Hi All, I have collected various discussion, comments regarding Stephen Hawking's Explanation in News and What is the opinion of people -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Hawking About GOD's Existence
Can Prof Hawkins explain what exactly it was that exploded in the 'Big Bang'? You can't produce something from nothing, so ultimately something must have created matter, i.e. God! We cannot comprehend God - our minds are not capable. We try to limit things to what we can understand and therefore invent theories to suit ourselves, whereas God is beyond our limits of comprehension. Just because Prof Hawkins syas that God doesn't exist doesn't make Him disappear.
Well said. You seem to have stopped short of explaining how god came from nothing though. The complex being which was intelligent and apparently we are in his image. So how did he sprout up?
You say we make up stories for things we dont understand. This explains why everyone had a different version of god(s) until they were conquered. Which would suggest that god was that story
Well said. You seem to have stopped short of explaining how god came from nothing though. The complex being which was intelligent and apparently we are in his image. So how did he sprout up?
You say we make up stories for things we dont understand. This explains why everyone had a different version of god(s) until they were conquered. Which would suggest that god was that story
-------------------------------
Gods were invented by men, who were a lot more ignorant and superstitious than we are now, as a way of trying to explain how they came to exist. Nowadays, although we still don't have all the answers, we do know that the creation myths which include gods are rubbish. In truth, we don't know, but there's no reason to suppose any gods involved.
----------------------------------
"Who is Stephen Hawkings to bad-mouth my boss? He must be a very silly person." The Universe was still being created" The last time I looked ,some so called scientists most are clueless !!! think they know a lot, but they are only trying to sell the public a few copys of bad misinformation in a book.But he has made good adverts on T.V.
----------------------------------
So the 'laws of physics' just made it all! So who made those laws? This pseudo scientist is so shallow in his thinking.
Do you believe newton made gravity? Or did he put a name to an existing effect? Why do you need a god to accept physical effects? If there is a god what made that god? What physical effects are there on him? He must have serious limitations because he is not proving his existence.
Shallow thinking states the world is flat, ghosts are real and that some old man in the sky controls everything. Rational thinking discovers the physical effects around us and allows us to advance.
If there is a god then surely it would prefer you did something with your life to seek it out than to just accept what someone else says (who knows as much as you on the subject).
Do you believe newton made gravity? Or did he put a name to an existing effect? Why do you need a god to accept physical effects? If there is a god what made that god? What physical effects are there on him? He must have serious limitations because he is not proving his existence.
Shallow thinking states the world is flat, ghosts are real and that some old man in the sky controls everything. Rational thinking discovers the physical effects around us and allows us to advance.
If there is a god then surely it would prefer you did something with your life to seek it out than to just accept what someone else says (who knows as much as you on the subject).
------------------------------------------
If there were no God, it would have been necessary to invent him
----------------------------------------
I have great respect and admiration for the man but he only deals in information available that can be proven.
There is still much that is unknown that could throw out all of his theories in the future so I have to remain openminded
There is still much that is unknown that could throw out all of his theories in the future so I have to remain openminded
-----------------------------------------
I felt human's can recreate this World, Past/History as today human's can edit photos, video's and its recording.
Everthing is recorded by nature. And in Future We can decode advance things.
We only know .001% about the Universe. And When Internet is invented, I feel We can reach upto 1 % in the next 50 Years, And in another 100 years , We can reach upto 10%.
And I felt GOD's (Advance Civilization who thousands & thousands year forward to us) knowledge may lies between 90 to 99.99% (100 mean nothing & 0 means nothing).
GOD is only a advanced civilization, Who are many years ahead in time to us. Still Humans are acheiving enough. Internet is the Biggest Discovery of Mankind, which moves as much faster as thousands & thousands brain can easily work in one direction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God created the heaven and the earth is just as unbelievable as the Big Bang or Steven Hawking's assertion that we all spotaneously erupted and evolved from nothing. As there's no evidence, surely belief in the Big Bang is also blind faith? Please remember Steven Hawking is selling another book which most of us won't understand, and he can't provide any evidence to support his theories - is it called Hawking's Bible?"
Of course there is evidence for the big bang. That the universe is expanding is evidence that it was originally all in one place, and also the existence of Cosmic Background Radiation
Of course there is evidence for the big bang. That the universe is expanding is evidence that it was originally all in one place, and also the existence of Cosmic Background Radiation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe God created the universe.
Not only because i am a christian but i am also a science student at university and everything i see shows me that this is not mere chance it all came together.
And the idea of finding a planet thats similar to the earth does not prove God does not exist, it simply shows theres a planet similar to the earth out there. There are millions upon billions of suns and galaxies and so on.
Now as comment 2 put it, can we stop this old record and just accept people think differently and have different beliefs. This is the word of one man, and yet there is no word from the millions of Christians around the world because it would be seen as pressing our views upon the public and therefore wrong. Please, its suppression in its purest form.
Not only because i am a christian but i am also a science student at university and everything i see shows me that this is not mere chance it all came together.
And the idea of finding a planet thats similar to the earth does not prove God does not exist, it simply shows theres a planet similar to the earth out there. There are millions upon billions of suns and galaxies and so on.
Now as comment 2 put it, can we stop this old record and just accept people think differently and have different beliefs. This is the word of one man, and yet there is no word from the millions of Christians around the world because it would be seen as pressing our views upon the public and therefore wrong. Please, its suppression in its purest form.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't a more pertinant question 'what is god'? If god is a man with a big white beard then I doubt he did create the universe....but what if god is a particle, or a chemical reaction or some other strange phenomena that I for one and not clever enough to understand. If 'god' is the latter then maybe he/it did create the universe.
Science tells us that nothing in the universe is new, that a tree dies, falls to the ground, decays and in a million years becomes coal, which is in turn becomes smoke, becomes fumes which fall to the ground and deposit somewhere else to form part of something else. Thus, just as we and everything on the earth are made up of things that have gone before, so maybe, way-back-when, we are made up of the something that was part of 'god'. Are we not then, all part of god and part of what set the universe going?
Science tells us that nothing in the universe is new, that a tree dies, falls to the ground, decays and in a million years becomes coal, which is in turn becomes smoke, becomes fumes which fall to the ground and deposit somewhere else to form part of something else. Thus, just as we and everything on the earth are made up of things that have gone before, so maybe, way-back-when, we are made up of the something that was part of 'god'. Are we not then, all part of god and part of what set the universe going?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The world is populated with scientists who claim that their scientific evidence of evolution and the big bang is proof that God doesnt exists, or does not need to be invoked, yet they overlook the most obvious piece of evidence that He does. Its called the Bible, it is written by the hand of God and is there in black and white. Open your eyes!
You do realise the bible was written by a few blokes writing about things they 'saw.' It was not by the hand of god.
By all means believe in God but what you're saying is akin to believing in Harry Potter and saying He wrote the trilogy.
You do realise the bible was written by a few blokes writing about things they 'saw.' It was not by the hand of god.
By all means believe in God but what you're saying is akin to believing in Harry Potter and saying He wrote the trilogy.
----------------------------------------------------
For thousands of years (the Jewish tradition plus most of the Christian tradition), people have believed that all that is exists because it is part of God´s plan. That means that the universe has a purpose, our world and all that is in it has a purpose and human life has a purpose.
God has been eliminated from science for the past couple of hundred years resulting in the philosophy that the world, and all life are just there - with no purpose.
God has been eliminated from science for the past couple of hundred years resulting in the philosophy that the world, and all life are just there - with no purpose.
You have your own purpose, one you decide upon. The idea if 'Gob's Plan would effectively mean all criminals should be freed as they were just following gods plan... Hitler wasn't so bad, he was just following gods plan, should we stop that person abusing that child? no they are just following gods plan... and so on.
He didnt say that!! Gods plan is beyond our minds, yet it doesnt mean we should sit idle. Christians are called to change thier world by showing it the love of Christ and God! If that means saving a childs life or locking away those who do wrong then by all means do it!
He didnt say that!! Gods plan is beyond our minds, yet it doesnt mean we should sit idle. Christians are called to change thier world by showing it the love of Christ and God! If that means saving a childs life or locking away those who do wrong then by all means do it!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Professor Hawkings can develop and explain the latest theories as to HOW the universe came into existance and HOW it functions... but he knows as much (or as little) as anyone else about WHO if anyone designed it to work that way.
Consider this: -
The godbothering scientist says, "By my work and that of my fellow scientists, we know more and more about how the universe works - isn't my deity clever?"
The non-believing scientist says, "By my work and that of my fellow scientists, we know more and more about how the universe works - who needs a god now?"
Same evidence, different conclusion based on a pre-existing belief.
Consider this: -
The godbothering scientist says, "By my work and that of my fellow scientists, we know more and more about how the universe works - isn't my deity clever?"
The non-believing scientist says, "By my work and that of my fellow scientists, we know more and more about how the universe works - who needs a god now?"
Same evidence, different conclusion based on a pre-existing belief.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently there are thousands of reputable scientists who refuse to accept the "consensus" of the Big Bang and refuse to accept that life on earth evolved. Check out here http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/
So, why anyone believes the world is more than 6000 years old with this amount of support beats me.
Maybe it's because the science is pretty compelling.
So, why anyone believes the world is more than 6000 years old with this amount of support beats me.
Maybe it's because the science is pretty compelling.
----------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know, but its one hell of a big waste of "Time" if there is no purpose to it.
-------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunatly Dr. Hawkins, is fighting within himself, not believing there is a God because of his personal suffering state. The truth is all behind that one word THEORIES. Not facts, if we woke up to this reality and started to believe in what has been created for us, we would forget the THEORIES and know that only a supreme being or should I say GOD could have created a world so well formed. Big bang is theory, never a proven fact, facts are real theories are not, and have absolutly NOTHING to substansiate them.In the begining GOD CREATED the world and all who dwell therein.Fact.
------------------------------------------------------------
I am noticing some double standards in science here. God is apparently considered not necessary to initiate the universe, because there is a mechanism for the universe to create itself; there's no need to invoke the need for a 'God'. OK, fair point. But then in science we also have the introduction of 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' to explain missing mass in galaxies and a universe that is accelerating in its expansion. But no one's detected any dark matter or dark energy. Are scientists taking it on faith that these things exist then? Besides, they are not actually necessary to explain the anomalies. There is another explanation for both - a modified theory of gravity. Therefore, by the same logic, I call for physicists to ditch dark matter and dark energy and accept a modified theory of gravity as a more likely option. And only after that, when we have an understanding of the universe that doesn't involve 'mysterious dark stuff' can scientists then comment on the necessity of a God with any credibility.Well, "Dark Matter" is believed to be matter than only interacts with other matter via the "weak nuclear force" and gravity (anything that has mass has gravitation attraction, though gravity is by a long way teh weakest of all known forces). Hence dark matter is very hard to detect (like neutrinoes they can go a very long way without interacting with visible matter and, unlike neutrinoes, may have no mechanism to interact with visible matter so they can be observed). It is possible dark matter signatures may be detectable at the LHC.
Dark Energy does appear to be a modifier to the Einstein's theory of gravity (ie General relativity) or may be the manifestation of a fifth force.
Both of these are big questions affecting physics just like physicists found in the 19th Century when they began to obseve phenomena that could not be explained by Classical (ie Newtonian) physics. A supernatural creator was not needed to resolve the difficulties of classical physics (it took Relativity and Quantum Mechanics) and there is no reason to believe one is needed to resolve the difficulties faced today.
Dark Energy does appear to be a modifier to the Einstein's theory of gravity (ie General relativity) or may be the manifestation of a fifth force.
Both of these are big questions affecting physics just like physicists found in the 19th Century when they began to obseve phenomena that could not be explained by Classical (ie Newtonian) physics. A supernatural creator was not needed to resolve the difficulties of classical physics (it took Relativity and Quantum Mechanics) and there is no reason to believe one is needed to resolve the difficulties faced today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since God is energy, He is formless and much away from the creation He created through His thought process hiding in each object in varying degree either seen or unseen and hence Mr. Stephen Hawking is correct to that extent that He is a formless Energy . We can now firmly conclude that Mr. Hawking is under deep meditation on Him whether or not we admit it. This is apparent from doing of many experiments as well as doing of intense exercises of the Brain by him to find the source of us. Therefore he is a most adored personality amongst us shining most brilliantly to attract something very beautiful. The three all Powerful ones whom we call God as explained hereunder also expressed the same while trying to find their source of origin.
As and when we detach or taking something away from a particular source with bonding very firm, there bound to be production of a sound which often calls as ‘Big Bang’. But prior to happening of it, there was available an environment to transmit the sound elsewhere. Therefore, the entire Universe is an integral part of Him and whatever existing within the Universe is nothing but God only; very much interconnected with each other through existing of intense Love with each other.
Again there are 118 known elements that are forming the environment on earth; the tiniest particular of each is an atom which is alive having the electron, proton and neutron circling the nucleus, very much alike the Planets circling a Star. The process is infinite from zero to infinity. But since the atoms are invisible, how we can get a visible object from a mass of invisible objects? Therefore what we are seeing is illusion only. Again each Nucleus is consisting of tiny particles having a similar system within it without a limit. Moreover, every one of us has experienced dreams or dream within a dream feeling exactly the same experience when one is awake. Therefore one’s life is also nothing but a dream only coming from the same single source of Energy.
There are as many as 12 Orders and as many as 11 Gravitational Constants (of which 6/7 are identified by us) that govern everything on each and every object from zero to infinity, one of each is free whom we call God, taking the creation apart but all 3 are seeking to know the Ultimate Source of Single Energy nonetheless first two are utmost nearer to Him. The moment the Single Source is divulged to us, the entire creation shall transformed into zero through happening a merge onto it through sheer attraction of Love. The automatic existence of the source is a Mystery which none other He knows. Therefore there are no two sources of Power to divide ourselves considering one Religion different than the other. Since nothing exists without Him available, the highest place of worship of offering of Prayer to Him is the one’s body when alive and where there available trillions of tiny living cells each different from the other but exactly following an order as we carrying together outside. All cells within are intensely bounded by love with each other to give oneself a particular identity. Therefore the word ‘I’ carry not much of meaning to represent the body being each cell is independent by itself not to follow the desire of ‘I’ other than arranging themselves to allow one to give a gesture to the other for spreading Love. Again each tiny cell is carrying a similar order within it to identify itself. The availability of the order is infinite unless we reach zero. Therefore as and when we join outside as a single human spice, we shall move into a higher level of knowledge. This process too is infinite, unless we reach infinity.
Therefore there is nothing within us or within the Universe to quarrel about amongst us to say something is belonging to someone in particular and not to others. We are all same and equal. The knowledge we acquire shall die once we cease to exist on Earth but love shall carry on infinitely without facing a death. Hence we call love is God but love has no definition in particular to describe how much one expresses to the other. Therefore, everything other than love is untruth.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Can Prof Hawkins explain what exactly it was that exploded in the 'Big Bang'? You can't produce something from nothing, so ultimately something must have created matter, i.e. God!"
Right. or, you could... say... read his book? That'll explain it to you.
"We try to limit things to what we can understand and therefore invent theories to suit ourselves"
*sigh* No, we don't "invent theories", you study and demonstrate using repeatable and measurable experiments, or use mathmatics, and calculate a theory. A theory is not a wild guess.
"Just because Prof Hawkins syas that God doesn't exist doesn't make Him disappear."
And to quote from the film "Snatch": "just because it is written, doesn't make it so". This also counts for God.
As and when we detach or taking something away from a particular source with bonding very firm, there bound to be production of a sound which often calls as ‘Big Bang’. But prior to happening of it, there was available an environment to transmit the sound elsewhere. Therefore, the entire Universe is an integral part of Him and whatever existing within the Universe is nothing but God only; very much interconnected with each other through existing of intense Love with each other.
Again there are 118 known elements that are forming the environment on earth; the tiniest particular of each is an atom which is alive having the electron, proton and neutron circling the nucleus, very much alike the Planets circling a Star. The process is infinite from zero to infinity. But since the atoms are invisible, how we can get a visible object from a mass of invisible objects? Therefore what we are seeing is illusion only. Again each Nucleus is consisting of tiny particles having a similar system within it without a limit. Moreover, every one of us has experienced dreams or dream within a dream feeling exactly the same experience when one is awake. Therefore one’s life is also nothing but a dream only coming from the same single source of Energy.
There are as many as 12 Orders and as many as 11 Gravitational Constants (of which 6/7 are identified by us) that govern everything on each and every object from zero to infinity, one of each is free whom we call God, taking the creation apart but all 3 are seeking to know the Ultimate Source of Single Energy nonetheless first two are utmost nearer to Him. The moment the Single Source is divulged to us, the entire creation shall transformed into zero through happening a merge onto it through sheer attraction of Love. The automatic existence of the source is a Mystery which none other He knows. Therefore there are no two sources of Power to divide ourselves considering one Religion different than the other. Since nothing exists without Him available, the highest place of worship of offering of Prayer to Him is the one’s body when alive and where there available trillions of tiny living cells each different from the other but exactly following an order as we carrying together outside. All cells within are intensely bounded by love with each other to give oneself a particular identity. Therefore the word ‘I’ carry not much of meaning to represent the body being each cell is independent by itself not to follow the desire of ‘I’ other than arranging themselves to allow one to give a gesture to the other for spreading Love. Again each tiny cell is carrying a similar order within it to identify itself. The availability of the order is infinite unless we reach zero. Therefore as and when we join outside as a single human spice, we shall move into a higher level of knowledge. This process too is infinite, unless we reach infinity.
Therefore there is nothing within us or within the Universe to quarrel about amongst us to say something is belonging to someone in particular and not to others. We are all same and equal. The knowledge we acquire shall die once we cease to exist on Earth but love shall carry on infinitely without facing a death. Hence we call love is God but love has no definition in particular to describe how much one expresses to the other. Therefore, everything other than love is untruth.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Can Prof Hawkins explain what exactly it was that exploded in the 'Big Bang'? You can't produce something from nothing, so ultimately something must have created matter, i.e. God!"
Right. or, you could... say... read his book? That'll explain it to you.
"We try to limit things to what we can understand and therefore invent theories to suit ourselves"
*sigh* No, we don't "invent theories", you study and demonstrate using repeatable and measurable experiments, or use mathmatics, and calculate a theory. A theory is not a wild guess.
"Just because Prof Hawkins syas that God doesn't exist doesn't make Him disappear."
And to quote from the film "Snatch": "just because it is written, doesn't make it so". This also counts for God.
--------------------------------------------
God created the heaven and the earth is just as unbelievable as the Big Bang or Steven Hawking's assertion that we all spotaneously erupted and evolved from nothing. As there's no evidence, surely belief in the Big Bang is also blind faith? Please remember Steven Hawking is selling another book which most of us won't understand, and he can't provide any evidence to support his theories - is it called Hawking's Bible?"
Can I take a guess that you've not read any of his work? I have, and I can assure you that it is covered very well by the maths, and the physics. It is far from blind faith, I can assure you.
Can I take a guess that you've not read any of his work? I have, and I can assure you that it is covered very well by the maths, and the physics. It is far from blind faith, I can assure you.
----------------------------------------------
IF JESUS WAS NOT REAL. HOW COULD HE WRITE THE BIBLE???
----------------------------------------------
As he is one of the most brilliant minds on this planet one has to agree with his view.God is a state of mind for good or bad depending upon your own leaning,its not a bad thing to believe in a higher being and if it makes you feel secure or happy then there is no harm.Im sure Stephen Hawking thinks the same
-----------------------------------------------
Was the universe created as a result of the laws of physics?
YES
but who created the laws of physics?
I like to think they are God's method for creating the universe and us.
But that is just my faith, not science and I doubt it could ever be provable.
YES
but who created the laws of physics?
I like to think they are God's method for creating the universe and us.
But that is just my faith, not science and I doubt it could ever be provable.
----------------------------------------------
1. No -nor do I believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden.
2 Prof. H may or may not be correct, but any physics based theory has to be closer to the truth than (1) above
2 Prof. H may or may not be correct, but any physics based theory has to be closer to the truth than (1) above
------------------------------------------------
As stated in your article Hawkins when referring to Citing the 1992 discovery of a planet orbiting a star other than our Sun, he said "That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions - the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass - far less remarkable, and far less compelling as evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings."
The bit I don't understand is when he states "as evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings" being a physicist his assumption is naive, as who stated that the creation of the earth was to please human beings, which authority has even suggested to prove that assertion. Whether god created the universe or not, why is the assertion that its creation was to please human beings, it could have been created to please bacteria? Has anyone tried to prove that assertion yet, no doubt it will be covered in his next book.
I think the point was that religion primarily believes that the Earth was created for humans and the fact that there are other planets orbiting other stars makes our Earth less special and therefore gives less weight to the argument that it was created especially for us. I think the point was that most physists don't believe that the Earth was created for us, that is the domain of the religious.
The bit I don't understand is when he states "as evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings" being a physicist his assumption is naive, as who stated that the creation of the earth was to please human beings, which authority has even suggested to prove that assertion. Whether god created the universe or not, why is the assertion that its creation was to please human beings, it could have been created to please bacteria? Has anyone tried to prove that assertion yet, no doubt it will be covered in his next book.
I think the point was that religion primarily believes that the Earth was created for humans and the fact that there are other planets orbiting other stars makes our Earth less special and therefore gives less weight to the argument that it was created especially for us. I think the point was that most physists don't believe that the Earth was created for us, that is the domain of the religious.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A religious friend of mine recently said that a flower garden she visited was like ‘heaven-on-earth’ and I had to stop myself laughing out loud. How naïve! Little does she, and other religious people, realise that all domesticated plants (plants that have been grown by gardeners over countless generations where only the best plant seed is re-sown) cannot be found naturally anywhere in nature. In fact, none of our domestic breeds of dogs, cats, horses, pigeons, flowers, vegetables, and fruits, etc., exist naturally in nature--they are all man-made through a process called ‘artificial selection’. Once a person accepts artificial selection as a fact—and no one can deny this--it is then a small step further to accept natural selection as fact too. And once everyone accepts natural selection as fact--and it is a fact--then it is clear that the story of Genesis is completely wrong and that God could not have created the Earth, Moon, Solar System, and Man. And if God didn’t create these things then he most likely did not create the Universe either.
P.S. A ‘Scientific Theory’ is not an idea or personal theory. In science, a theory is like the theory/study you did at school. And, if you want proof that man and apes descended from a common ape-type ancestor – instead of being magically created out of thin air -- then watch this very interesting clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI
P.S. A ‘Scientific Theory’ is not an idea or personal theory. In science, a theory is like the theory/study you did at school. And, if you want proof that man and apes descended from a common ape-type ancestor – instead of being magically created out of thin air -- then watch this very interesting clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Out of a general "lay person's" interest I've been reading up on these very issues for a couple of years and would congratulate the vast majority of contributors to this HYS. A great deal of what has been posted by presumably "lay" people concurs with the philosophical outpourings from both sides of the "need for a God" debate from the professionals. They can't agree either - and no-one would expect them to. There's a great tract called The Tao of Physics by Fritjo Capra which echoes the idea that the faith based and objective science based worldviews of existence are not mutually exclusive but run parallel and if traced back far enough coalesce. This may be branded a cop-out by readers who revel in argument, but as worldviews go - if it works for you then it's right for you. For me, Genesis 1 and the equivalent traditional creation stories in other faiths, including the Big Bang in the faith called Physics are all equally difficult to believe.
And - can we please stop referring to God as He - if He is male is there a Mrs. God and does He have a navel?
And - can we please stop referring to God as He - if He is male is there a Mrs. God and does He have a navel?
---------------------------------------------------
Consider the following:
It is a fact that we, as a species, have an in-built "faith-belief" system, proven to be a part of our make-up; i.e. there is an area in our brains which 'activates' whether you choose to meditate or recite a prayer.
Whether you are a Christian or Jew or Muslim, etc, an 'area in the brain' is identified as being responsible for providing the sense and need of 'religion and faith', no different to the other areas of the brain which control the senses or 'creativity', or the need to 'fight or flight', etc.
Thus, having 'faith' or a 'religious belief' in something is essentially down to an area in our brain, which we as individuals can develop and grow, no different to learning to play an instrument, to lesser or greater degree and skill than the next person!
Regardless of the religion you may choose to follow or have 'faith' in, the particular area of brain has been studied in great detail - as a species, we need this area of the brain in order to help us grow and develop.
Our brain is certainly a remarkable piece of kit, and it is reasonable to conclude that there will be individuals from time to time who'll benefit from having the ability to use their brain to greater extent than the next person, regardless background and diversity.
Personally, I do not see any major difference in those we have deemed, categorised or labelled in history or today as the great thinkers or scientists, to those deemed, categorised or labelled as leaders, prophets or messiah's. All clever, all great but people, not some supreme being or beings, in my opinion.
I'm reminded of the scene in the satire film 'Life of Brian' where individuals label and choose to follow a man mistakenly identified as the son of God. As 'Brian' tries to tell his new found followers bluntly and with profanity to "go away", they collectively respond with the same profanity "How shall we 'go away', O Lord?"
Like the character of 'Brian', I can only imagine what Mr Hawking's makes of those who dissect and scrutinise every sentence and paragraph he writes, and I'm sure, with the splashing of the odd profanity, even he would agree that his words are not the "authoritative"!
He may not express obvious truths as demonstrated in proverbs, and may be accused of using idiom language, but the devil, as they say, is always in the detail, and I 'believe' Mr Hawking's merely studies facts and presents findings in such a way that certainly makes us think and discuss the detail!
Ultimately, whether we choose to believe that a "supreme being" or "beings" created the Universe for a reason, or not, the topic discussion, figuratively or factually speaking is healthy, and I wish we could all learn to defend the opinions of others whether we agree with them, or not
It is a fact that we, as a species, have an in-built "faith-belief" system, proven to be a part of our make-up; i.e. there is an area in our brains which 'activates' whether you choose to meditate or recite a prayer.
Whether you are a Christian or Jew or Muslim, etc, an 'area in the brain' is identified as being responsible for providing the sense and need of 'religion and faith', no different to the other areas of the brain which control the senses or 'creativity', or the need to 'fight or flight', etc.
Thus, having 'faith' or a 'religious belief' in something is essentially down to an area in our brain, which we as individuals can develop and grow, no different to learning to play an instrument, to lesser or greater degree and skill than the next person!
Regardless of the religion you may choose to follow or have 'faith' in, the particular area of brain has been studied in great detail - as a species, we need this area of the brain in order to help us grow and develop.
Our brain is certainly a remarkable piece of kit, and it is reasonable to conclude that there will be individuals from time to time who'll benefit from having the ability to use their brain to greater extent than the next person, regardless background and diversity.
Personally, I do not see any major difference in those we have deemed, categorised or labelled in history or today as the great thinkers or scientists, to those deemed, categorised or labelled as leaders, prophets or messiah's. All clever, all great but people, not some supreme being or beings, in my opinion.
I'm reminded of the scene in the satire film 'Life of Brian' where individuals label and choose to follow a man mistakenly identified as the son of God. As 'Brian' tries to tell his new found followers bluntly and with profanity to "go away", they collectively respond with the same profanity "How shall we 'go away', O Lord?"
Like the character of 'Brian', I can only imagine what Mr Hawking's makes of those who dissect and scrutinise every sentence and paragraph he writes, and I'm sure, with the splashing of the odd profanity, even he would agree that his words are not the "authoritative"!
He may not express obvious truths as demonstrated in proverbs, and may be accused of using idiom language, but the devil, as they say, is always in the detail, and I 'believe' Mr Hawking's merely studies facts and presents findings in such a way that certainly makes us think and discuss the detail!
Ultimately, whether we choose to believe that a "supreme being" or "beings" created the Universe for a reason, or not, the topic discussion, figuratively or factually speaking is healthy, and I wish we could all learn to defend the opinions of others whether we agree with them, or not
-------------------------------------------
I have no belief in a higher being, so for me, no, the universe and everything in it was most definitely not created by a god and I really DO wish that creationists and intelligent design fanatics would stop trying to ram their pseudo-science down our throats. Their theories don't hold water, don't stand up to scrutiny and their arguments are based on very shaky 'science'.
I have plenty of friends from all religious backgrounds who have no problem with evolution and they see no conflict between their beliefs and the natural and/or scientific world. While I don't share their beliefs, I respect and will listen to their thoughts on the matter.
But personally, no deity created the world, the universe or anything that lives and breathes on or in it.
I have plenty of friends from all religious backgrounds who have no problem with evolution and they see no conflict between their beliefs and the natural and/or scientific world. While I don't share their beliefs, I respect and will listen to their thoughts on the matter.
But personally, no deity created the world, the universe or anything that lives and breathes on or in it.
------------------------------------
I have this argument regularly with my mum-in-law. She's a spiritualist who believes that a 'god' of some sort set the universe going. The ultimate comment she always makes to try to win the argument is "That may be HOW the universe was created, but it doesn't explain WHY"
Given that the majority of the universe is cold, dark, empty space and that objects in that space generally follow arbitrary physical laws, and that there doesn't appear to be any overarching/all encompassing intelligence out there (if there were, I would hope we'd be a lot more advanced than we currently are), I really don't see why there *needs* to be a 'why' to it.
No, science can't currently explain what happened before the Big Bang, or what caused it. But you know what? Science doesn't look for the easy answers and is happy to say "I don't know" when it doesn't know. It doesn't say "Oh, I can't explain that right now, so I'll just attribute it to an all powerful being and say that explains everything, and then threaten anyone who questions it."
I understand that a lot of people take comfort from religion, but that is all it should be about. It does not explain the physical mysteries of the universe, only observation and the application of knowledge can do that.
Given that the majority of the universe is cold, dark, empty space and that objects in that space generally follow arbitrary physical laws, and that there doesn't appear to be any overarching/all encompassing intelligence out there (if there were, I would hope we'd be a lot more advanced than we currently are), I really don't see why there *needs* to be a 'why' to it.
No, science can't currently explain what happened before the Big Bang, or what caused it. But you know what? Science doesn't look for the easy answers and is happy to say "I don't know" when it doesn't know. It doesn't say "Oh, I can't explain that right now, so I'll just attribute it to an all powerful being and say that explains everything, and then threaten anyone who questions it."
I understand that a lot of people take comfort from religion, but that is all it should be about. It does not explain the physical mysteries of the universe, only observation and the application of knowledge can do that.
--------------------------------------
The general consensus seems to be that if you are a scientest or interested in science in any way then you cannot believe in a God.
What if God is so powerful he/she created all the science in the Universe. After all, if he truly exists then we cannot measure his sheer capacity for power, which would be infinite on our own scale, which many people seem to do. It's like saying our understanding of the universe is at 10cm on a 30cm ruler and God is at 9cm as we now understand what created the universe. In reality, if God exists, his power would be at such an infinate point on that ruler that we simply cannot imagine it
Therefore why has no one speculated that if God is so powerful that he/she may have created everything in the universe and all the physics/laws/science that govern it, within a millionth of a micro-second.
Who are we to say that is is a 'fairy story' until we have absolute proof that he does or does not exist, in our eyes we cannot even begin to speculate over the physical reality of his/her existence because it is simply beyond our capacity to find out.
I imagine a HYS discussion when the world was supposed to be flat and all these posters saying that it is s 'fairy story' that the world is round.
If you don't believe that is fine but i believe in both God and science and don't find them at all mutually exclusive and i don't think anyone has the right to mock somebody else for their beliefs just because somebody else thinks (not knows) otherwise
What if God is so powerful he/she created all the science in the Universe. After all, if he truly exists then we cannot measure his sheer capacity for power, which would be infinite on our own scale, which many people seem to do. It's like saying our understanding of the universe is at 10cm on a 30cm ruler and God is at 9cm as we now understand what created the universe. In reality, if God exists, his power would be at such an infinate point on that ruler that we simply cannot imagine it
Therefore why has no one speculated that if God is so powerful that he/she may have created everything in the universe and all the physics/laws/science that govern it, within a millionth of a micro-second.
Who are we to say that is is a 'fairy story' until we have absolute proof that he does or does not exist, in our eyes we cannot even begin to speculate over the physical reality of his/her existence because it is simply beyond our capacity to find out.
I imagine a HYS discussion when the world was supposed to be flat and all these posters saying that it is s 'fairy story' that the world is round.
If you don't believe that is fine but i believe in both God and science and don't find them at all mutually exclusive and i don't think anyone has the right to mock somebody else for their beliefs just because somebody else thinks (not knows) otherwise
----------------------------------------------------
If god does truly exist then in today's technological world surely he could appear to the whole world and we could capture him on video for everyone to see once and for all. This would solve the question as to whether to believe or not rather than believing in blind faith. I rather think the reason he continues to be so elusive is that he is just a figment of man's imagination, as so many other myths have been before. If he truly does exist, then why on earth did he appear so many times in biblical times, to Abraham, Moses to name but a few, but has gone so silent for the past two thousand years or more? Thousands of years ago, man believed in various gods and goddesses and I think in centuries to come, future generations will look back on us and our christian/judaic/islamic god and wonder how we ever believed such fairy tales.
--------------------------------------------------------
Why GOD is hidden from us. If HE/SHE is so powerfull then Why afraid to not to come infront of us.
Why all miracles not shown to scientists. Does HE/SHE playing with us.
AMZAING !!!
------------------------------------------------------------------
The one thing that sticks out is his reliance on the "laws" of physics, if the universe started from nothing then in the absence of all things the "laws" of physics are irrelevant, gravity created by planets\black holes etc etc so no planets, no blackholes = no "laws" of physics.
Ultimately the question to be asked is, IF there is a god then who or what created him? this question continues with every new discovery, something is not created of nothing.
The word "laws" is double quoted thoughout as I believe it to signify the arrogance of science as a whole, to deem an observation as a law no matter how often the same result occurs doesn't make it so, the longer we go on in the belief that we're right the longer it will take to make real advances in our understanding, science is about study and observation not classification and exclusion.The term "laws of physics" is shorthand for the collection of robust, coherent, self consistent explanations of the natural world that best explain the empirical evidence derived from experiment and observation and allow testable predictions to be made. If the testable predictions continue to be shown by experiment and observation to fit the "laws of physics" then science will continue to believe them to be true. If observation and experiment uncover facts that these laws cannot explain then scientists will seek alternative explanations. At present "Dark Energy" and "Dark matter" may be such evidence but they do not mean we should ditch our sat navs and computers because relativity and QM might be wrong or (more likely) incomplete.
Certainly the existence or non-existence of God is not a testable hypothesis.
Ultimately the question to be asked is, IF there is a god then who or what created him? this question continues with every new discovery, something is not created of nothing.
The word "laws" is double quoted thoughout as I believe it to signify the arrogance of science as a whole, to deem an observation as a law no matter how often the same result occurs doesn't make it so, the longer we go on in the belief that we're right the longer it will take to make real advances in our understanding, science is about study and observation not classification and exclusion.The term "laws of physics" is shorthand for the collection of robust, coherent, self consistent explanations of the natural world that best explain the empirical evidence derived from experiment and observation and allow testable predictions to be made. If the testable predictions continue to be shown by experiment and observation to fit the "laws of physics" then science will continue to believe them to be true. If observation and experiment uncover facts that these laws cannot explain then scientists will seek alternative explanations. At present "Dark Energy" and "Dark matter" may be such evidence but they do not mean we should ditch our sat navs and computers because relativity and QM might be wrong or (more likely) incomplete.
Certainly the existence or non-existence of God is not a testable hypothesis.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy does not occupy space nor does it occupy time..matter according to Einstein is condensed energy...something condensed the energy and made matter, whether the energy force we call Gravity is the one and only source that was used/warped/twisted/knotted (call the process what you will) it took an unknown force and method to do it..whether that force / method was used by intelligence to process the energy into matter or whether it happened by chance is unknown..we as a species lack the intelligence to know how to condense energy into matter so certainly it wasn't man who created the Universe ! It may be that intelligence exists as an energy force not occupying space and time ( God) who knows? it seems a pity that we have to "die" i.e. cease to exist in time and space to find out for sure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Professor Hawkings is only theorizing thus canceling Newton's theory before him. Theories can not be construed to be facts. The Islamic Scripture, the Qur'an, tells us in Ch. 87:1-5 as follows:
1. Glorify the name of thy Guardian-Lord Most High,
2. Who hath created, and further, given order and proportion;
3. Who hath ordained laws. And granted guidance
4. And Who bringth out the (green and luscious) pasture,
5. And then doth make it (but) swarthy stubble"
As a Professor myself who teaches world religions, I concur with your previous contributor Pablex 75 posted in 19 as follows:
The life cycle, the rock cycle, the orbit of the earth which sustains life, the elements of life all being in the same place at the same time in the right environment to create life. Then we have the proximity of the moon which provides the tides, the plants which provide our food and oxygen. The proximity of the sun, not too close not too far.
Oh and E =mc2. No intelligent design behind all these things? Come on get real.
And I also agree with contributor James Bailey posted in 33 as follows:
What came first the chicken or the egg? The book of genesis states quite clearly that God created all life including those what "walketh upon the earth" - so one question that alot of people cannot answer is solved in Genesis. If the universe did create itself (which to me sounds ridiculous) then A) how do we know right from wrong? - we all know that its wrong to steal, murder, lie - three of the 10 commandments. and B) If the universe did create itself and there is no God, then there is no purpose to life so I could go out tommorow and kill someone, then kill myself and get away with it scott free? And i know thats wrong because there is a sense of justice in the world.
1. Glorify the name of thy Guardian-Lord Most High,
2. Who hath created, and further, given order and proportion;
3. Who hath ordained laws. And granted guidance
4. And Who bringth out the (green and luscious) pasture,
5. And then doth make it (but) swarthy stubble"
As a Professor myself who teaches world religions, I concur with your previous contributor Pablex 75 posted in 19 as follows:
The life cycle, the rock cycle, the orbit of the earth which sustains life, the elements of life all being in the same place at the same time in the right environment to create life. Then we have the proximity of the moon which provides the tides, the plants which provide our food and oxygen. The proximity of the sun, not too close not too far.
Oh and E =mc2. No intelligent design behind all these things? Come on get real.
And I also agree with contributor James Bailey posted in 33 as follows:
What came first the chicken or the egg? The book of genesis states quite clearly that God created all life including those what "walketh upon the earth" - so one question that alot of people cannot answer is solved in Genesis. If the universe did create itself (which to me sounds ridiculous) then A) how do we know right from wrong? - we all know that its wrong to steal, murder, lie - three of the 10 commandments. and B) If the universe did create itself and there is no God, then there is no purpose to life so I could go out tommorow and kill someone, then kill myself and get away with it scott free? And i know thats wrong because there is a sense of justice in the world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All logic, and common sense, points to science creating the Universe so therefore I agree with Professor Hawking's assessment. However, if certain people feel the need to believe in a God then that is their choice.
I would think logic and common sense point to the complete opposite. To believe that the universe was created from nothing, by nothing, and that billions of years later, and by shear chance, life would have 'evolved' to a point where it keeps having philosophical discussions about the creation of the universe, requires a far greater act of faith than believing in God. For a start prof Hawking is contradicting the 1st law of thermodynamics. Science may be able to explain how things happened, although much of that is theory not fact, but it cannot explain why. That is why many scientist also have a religious faith (I have an Engineering degree and am a Christian): science and religion are not mutually exclusive and it is disingenuous for atheists to suggest otherwise. However, thank you for allowing me to continue to believe in God. Many atheists would have me locked up for being a 'bigot'. Talk about taking the log out of your own eye.....
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I would think logic and common sense point to the complete opposite. To believe that the universe was created from nothing, by nothing, and that billions of years later, and by shear chance, life would have 'evolved' to a point where it keeps having philosophical discussions about the creation of the universe, requires a far greater act of faith than believing in God. For a start prof Hawking is contradicting the 1st law of thermodynamics. Science may be able to explain how things happened, although much of that is theory not fact, but it cannot explain why. That is why many scientist also have a religious faith (I have an Engineering degree and am a Christian): science and religion are not mutually exclusive and it is disingenuous for atheists to suggest otherwise. However, thank you for allowing me to continue to believe in God. Many atheists would have me locked up for being a 'bigot'. Talk about taking the log out of your own eye.....
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Humans invoke god or gods to explain away the vicissitudes of life, to cover up their ignorance of the laws of the natural world and universe, to indirectly create a priest class system of governance for social organization, to selfperpetuate that priest class through made up doctrine, for the individual to hang onto something although ethereal as air when they have nothing else going for them in life. In some cases like the Middle-east god is used as an excuse for the land deprivation of another people. The notion of a chosen people to whom a god is exclusively favorable but to no other humans is one of the most obscene inventions of mankind. At its deepest core however it is the collective incomprehensibility and fear of personal death. We want to live forever but the natural world gives us every sign that it is not to be and its incontestible evidence is brutal. So we continue to invent an afterlife as all the ancients had done. Much good it did the ancient Egyptians who now sit behind museum displays rather than in paradise. Moreover why didn't Christ, as an example, appear to the Mayas or the Aztecs? Why do we have this incredibly convoluted story of the Jews in the case of Christianity? Were the native peoples of North and South America not worthy to have the "Son of God" originate among them? Objective rational thinking unbeclouded by religious myths exposes how cockeyed all these beliefs are. They are all infact laughable if their effect on human history had not been so serious and deadly. Hawking is correct you do not need the continued reliance on ancient creation myths to explain the existance of everything that exists. In the rock opera Jesus Christ Superstar the devil asks Christ why didn't he come in a modern age of mass communication? That's a darn good question! The answer seems selfevident because the fairytale would not have worked in a 24/7 news cycle. Imagine Christ using the internet he would be just another one off looney (Jesusbook?) perhaps even charged as a terrorist spreading radical propaganda! In that case Christ and Al Qaeda have something in common. But that presumes that Christ could chose his own time of appearance in the world. The whole story makes so many incredible presumptions that it is nonsense! Don't you think that a god who wanted to communicated with mankind could do so instantly the world over in every continent? That every human would have been simultaneously aware of this supernatural almighty "being". That certainly makes more sense as far as a god goes. During the French Revolution there was an effort to throw off the old religious cults and superstitions and replace them with celebrations of human reason. It almost caught on but establishment reactionary elements that died hard eventually regained control both politically and spiritually and here we are still dragging the baggage of the dark ages behind us at the recent Washington rally of religious conservatives who want to turn the US into a blithering theocracy. Underneath all this is the element of fear, fear of taking a bold step forward in human thinking but to retreat and cling to "comfort food" for the fearful mind that there is a god who will take care of us even if we don't one who promises us eternal life. Eternal life? Is that even remotely conceivable? Where? In what galaxy? Joseph Campbell once asked where is the Virgin Mary today? Even at the speed of light she would be only two thousand light years away! Doing what? Going where? Just floating in interstellar space? One thing is clear that religion is only for the living because the dead have no further need of it. They're just dead.
--------------------------------------------------------
"....To me the religious view point that the universe is too complex not to have a creator has never been convincing because if you decide a creator is necessary then you have to ask the question how was the creator created? It doesn’t solve the problem of creation just shifts it. Instead of asking who created the universe we then have to ask who created God"
I'm not religious but from the religious point of view, no-one created God, God just is, always was and always will be ('world without end'), infinite
We have no difficult with infinity as a concept in mathematics, nor imaginary numbers come to that, so why is God as infinite such a problem?
The difference is of course that by applying our number system(s), invented by us (or discovered, 'revealed'?) in Science we are able to do things and make things
There's not much we can 'do' with God as infinite but as a concept it should pose no problem?
As the Creator of the Universe(s), it is inconcievable but who knows, it's just a mystery
Maybe the experiments of the CERN Large Hadron Collider will tell us something but I doubt if it will bring us any nearer to God
Judging by the number of Comments awating moderation, there certainly seems to be an interest in God
Without looking it up I don't know who wrote it but there is a Hymn beginning :-
God be in my head and in my understanding.....etc
"....To me the religious view point that the universe is too complex not to have a creator has never been convincing because if you decide a creator is necessary then you have to ask the question how was the creator created? It doesn’t solve the problem of creation just shifts it. Instead of asking who created the universe we then have to ask who created God"
I'm not religious but from the religious point of view, no-one created God, God just is, always was and always will be ('world without end'), infinite
We have no difficult with infinity as a concept in mathematics, nor imaginary numbers come to that, so why is God as infinite such a problem?
The difference is of course that by applying our number system(s), invented by us (or discovered, 'revealed'?) in Science we are able to do things and make things
There's not much we can 'do' with God as infinite but as a concept it should pose no problem?
As the Creator of the Universe(s), it is inconcievable but who knows, it's just a mystery
Maybe the experiments of the CERN Large Hadron Collider will tell us something but I doubt if it will bring us any nearer to God
Judging by the number of Comments awating moderation, there certainly seems to be an interest in God
Without looking it up I don't know who wrote it but there is a Hymn beginning :-
God be in my head and in my understanding.....etc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOD is LOGIC, If Anything is Logically Correct then it can be treated as GOD.
GOD is not a miracle. If anything is possible is an ADVANCED CIVILIZATION, who might have leave this planet millions of years ago OR they are far more years ahead us.
I firmly beleive time travel is also possible but technology is not so advanced at this stage to talk about it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those who subscribe to 'the irrational belief in the supernatural', euphemistically known as 'Religion', Prof Hawking's assessment will have no bearing.
Faith based philosophies are, by definition, belief systems that do not rest on logical proof or material evidence which results in them confusing rationality with fantasy.
"There is no evidence that god does not exist, therefore it exists", is an absurd statement that appeals to ignorant fantasists. Surely the default position is that there is no dictator in the sky. The onous is on those who believe that there is, to provide irrefutable evidence as to their assertion.
The insecure within our species who require a cosmic dummy or celestial comfort blanket, base their understanding on a book riddled with absurdities, like talking snakes; and that this god first creates the rainbow [for Noah]. (Apparently the laws having to do with refraction of light were null and void prior to this time); and "Jesus will send his angels to purge his kingdom of evildoers and sin". How did evildoers get into his kingdom in the first place? If god forbade his chosen people (the Jews) from eating meat of a pig, why did he create pigs?
This arrogant, jealous entity who insists that he has no opposition; that it's a crime to say its name. How insecure can one get?
Some biblicists and deluded fundamentalists contend that biblical chronology fixes the date of creation at 4004 B.C., thereby making the earth about six thousand years old, in spite of overwhelming evidence that the earth is actually billions of years old.
These bronze-age stories were for their time, based on contemporary legends, myths and superstitions.
Anyway, the belief system known as 'Christianity' is a clone or copy of the much earlier pagan belief known as Mithraism. The coincidences are overwhelming.
Yet churches, temples, synagogues, mosques and other similar institutions will continue to exist so that those in the god industry have a place to peddle their fairy tales.
Don't waste your time Stephen.
Faith based philosophies are, by definition, belief systems that do not rest on logical proof or material evidence which results in them confusing rationality with fantasy.
"There is no evidence that god does not exist, therefore it exists", is an absurd statement that appeals to ignorant fantasists. Surely the default position is that there is no dictator in the sky. The onous is on those who believe that there is, to provide irrefutable evidence as to their assertion.
The insecure within our species who require a cosmic dummy or celestial comfort blanket, base their understanding on a book riddled with absurdities, like talking snakes; and that this god first creates the rainbow [for Noah]. (Apparently the laws having to do with refraction of light were null and void prior to this time); and "Jesus will send his angels to purge his kingdom of evildoers and sin". How did evildoers get into his kingdom in the first place? If god forbade his chosen people (the Jews) from eating meat of a pig, why did he create pigs?
This arrogant, jealous entity who insists that he has no opposition; that it's a crime to say its name. How insecure can one get?
Some biblicists and deluded fundamentalists contend that biblical chronology fixes the date of creation at 4004 B.C., thereby making the earth about six thousand years old, in spite of overwhelming evidence that the earth is actually billions of years old.
These bronze-age stories were for their time, based on contemporary legends, myths and superstitions.
Anyway, the belief system known as 'Christianity' is a clone or copy of the much earlier pagan belief known as Mithraism. The coincidences are overwhelming.
Yet churches, temples, synagogues, mosques and other similar institutions will continue to exist so that those in the god industry have a place to peddle their fairy tales.
Don't waste your time Stephen.
-----------------------------------------------
Thousands of years ago, people looked at the Earth and the universe, and concluded, in their ignorance, that there must be some creator responsible for it all. It was a reasonable hypothesis based on the best knowledge available at the time. Religion evolved and tried to suppress any other theory for years and years.
Nowadays we are every bit as ignorant as the cavemen ever were, except we fool ourselves that we somehow know better. Science is the new religion. But in discounting creationism, Hawking and his supporters are being every bit as blinkered and zealous as the religious believers that they are replacing. They are basing their theories of the entire universe upon the best available knowledge, which is all the cavemen ever did. There is no way of knowing whether we are right or wrong, and it seems laughable that we, as (apparently) a miniscule smear of life on a miniscule rock, in the midst of an unbounded universe, could ever presume to understand how it started or how it works. We haven't even got to the next planet yet, and if scientists are to be believed, there are squillions of them out there! We should really wait until we've actually got off this little rock before we start proclaiming we know it all! There may be a God, there may not. I love it when people try to deny the existence of God! Do they expect everyone to tear down their churches and mosques and start living completely differently just because some jumped-up eggheads think they know all the answers? Religion will always have a place, and so will our rudimentary science. Stop trying to bash the other one, and just admit that you don't really know!
Nowadays we are every bit as ignorant as the cavemen ever were, except we fool ourselves that we somehow know better. Science is the new religion. But in discounting creationism, Hawking and his supporters are being every bit as blinkered and zealous as the religious believers that they are replacing. They are basing their theories of the entire universe upon the best available knowledge, which is all the cavemen ever did. There is no way of knowing whether we are right or wrong, and it seems laughable that we, as (apparently) a miniscule smear of life on a miniscule rock, in the midst of an unbounded universe, could ever presume to understand how it started or how it works. We haven't even got to the next planet yet, and if scientists are to be believed, there are squillions of them out there! We should really wait until we've actually got off this little rock before we start proclaiming we know it all! There may be a God, there may not. I love it when people try to deny the existence of God! Do they expect everyone to tear down their churches and mosques and start living completely differently just because some jumped-up eggheads think they know all the answers? Religion will always have a place, and so will our rudimentary science. Stop trying to bash the other one, and just admit that you don't really know!
-------------------------------------------------------------
An athiest definition of Universe, life and how it all began.
In the beginning there was nothing. In that nothingness, a big bang "just happened to" ignite the whole thing. All the debris from that big bang "just happened to" spiral out in a perfect sphere. Gravity "just happened to" appear out of no where which holds everything togather. All this flying debris held togather by gravity "just happened to" give birth to all the galaxies and stars in them. Then much further in the whole process in one small corner of one galaxy a star "just happened to" be born and around it some small planets. One planet out of them "just happened to" circle around this star at a perfect distance. Water "just happened to" appear on this perfect planet and there "just happened to" be breathable air on this planet and the whole atmospehere "just happened to" be protected by a perfect layer to let the good stuff in while keeping away bad one. With all the water, air and clay sloshing around in big pools on this planet, life "just happened to" appear out of nowhere. Over millions of years this primitive life "just happened to" evolve into many more forms which "just happened to" bring us humans into the picture and we "just happened to" be intelligent enough to create computers so that I can sit down and type this all out.
*****************************
That is a very poor attempt at explaining the athiest point of view. As you state water just happened to be here I would like you to explain the evidence of water on other bodies of our solar system? Can you also explain the alien life which has arrived here and is being studdied yet came from regions of space we have never visited?
You state the planet circles at a perfect distance but that is a backward look at the problem. There is life which can survive extreme heat and extreme cold on this planet. It is not hard to imagine complex organisms on other planets because we already have proof that life is out there. We just havnt found intelligent life out there.
But then the assumption that other lifeforms would be anything like us is again a shot in the dark because we have no idea what could develop in what way.
By looking at real life it makes sense that we built up from the basics. But there is no reason to assume a god exists because it is a self defeating argument. For a god to exist something must have existed before it because you claim complex things must be created by a complex creator.
In the beginning there was nothing. In that nothingness, a big bang "just happened to" ignite the whole thing. All the debris from that big bang "just happened to" spiral out in a perfect sphere. Gravity "just happened to" appear out of no where which holds everything togather. All this flying debris held togather by gravity "just happened to" give birth to all the galaxies and stars in them. Then much further in the whole process in one small corner of one galaxy a star "just happened to" be born and around it some small planets. One planet out of them "just happened to" circle around this star at a perfect distance. Water "just happened to" appear on this perfect planet and there "just happened to" be breathable air on this planet and the whole atmospehere "just happened to" be protected by a perfect layer to let the good stuff in while keeping away bad one. With all the water, air and clay sloshing around in big pools on this planet, life "just happened to" appear out of nowhere. Over millions of years this primitive life "just happened to" evolve into many more forms which "just happened to" bring us humans into the picture and we "just happened to" be intelligent enough to create computers so that I can sit down and type this all out.
*****************************
That is a very poor attempt at explaining the athiest point of view. As you state water just happened to be here I would like you to explain the evidence of water on other bodies of our solar system? Can you also explain the alien life which has arrived here and is being studdied yet came from regions of space we have never visited?
You state the planet circles at a perfect distance but that is a backward look at the problem. There is life which can survive extreme heat and extreme cold on this planet. It is not hard to imagine complex organisms on other planets because we already have proof that life is out there. We just havnt found intelligent life out there.
But then the assumption that other lifeforms would be anything like us is again a shot in the dark because we have no idea what could develop in what way.
By looking at real life it makes sense that we built up from the basics. But there is no reason to assume a god exists because it is a self defeating argument. For a god to exist something must have existed before it because you claim complex things must be created by a complex creator.
----------------------------------------------------------
God made the universe.
The universe made man.
Man made up God.
God made the universe...
What a marvellous cosmic cycle we live in!
The universe made man.
Man made up God.
God made the universe...
What a marvellous cosmic cycle we live in!
----------------------------------------------------------
Hang on...
Right - I'm an Atheist, ok? Not normally a traditional 'Religion is so DUMB' kind, but a pretty open minded one (I like to think).
BUT - Jesus loves me? I don't really understand how he can, what with me burning in hell for eternity when I die for serving Satan (who I've never even met or spoken to, so I don't know how that happened. Do I get paid for this?) In fact, I'd say that kinda makes me sound like someone Jesus really hates. Or is that just you and your pals? Have a check of post 386. Plus, how can I be far from him, and he's close to me? Confusing. Or is it not meant literally? I just don't know.
Sounds like close minded babble to me, which is unfortunate. Evangelism would work a lot better if it was coherent. And less of a totally unhinged and foaming-at-the-mouth rant. ;)
Anyhoo, to contradict the tone of my previous few sentences; Prof Hawkins has said a stupid thing here. Like I say, I'm an atheist, but surely as a scientist, the core tenet is to keep an open mind? Saying there is no room for a Creator is a pretty brave statement - and quite ill judged, in my view.
For all we know, atheists and theosophists alike, there may have been. One thing's for certain, we will never know. That's beacause there's no frame of reference, like empirical proof (and no, the bible is not empirical proof. that's not how it works).
So... whatever. I personally think it was a stupid, insensitive and pointless remark that achieves little and simply widens the great divide between ranting worshipers and ranting scientists. Unhelpful.
Right - I'm an Atheist, ok? Not normally a traditional 'Religion is so DUMB' kind, but a pretty open minded one (I like to think).
BUT - Jesus loves me? I don't really understand how he can, what with me burning in hell for eternity when I die for serving Satan (who I've never even met or spoken to, so I don't know how that happened. Do I get paid for this?) In fact, I'd say that kinda makes me sound like someone Jesus really hates. Or is that just you and your pals? Have a check of post 386. Plus, how can I be far from him, and he's close to me? Confusing. Or is it not meant literally? I just don't know.
Sounds like close minded babble to me, which is unfortunate. Evangelism would work a lot better if it was coherent. And less of a totally unhinged and foaming-at-the-mouth rant. ;)
Anyhoo, to contradict the tone of my previous few sentences; Prof Hawkins has said a stupid thing here. Like I say, I'm an atheist, but surely as a scientist, the core tenet is to keep an open mind? Saying there is no room for a Creator is a pretty brave statement - and quite ill judged, in my view.
For all we know, atheists and theosophists alike, there may have been. One thing's for certain, we will never know. That's beacause there's no frame of reference, like empirical proof (and no, the bible is not empirical proof. that's not how it works).
So... whatever. I personally think it was a stupid, insensitive and pointless remark that achieves little and simply widens the great divide between ranting worshipers and ranting scientists. Unhelpful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I’d have to agree that extra sensory perception requires a degree of trust in those parts of our ‘spirit’ we cannot utilise through logic. However such experiences are not limited to ‘believers’ and, in my line of work, many a sceptic has had a largely inexplicable experience.
Susan Blackmore, some people have said, became a parapsychologist to identify psychic ability amongst Tarot readers because her experiences had suggested they possessed something intangible and she sought to identify what it was. Her work has not been able to fix the values she was seeking and so she remains at a scientific level unconvinced whilst at another level she still has no explanation for what she experienced.
The big sceptic players, Randi, Dawkins amongst them, are all too ready to dismiss any psychic ability, their proof being several razor attacks on those who try their challenges. But the real problem is, does extra sensory communication require certain conditions to be fulfilled? To me faith in a deity requires the same conditions with our belief mechanism being to the fore. Any proof would immediately make a priceless ‘gift’ worthless as people exploit it mercilessly. Randi might say “If you can see the future then you do not need to read people’s minds to make a living. You’d simply play the stock markets.” Again we see the wide difference between logic and belief within the sceptic compass.
But what would you say if I once told a woman I had known for just thirty minutes what would happen to her when she arrived at LA International Airport two years before it happened and got it completely right, even the day of the year (I couldn’t pinpoint the year but the predicted event was very unusual and specific).
Would you believe me?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1610 Daisy Chained.
I'd say it is entirely possible. Problem with Receiving messages, is in being unable to stay in that Zone on-tap. Scriptures specifically describe 'Learning to think with our Heart', a whole different concept to our Calculating brain.
As a Believer I actually appreciate Scientists like Hawking challenging the Value of FAITH.
Haille Selassie best differentiates between Religion and God:-
We must stop confusing religion and spirituality.
Religion is a set of rules, regulations, and rituals created by humans,
which were supposed to help people to grow spiritually.
Due to human imperfection religion has become corrupt, political, divisive, and a tool for power struggle.
Spirituality is not theology or ideology.
It is simply a way of life,
pure and original as was given by the Most High of Creation.
Spirituality is a network linking us to the Most High,
the universe and each other.
As the essence of our existence, it embodies our culture, true identity, nationhood, and destiny.
Emperor Haile Selassie - Ethiopia
Being Immortal, your Spirit is way ahead of your Material-Self(body) by at least the devide between Conscious and Sub-conscious. And that is the Struggle, because for the duration of this human journey the less intelligent Body is in charge, and Spirit has no choice but to tag along accurately predicting the outcome, being more Intelligent, with the Soul ever present to record the Deed.
It should be no surprise to Intelligent minds that 'Normal' to superior thinking, is Spectacular to simple reasoning.
Imagine Body behaving so corrupted that Spirit is revulsed, and Soul is weeping "I don't want to record this". Totally out of sync the door is wide open for Discord to move in, as it often does.
Spirits of those passed-on, Good and Bad, have the ability to influence our Thought process too with Warnings or Temptation. How often people do things they had no intention of doing, for good or bad, and still unable to explain afterwards.
The only way to combat unseen Forces for bad is with Faith. Some people try to Block-out everything Spiritual with NOISE. Most know someone who perpetually have TV, Radio, Stereo, or two, going Day & Night.
Personally, the certain knowledge that 'God knew me', completely improoved the quality of my life even though my material circumstances remained for years. Closest I can describe is that I Conquered FEAR. Bad things could still happen to me, but that FAITH eliminated Fear from my life.
True story. Ten year old regularly brutalised, was being hit on the head with a wooden scrubbing brush, over & over for so long the neighbours started pleading. Crying and screaming ten yr old accused with all his being: "God, Please kill me, why did you give me this life".
Suddenly, ten yr old was nearby observing his beating. It was forbidden to look the person in the eye, but something forced ten yr old to look this time, and ugliness he saw, so shocked him, he stopped crying and just stood there without covering up.
Thump, thump it continued until the person grew arm-weary and started to cry out of frustration. In conquering his Fear, ten yr old took the person's Power away.
There are other instances, but the one certainty is that 'The ONE and ONLY LIVING GOD' does move in MYSTERIOUS Ways.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
this is one of the sermons BY Hazrat Ali (the first imam of the shia schools of thought) 1500 years ago
He who assigns to Him (different) conditions does not believe in His oneness, nor does he who likens Him grasp His reality. He who illustrates Him does not signify Him. He who points at Him and imagines Him does not mean Him. Everything that is known through itself has been created, and everything that exists by virtue of other things is the effect (of a cause). He works but not with the help of instruments. He fixes measures but not with the activity of thinking. He is rich but not by acquisition.
Times do not keep company with Him, and implements do not help Him. His Being precedes times. His Existence precedes non-existence and His eternity precedes beginning. By His creating the senses it is known that He has no senses. By the contraries in various matters it is known that He has no contrary, and by the similarity between things it is known that there is nothing similar to Him. He has made light the contrary of darkness, brightness that of gloom, dryness that of moisture and heat that of cold. He produces affection among inimical things.
He fuses together diverse things, brings near remote things and separates things which are joined together. He is not confined by limits, nor counted by numbers. Material parts can surround things of their own kind, and organs can point out things similar to themselves. The word(1) "mundhu" (i.e. since) disproves their eternity, the word "qad" (that denotes nearness of time of occurrence), disproves their being from ever and the word "lawla" (if it were not) keep them remote from perfection.
Through them the Creator manifests Himself to the intelligence, and through them He is guarded from the sight of the eyes.
Stillness and motion do not occur in Him, and how can that thing occur in Him which He has Himself made to occur, and how can a thing revert to Him which He first created, and how can a thing appear in Him which He first brought to appearance. If it had not been so, His Self would have become subject to diversity, His Being would have become divisible (into parts), and His reality would have been prevented from being deemed Eternal. If there was a front to Him there would have been a rear also for Him . He would need completing only if shortage befell Him. In that case signs of the created would appear in Him, and He would become a sign (leading to other objects) instead of signs leading to Him. Through the might of His abstention (from affectedness) He is far above being affected by things which effect others.
He is that which does not change or vanish. The process of setting does not behove Him. He has not begotten any one lest He be regarded as having been born. He has not been begotten otherwise He would be contained within limits. He is too High to have sons. He is too purified to contact women. Imagination cannot reach Him so as to assign Him quantity. Understanding cannot think of Him so as to give him shape. Senses do not perceive Him so as to feel Him. Hands cannot touch Him so as to rub against Him. He does not change into any condition. He does not pass from one state to another. Nights and days do not turn Him old. Light and darkness do not alter Him.
It cannot be said that He has a limit or extremity, or end or termination; nor do things control Him so as to raise Him or lower Him, nor does anything carry Him so as to bend Him or keep Him erect. He is not inside things nor outside them. He conveys news, but not with the tongue or voice. He listens, but not with the holes of the ears or the organs of hearing. He says, but does not utter words. He remembers, but does not memorise. He determines, but not by exercising His mind. He loves and approves without any sentimentality (of heart). He hates and feels angry without any painstaking. When He intends to create someone He says "Be" and there he is, but not through a voice that strikes (the ears) is that call heard. His speech is an act of His creation. His like never existed before this. If had been eternal it would have been the second god.
It cannot be said that He came into being after He had not been in existence because in that case the attributes of the created things would be assigned to Him and there would remain no difference between them and Him, and He would have no distinction over them. Thus, the Creator and the created would become equal and the initiator and the initiated would be on the same level. He created (the whole of) creation without any example made by someone else, and He did not secure the assistance of any one out of His creation for creating it.
He created the earth and suspended it without being busy, retained it without support, made it stand without legs, raised it without pillars, protected it against bendings and curvings and defended it against crumbling and splitting (into parts). He fixed mountains on it like stumps, solidified its rocks, caused its streams to flow and opened wide its valleys. Whatever He made did not suffer from any flow, and whatever He strengthened did not show any weakness.
He manifests Himself over the earth with His authority and greatness. He is aware of its inside through his knowledge and understanding. He has power over every thing in the earth by virtue of His sublimity and dignity. Nothing from the earth that he may ask for defies Him, nor does it oppose Him so as to overpower Him. No swift-footed creature can run away from Him so as to surpass Him. He is not needy towards any possessing person so that he should feed Him. All things bow to Him and are humble before His greatness. They cannot flee away from His authority to someone else in order to escape His benefit or His harm. There is no parallel for Him who may match Him and no one like Him so as to equal Him.
He will destroy the earth after its existence, till all that exists on it will become non-existent. But the extinction of the world after its creation is no stranger than its first formation and invention. How could it be? Even if all the animals of the earth, whether birds or beasts, stabled cattle or pasturing ones, of different origins and species, dull people and sagacious men -- all jointly try to create (even) a mosquito they are not able to bring it into being and do not understand what is the way to its creation. Their wits are bewildered and wandering. Their powers fall short and fail, and return disappointed and tired, knowing that they are defeated and admitting their inability to produce it, also realising that they are too weak (even) to destroy it.
Surely, after the extinction of the world, Allah the Glorified will remain alone with nothing else beside Him. He will be, after its extinction, as He was before its production: without time or place or moment or period. At this moment, period and time will not exist, and years and hours will disappear. There will be nothing except Allah, the One, the All-powerful. To Him is the return of all matters. Its initial creation was not in its power; and the prevention of its extinction was (also) not in its power. If it had the power to prevent it, it would have existed for ever. When He made anything of the world, the making of it did not cause Him any difficulty, and the creation of anything which He created and formed did not fatigue Him. He did not create it to heighten His authority nor for fear of loss or harm, nor to seek its help against an overwhelming foe, nor to guard against any avenging opponent with its help, nor for the extension of His domain by its help, nor for boasting (over largeness of His possession) against a partner, nor because He felt lonely and desired to seek its company.
Then after its creation He will destroy it, but not because any worry has overcome Him in its upkeep and administration, nor for any pleasure that will accrue to Him, nor for the cumbrousness of anything over Him. The length of its life does not weary Him so as to induce Him to its quick destruction. But Allah, the Glorified, has maintained it with His kindness, kept it intact with His command and perfected it with His power. Then after its destruction, He will resuscitate it, but not for any need of His own towards it, nor to seek the assistance of any of its things against it, nor to change over from the condition of loneliness to that of company, nor from the condition of ignorance and blindness to that of knowledge and search, nor from paucity and need towards needlessness and plenty, nor from disgrace and lowliness towards honour and prestige.
Susan Blackmore, some people have said, became a parapsychologist to identify psychic ability amongst Tarot readers because her experiences had suggested they possessed something intangible and she sought to identify what it was. Her work has not been able to fix the values she was seeking and so she remains at a scientific level unconvinced whilst at another level she still has no explanation for what she experienced.
The big sceptic players, Randi, Dawkins amongst them, are all too ready to dismiss any psychic ability, their proof being several razor attacks on those who try their challenges. But the real problem is, does extra sensory communication require certain conditions to be fulfilled? To me faith in a deity requires the same conditions with our belief mechanism being to the fore. Any proof would immediately make a priceless ‘gift’ worthless as people exploit it mercilessly. Randi might say “If you can see the future then you do not need to read people’s minds to make a living. You’d simply play the stock markets.” Again we see the wide difference between logic and belief within the sceptic compass.
But what would you say if I once told a woman I had known for just thirty minutes what would happen to her when she arrived at LA International Airport two years before it happened and got it completely right, even the day of the year (I couldn’t pinpoint the year but the predicted event was very unusual and specific).
Would you believe me?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1610 Daisy Chained.
I'd say it is entirely possible. Problem with Receiving messages, is in being unable to stay in that Zone on-tap. Scriptures specifically describe 'Learning to think with our Heart', a whole different concept to our Calculating brain.
As a Believer I actually appreciate Scientists like Hawking challenging the Value of FAITH.
Haille Selassie best differentiates between Religion and God:-
We must stop confusing religion and spirituality.
Religion is a set of rules, regulations, and rituals created by humans,
which were supposed to help people to grow spiritually.
Due to human imperfection religion has become corrupt, political, divisive, and a tool for power struggle.
Spirituality is not theology or ideology.
It is simply a way of life,
pure and original as was given by the Most High of Creation.
Spirituality is a network linking us to the Most High,
the universe and each other.
As the essence of our existence, it embodies our culture, true identity, nationhood, and destiny.
Emperor Haile Selassie - Ethiopia
Being Immortal, your Spirit is way ahead of your Material-Self(body) by at least the devide between Conscious and Sub-conscious. And that is the Struggle, because for the duration of this human journey the less intelligent Body is in charge, and Spirit has no choice but to tag along accurately predicting the outcome, being more Intelligent, with the Soul ever present to record the Deed.
It should be no surprise to Intelligent minds that 'Normal' to superior thinking, is Spectacular to simple reasoning.
Imagine Body behaving so corrupted that Spirit is revulsed, and Soul is weeping "I don't want to record this". Totally out of sync the door is wide open for Discord to move in, as it often does.
Spirits of those passed-on, Good and Bad, have the ability to influence our Thought process too with Warnings or Temptation. How often people do things they had no intention of doing, for good or bad, and still unable to explain afterwards.
The only way to combat unseen Forces for bad is with Faith. Some people try to Block-out everything Spiritual with NOISE. Most know someone who perpetually have TV, Radio, Stereo, or two, going Day & Night.
Personally, the certain knowledge that 'God knew me', completely improoved the quality of my life even though my material circumstances remained for years. Closest I can describe is that I Conquered FEAR. Bad things could still happen to me, but that FAITH eliminated Fear from my life.
True story. Ten year old regularly brutalised, was being hit on the head with a wooden scrubbing brush, over & over for so long the neighbours started pleading. Crying and screaming ten yr old accused with all his being: "God, Please kill me, why did you give me this life".
Suddenly, ten yr old was nearby observing his beating. It was forbidden to look the person in the eye, but something forced ten yr old to look this time, and ugliness he saw, so shocked him, he stopped crying and just stood there without covering up.
Thump, thump it continued until the person grew arm-weary and started to cry out of frustration. In conquering his Fear, ten yr old took the person's Power away.
There are other instances, but the one certainty is that 'The ONE and ONLY LIVING GOD' does move in MYSTERIOUS Ways.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
this is one of the sermons BY Hazrat Ali (the first imam of the shia schools of thought) 1500 years ago
He who assigns to Him (different) conditions does not believe in His oneness, nor does he who likens Him grasp His reality. He who illustrates Him does not signify Him. He who points at Him and imagines Him does not mean Him. Everything that is known through itself has been created, and everything that exists by virtue of other things is the effect (of a cause). He works but not with the help of instruments. He fixes measures but not with the activity of thinking. He is rich but not by acquisition.
Times do not keep company with Him, and implements do not help Him. His Being precedes times. His Existence precedes non-existence and His eternity precedes beginning. By His creating the senses it is known that He has no senses. By the contraries in various matters it is known that He has no contrary, and by the similarity between things it is known that there is nothing similar to Him. He has made light the contrary of darkness, brightness that of gloom, dryness that of moisture and heat that of cold. He produces affection among inimical things.
He fuses together diverse things, brings near remote things and separates things which are joined together. He is not confined by limits, nor counted by numbers. Material parts can surround things of their own kind, and organs can point out things similar to themselves. The word(1) "mundhu" (i.e. since) disproves their eternity, the word "qad" (that denotes nearness of time of occurrence), disproves their being from ever and the word "lawla" (if it were not) keep them remote from perfection.
Through them the Creator manifests Himself to the intelligence, and through them He is guarded from the sight of the eyes.
Stillness and motion do not occur in Him, and how can that thing occur in Him which He has Himself made to occur, and how can a thing revert to Him which He first created, and how can a thing appear in Him which He first brought to appearance. If it had not been so, His Self would have become subject to diversity, His Being would have become divisible (into parts), and His reality would have been prevented from being deemed Eternal. If there was a front to Him there would have been a rear also for Him . He would need completing only if shortage befell Him. In that case signs of the created would appear in Him, and He would become a sign (leading to other objects) instead of signs leading to Him. Through the might of His abstention (from affectedness) He is far above being affected by things which effect others.
He is that which does not change or vanish. The process of setting does not behove Him. He has not begotten any one lest He be regarded as having been born. He has not been begotten otherwise He would be contained within limits. He is too High to have sons. He is too purified to contact women. Imagination cannot reach Him so as to assign Him quantity. Understanding cannot think of Him so as to give him shape. Senses do not perceive Him so as to feel Him. Hands cannot touch Him so as to rub against Him. He does not change into any condition. He does not pass from one state to another. Nights and days do not turn Him old. Light and darkness do not alter Him.
It cannot be said that He has a limit or extremity, or end or termination; nor do things control Him so as to raise Him or lower Him, nor does anything carry Him so as to bend Him or keep Him erect. He is not inside things nor outside them. He conveys news, but not with the tongue or voice. He listens, but not with the holes of the ears or the organs of hearing. He says, but does not utter words. He remembers, but does not memorise. He determines, but not by exercising His mind. He loves and approves without any sentimentality (of heart). He hates and feels angry without any painstaking. When He intends to create someone He says "Be" and there he is, but not through a voice that strikes (the ears) is that call heard. His speech is an act of His creation. His like never existed before this. If had been eternal it would have been the second god.
It cannot be said that He came into being after He had not been in existence because in that case the attributes of the created things would be assigned to Him and there would remain no difference between them and Him, and He would have no distinction over them. Thus, the Creator and the created would become equal and the initiator and the initiated would be on the same level. He created (the whole of) creation without any example made by someone else, and He did not secure the assistance of any one out of His creation for creating it.
He created the earth and suspended it without being busy, retained it without support, made it stand without legs, raised it without pillars, protected it against bendings and curvings and defended it against crumbling and splitting (into parts). He fixed mountains on it like stumps, solidified its rocks, caused its streams to flow and opened wide its valleys. Whatever He made did not suffer from any flow, and whatever He strengthened did not show any weakness.
He manifests Himself over the earth with His authority and greatness. He is aware of its inside through his knowledge and understanding. He has power over every thing in the earth by virtue of His sublimity and dignity. Nothing from the earth that he may ask for defies Him, nor does it oppose Him so as to overpower Him. No swift-footed creature can run away from Him so as to surpass Him. He is not needy towards any possessing person so that he should feed Him. All things bow to Him and are humble before His greatness. They cannot flee away from His authority to someone else in order to escape His benefit or His harm. There is no parallel for Him who may match Him and no one like Him so as to equal Him.
He will destroy the earth after its existence, till all that exists on it will become non-existent. But the extinction of the world after its creation is no stranger than its first formation and invention. How could it be? Even if all the animals of the earth, whether birds or beasts, stabled cattle or pasturing ones, of different origins and species, dull people and sagacious men -- all jointly try to create (even) a mosquito they are not able to bring it into being and do not understand what is the way to its creation. Their wits are bewildered and wandering. Their powers fall short and fail, and return disappointed and tired, knowing that they are defeated and admitting their inability to produce it, also realising that they are too weak (even) to destroy it.
Surely, after the extinction of the world, Allah the Glorified will remain alone with nothing else beside Him. He will be, after its extinction, as He was before its production: without time or place or moment or period. At this moment, period and time will not exist, and years and hours will disappear. There will be nothing except Allah, the One, the All-powerful. To Him is the return of all matters. Its initial creation was not in its power; and the prevention of its extinction was (also) not in its power. If it had the power to prevent it, it would have existed for ever. When He made anything of the world, the making of it did not cause Him any difficulty, and the creation of anything which He created and formed did not fatigue Him. He did not create it to heighten His authority nor for fear of loss or harm, nor to seek its help against an overwhelming foe, nor to guard against any avenging opponent with its help, nor for the extension of His domain by its help, nor for boasting (over largeness of His possession) against a partner, nor because He felt lonely and desired to seek its company.
Then after its creation He will destroy it, but not because any worry has overcome Him in its upkeep and administration, nor for any pleasure that will accrue to Him, nor for the cumbrousness of anything over Him. The length of its life does not weary Him so as to induce Him to its quick destruction. But Allah, the Glorified, has maintained it with His kindness, kept it intact with His command and perfected it with His power. Then after its destruction, He will resuscitate it, but not for any need of His own towards it, nor to seek the assistance of any of its things against it, nor to change over from the condition of loneliness to that of company, nor from the condition of ignorance and blindness to that of knowledge and search, nor from paucity and need towards needlessness and plenty, nor from disgrace and lowliness towards honour and prestige.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
///I, we, can never know. It's a matter of whether you want to make up your mind for yourself based on the available evidence(holy books are'nt evidence) or blindly accept the mythology your society indoctrinated you with since birth. Given a state where no religious indoctrination were allowed I doubt if many would seek such superstition out in later life. A crutch will always hold you back.//
Or one could consider the argument presented by Rand - Who considered her epistemology central to her philosophy, and once remarking, "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows."
According to the Objectivist epistemology, through sensory perception and a process of reasoning, human beings can achieve absolute knowledge of their environment and reality. Objectivism rejects skepticism. It also maintains that anything that is not learned by objective, rational means is not true knowledge, rejecting faith, mythology and religious belief as a means of attaining real knowledge or truth.
***************************************************************
Dear John ;)
Interesting point.
I would like to thank you for all your posts(even if the debate with davidethics got a bit tiresome after a while) I have, because of you, started to track down info on Ayne Rand and am facinated!
Again my sincerest thanks ;)
Or one could consider the argument presented by Rand - Who considered her epistemology central to her philosophy, and once remarking, "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows."
According to the Objectivist epistemology, through sensory perception and a process of reasoning, human beings can achieve absolute knowledge of their environment and reality. Objectivism rejects skepticism. It also maintains that anything that is not learned by objective, rational means is not true knowledge, rejecting faith, mythology and religious belief as a means of attaining real knowledge or truth.
***************************************************************
Dear John ;)
Interesting point.
I would like to thank you for all your posts(even if the debate with davidethics got a bit tiresome after a while) I have, because of you, started to track down info on Ayne Rand and am facinated!
Again my sincerest thanks ;)
----------------------------------------------------------------
//Again Ghost, I repeat, you are promoting a cult, and have not made a contribution to this debate on Hawkings and the theists: you do not provide a shred of argument in your posts. Just the usual parade of insults to the intelligence of those who criticise the principles underpinning your (Rand's) cult of objectivism. You speak of seeking enlightenment (post 1974) - now that is a cultish expression - as an objective. I guess you must rank yourself as one of Rand's enlightened disciples eh. But of course, these disciples are of the atheist religion. Scientists, philosophers, and the ordinary people whom your cult denigrates, seek answers to problems. In almost every contribution you simply blast out the basic beliefs of the objectivist cult. I have tried to discuss with you but like all cultists you cannot imagine what it is like to give way in a discussion, cannot argue, cannot learn, just repeat your tired old slogans wrapped up in pseudo scientific jargon. At one point I thought you were a pub philsosopher with a dictionary, but you are not. Like the scientologists you have an ultimate truth and boy, how insulting you become when this is challenged.///
Again David, you provide this jingostic rant about cultism and such irrational nonsense - Please go and read the archives of the HYS where you will find plenty of well reasoned arguments and explanations of Objectivism.. and I speak of seeking truth - you would deny it! You do not provide valid critism or any philosophical debate but rather just random and irrelevant rantings about this philosopher or that philosopher but never get down to the actual arguments - its just posturing and pointless. As for describing Rand as a 'cult' leader that is plainly ridiculous and, I will ask you again to explain HOW Objectivism can possible be a cult? - AND that is the issue I have with your various rants and insults - you do not explain what you mean - as a philosopher would engage in debate! And I would point out to you that this is a HYS forum for expressing opinion and ideas - it really is not necessary to provide a philosophic thesis for every topic - merely make a point about what one think is the general purpose! Hence, you will find most folk on here who have something to say will offer links to the arguments expressed, or encourage folk to read on the subject etc! It is quite odd you believe objectivism is a cult when most philosopher's recognise the validity of objectivism as a radical approach to many philosophical problems....the only people whom might suggest such an idea as 'cultism' are the religious believers or socialists! And here we do find 'cults' of mindless faith in irrational dogma and idolised leaders of dubious character! Funny that!!! No such nonsense in Objectivism - It has no leaders, no irrational dogma - is not a doctrine at all and does not expect human beings to be followers! And it has the most profound respect for every individual human being - unlike religion and socialism, and other delusional belief system which would have Humanity believe they are less than human! It is an insult to the intelligence of every person on this planet to make an assumption that access to knowledge is the exclusive domain of an elitist group and that 'some' human being are somehow incapable of gaining knowledge! It is an insult to humanity to base morality on punishment for the sin of gaining knowledge, being productive and experiencing the joy of life. It is an insult to humanity to damn all our children before they are conceived and then offer up some fake salvation on the condition they submit to slavery and a mindless existence, It is an insult to humanity to have them believe the avoidance of death is preferable to the achievements of living.
David, every word you utter convinces me you are a seeker of the Zero, and if you do know anything about objectivism you will know this is the truth! It is quite obvious to me that you invest you self esteem in some counterfeit belief system and are desperate to defend it at any cost, even if that defence necessitates the denial of that which is rational, logical and objective! If you provided a reasonable point for discussion, I would have been more than happy to engage in a debate - but David, one must know the difference between insult and constructive criticism!
And I do not think I have 'insulted' you, but merely pointed out the obvious errors of your attacks and attempted to illustrate your obvious misconceptions of what objectivism represents as a philosphical position! look, it does not really bother me if you disagree with the ideas I express, equally I do not care if you agree with them or not - I am not in the business of attempting to convince anyone of anything - But I do detect you may have some alterer motive to your continued groundless attacks! Just engage with the argument properly or be still and quite!
Again David, you provide this jingostic rant about cultism and such irrational nonsense - Please go and read the archives of the HYS where you will find plenty of well reasoned arguments and explanations of Objectivism.. and I speak of seeking truth - you would deny it! You do not provide valid critism or any philosophical debate but rather just random and irrelevant rantings about this philosopher or that philosopher but never get down to the actual arguments - its just posturing and pointless. As for describing Rand as a 'cult' leader that is plainly ridiculous and, I will ask you again to explain HOW Objectivism can possible be a cult? - AND that is the issue I have with your various rants and insults - you do not explain what you mean - as a philosopher would engage in debate! And I would point out to you that this is a HYS forum for expressing opinion and ideas - it really is not necessary to provide a philosophic thesis for every topic - merely make a point about what one think is the general purpose! Hence, you will find most folk on here who have something to say will offer links to the arguments expressed, or encourage folk to read on the subject etc! It is quite odd you believe objectivism is a cult when most philosopher's recognise the validity of objectivism as a radical approach to many philosophical problems....the only people whom might suggest such an idea as 'cultism' are the religious believers or socialists! And here we do find 'cults' of mindless faith in irrational dogma and idolised leaders of dubious character! Funny that!!! No such nonsense in Objectivism - It has no leaders, no irrational dogma - is not a doctrine at all and does not expect human beings to be followers! And it has the most profound respect for every individual human being - unlike religion and socialism, and other delusional belief system which would have Humanity believe they are less than human! It is an insult to the intelligence of every person on this planet to make an assumption that access to knowledge is the exclusive domain of an elitist group and that 'some' human being are somehow incapable of gaining knowledge! It is an insult to humanity to base morality on punishment for the sin of gaining knowledge, being productive and experiencing the joy of life. It is an insult to humanity to damn all our children before they are conceived and then offer up some fake salvation on the condition they submit to slavery and a mindless existence, It is an insult to humanity to have them believe the avoidance of death is preferable to the achievements of living.
David, every word you utter convinces me you are a seeker of the Zero, and if you do know anything about objectivism you will know this is the truth! It is quite obvious to me that you invest you self esteem in some counterfeit belief system and are desperate to defend it at any cost, even if that defence necessitates the denial of that which is rational, logical and objective! If you provided a reasonable point for discussion, I would have been more than happy to engage in a debate - but David, one must know the difference between insult and constructive criticism!
And I do not think I have 'insulted' you, but merely pointed out the obvious errors of your attacks and attempted to illustrate your obvious misconceptions of what objectivism represents as a philosphical position! look, it does not really bother me if you disagree with the ideas I express, equally I do not care if you agree with them or not - I am not in the business of attempting to convince anyone of anything - But I do detect you may have some alterer motive to your continued groundless attacks! Just engage with the argument properly or be still and quite!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
