

OH, and of course all Reprobate Heathans are welcome too:popcorn:

Edited September 5, 2010 by Letereat!

[Guest Letereat!]

The more I read and try to understand the world the more it becomes apparent that there never were any gods. Religion stems from an unwillingness to accept that there are things we just don't understand as of yet. Eventually humanity shall be able to move past this. Then we will read about Jesus in the same book we read about the Roman gods and laugh. I've heard from a lot of christian people that they currently believe that Christianity is on the decline in the US with the younger generation. We can only hope that this is true. As Richard Dawkins said, “I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.†Religion causes more trouble than it is worth. All one can hope to gain from it is a mild placebo affect anyways.

• I think this Kid:cool:, is onto something!
  

Edited September 5, 2010 by Letereat!