Fluid, It is an informed hypothesis that indicates that it is not necessary or inevitable to conclude that a god must exist. Yes this is good. You understand the issue that there can be multiple speculations for any given effect. It is only when we have the proof of the cause that we can answer the question. Your claim that there is a god who created the universe is just one of a vast number of speculations about origins. The difference between your claims of a god and Hawking's hypothesis is that you believe your claim is true and Hawking's understands his is just a hypothesis. Your's is irrational (no evidence) and Hawking's is a logical hypothesis where there is no assumption of truth. Non sequitur. The potential existence of a god does not follow from the assertion of a boundless universe. Unless you maintain that Universe=God, in which case we can dispense with the redundant and meaningless term God. I think I just said most of that. Why did you set yourself up with a nonsense statement and then argue against yourself? Non sequitur. Non sequitur. Non sequitur. Finding the beginning of time gives no evidence of how it began. Non sequitur. And false. If there was no beginning then the universe has always existed, i.e. it was not created. If it wasn't created then there was no creator. Non sequitur. But close. If we find the beginning of time then we will have found the point at which the universe began. We can reach no conclusion about an alleged creation. Non sequitur. We certainly have significant evidence to strongly suspect that indeed every cause is dictated by the laws of physics. But it doesn't follow that those laws were created or defined by anything. Non sequitur. It doesn't follow that any such laws were defined or created by anything. This is gibberish. The definition of 'super-natural' specifically excludes everything natural. If Nature=Supernatural, then one side is redundant. And your point was what? Gibberish. There is no evidence to suggest there is anything else hence it would be irrational to believe otherwise. Well OK, but without any evidence for that all you have is a personal fantasy. OK. It is good you understand there are many facts. But now I strongly suggest you improve your logic. I don't see how you could reach that conclusion from my statement. Knowing something implies the presence of facts. Believing something may or may not involve facts. It isn't assumed, it is specifically declared in my statement. This depends on the type of evidence and the issue at stake. If the event can be decided by a deductive conclusion then evidence and proof is the same thing. If we are considering an inductive argument then the quantity and quality of evidence will be an issue. The expectation that an alarm will sound is based on inductive logic. Induction always assumes an element of doubt. Most things in life are based on inductive thinking, and even most of science follows these methods. Incidentally I don't use alarm clocks.
Now, you are calling me a liar. In this case, I will get the book and find the portion of it that I interpret as follows: In Stephen Hawking's book, "A Brief History Of Time," Carl Sagan writes a preface or foreward or introduction. (It's been a few years) In this intro, Sagan suggests to Hawking..."if we are able to prove there is was a Big Bang, that the Universe was created by such a phenomena, will you finally admit that you believe there is no God?" Hawking responds in an ambiguous way. The above is not a quote, it is a paraphrase. I don't make things like this up.
never heard it put that way before. so if that is atheism, and athiesm is a "religion" so to speak. then some people's belief system is based on disproving another party's belief system? that sounds pretty stupid. what's the point? it seems just as bad as the believers themselves. i mean, i may not believe in someone's religion, and i may argue with them but when it comes down to it who cares what other people believe in? why would i participate in a belief system/religion/whatever that is only based on proving others beleifs wrong? and if/when you do prove them wrong so what? you're in the same place you were in...you didnt believe what they believed in the first place and you still wouldnt. seems like letting other indirectly run your life. cris, am i understanding it right? or am i getting this ass backwards? i've never really seen it put the way you did and i'm trying to understand this.
Cris The very root of my argument is that there is a vast difference between the evidence we accept for belief and the evidence we accept for proof or certainty. I think you know this. As for all the statements that you define as non-sequitor, you must have forgotten the caveat I placed: "Here is a logical progression of possibilities that include the presence of God. Of course, they do not prove it." Furthermore, I do not consider those statements evidence of any kind. They are statements of faith, not fact. They are logical from the perspective of a theist, not an atheist. In that respect, they are inductive. What astounds me about you in your proclamation of logic, is that you have no evidence to prove the non-existence of God, and you rest on the uncertain principle that because there is no evidence to support the existence of God, that there is no possibility. This is like the nuetrino experiment I mentioned earlier. The lack of evidence does not preclude any fact, except that there is no evidence. Finally, I have illustrated more logic for my belief in God than you have managed to express for your atheistic perspective. In fact, all you have done is apply scientific logic to a discussion about theology, and that logic is failing. In so much, you have one argument, and it is no more logical than mine.
Carl Sagan - Intro to A Brief History of Time Final paragraph. Scanned from my book. This is also a book about God. ..or perhaps about the absence of God. The word God fills these pages. Hawking embarks on a quest to answer Einstein's famous question about whether God had any choice in creating the universe. Hawking is attempting, as he explicitly states, to understand the mind of God. And this makes all the more unexpected the conclusion of the effort, at least so far: a universe with no edge in space, no beginning or end in time, and nothing for a Creator to do. -Carl Sagan Comell University Ithaca, New York
Grey Seal, Follow this link for some definitions on atheism and agnosticism. http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html And here is a relevant extract. "What is atheism?" Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings. Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism". Regarding people who have never been exposed to the concept of 'god': Whether they are 'atheists' or not is a matter of debate. Since you're unlikely to meet anyone who has never encountered religion, it's not a very important debate... It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and weak atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong atheism" is an explicitly held belief that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists". There is a qualitative difference in the "strong" and "weak" positions; it's not just a matter of degree. Some atheists believe in the non-existence of all Gods; others limit their atheism to specific Gods, such as the Christian God, rather than making flat-out denials. "But isn't disbelieving in God the same thing as believing he doesn't exist?" Definitely not. Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe it to be true. Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not. Which brings us to agnosticism.
Cris Hawking is attempting, as he explicitly states, to understand the mind of God. And this makes all the more unexpected the conclusion of the effort, at least so far: a universe with no edge in space, no beginning or end in time, and nothing for a Creator to do. <HR> Thank you. This is not exactly the segment in debate between JR, CA and myself at the moment, but it is the intro I mentioned. Now, as for the above statement. This is inductive reasoning for an atheist, applause. But, from the theist point of view, mine at least, here is the inverse: And this makes all the more interesting the final conclusion of the effort, at least so far: a finite Universe with no edges, a Universe that could have been chaotic and undefined, is instead completely visible, as if God had intended for us to see the very heart of its beauty. Cris, in Sagan's mind, there is less and less for God to do. In my mind, we see more and more of what God has done. The difference in whether or not logic is inductive or non-sequitor can be in the perspective, especially when truth hangs in theory. Congrats on being alarm clock free.
Grey Seal, No not at all. There are no beliefs in supernatural claims in atheism. I think a very common system like this is Christianity. The proponents of these ideas do actually go around telling everyone that they are wrong if they don't believe in the Christian god. They spend enormous amounts of time and effort trying to prove that what other people believe is quite wrong. I agree. Christian evangelism should be made illegal. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The primary request from atheists to theists is for them to provide credible evidence for their claims. That's Ok and yes you've pretty much got things ass backwards. Read the definitions I posted.
hehe.. Cris: The primary request from atheists to theists is for them to provide credible evidence for their claims. <HR> This is a daunting task. Maybe we theists should ask the atheists for some evidence to support their claims. Oh, the <i><b>lack</i></b> of evidence will do. That's too easy, and it isn't the least bit equal in weight.
Fluid, Where have I said in this discussion anything like that? I have made no claim here that a god does not exist. It is indeed generally acknowledged that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If you check back you will find I have made no such claim that because there is no evidence for a god then no god exists. What I have said is that you have not presented any evidence and hence you cannot claim as a truth that a god exists. I have made no attempt in this discussion to claim that a god does not exist. But each premise was invalid so there was no logical progression. I suggest you take a course in logic then so that you can better follow my arguments to see why you are so very wrong.
Re: hehe.. Maybe theists should realize irrational beliefs (and in this case an irrational statement) don't fare well in rational discussions?
Fluid, What atheist claims? Lack of evidence isn't a claim it is an observation that you can very easily dispel by showing just a single credible piece of evidence.
Wes, Ah but how does one rationally reason with an irrational theist that their irrational statements are indeed irrational if they can't in the first place reason rationally in order to rationally reason that they are being irrational? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Fluid, I think you are missing the point. What Hawking demonstrated is that the universe we see can exist without a god. The conclusion is that a god is unnecessary. That is gibberish.
Indeed. (we have to find a subversive way to make them police themselves... I thought Tiassa volunteered to infiltrate and police them accordingly... well, you can't expect a guy of Tiassa's caliber to sink with a holy ship) LOL.
Cris The pretense of your argument hinges on the assumption that human beings are capable of investigating dimensions outside their comprehension; we are physically, technologically, and mentally incapable of studying the dimensions in which God most probably exists. My belief in God hinges on the limitations of man's ability to percieve the Universe, this Earth, or himself from the myriad of extra-dimensional Universe(s). If we view these invisible dimensions through analogy, where any and all of these dimension are represented by an opaque vessel we cannot lift, open, or touch in any way, we are all left to decide what may be in the vessel. For the following reasons, it would be illogical for us to assume the vessel is empty. Moreover, in our own world, we are driven to investigate what is in the vessel. We would not claim, without a full investigation, that the vessel is empty. But, we cannot open this vessel; it is outside the reach of human intervention. We would be wrong to assume that God is not interacting with the dimensions of our existence. In fact, we would be wrong to assume we would exist at all without God. If God is in the extra-dimensional Universe(s), our existence relies completely upon God's interaction with this Universe. Virtually every property of mass and energy would be dependent upon God, if we, and this Universe, are an extension of God's being or creation. Upon realizing we are dependent upon God for everything we see and need, we would become grateful for having been created. We would not only recognize our dependence upon God, we would be in awe of God's abilities. Either that, or we would simply be angry at God for creating us as flawed individuals, and argue over the very concept of a loving God. I hope you see some inherent logic in this concept. If not, you are completely unreasonable and this discussion will go nowhere. I hate having to use this model, because it shouldn't be necessary, and it is a trajedy when it isn't respected. I authored a much longer version of this proof in my Philosophy class, and that paper has been used in debates for the last 10 years. ~Clay
Re: Cris That pretty much sums up my point. How is it that you do not understand that your statement violates logic? I believe it likely that you are playing games with the definition of the word god, convincing yourself that ah, it's the definition that's wrong, if I just tweak that, then theism will suddenly be rational - you are mistaken... if not then you are just ignorant of the proper usage of reason. You should let yourself be educated rather than insist that your foolish notions are an appropriate assessment of the structure of the universe.
the belief in god is unreasonable, but acceptable as long as you're aware that you're being unreasonable.
