Stephen Hawking: God NOT Needed For Creation

Most of the world has been secular for some time now

since presidency, much like many other political positions are established by the public, it comes under ...

(unless of course there is some pressure to fall in line with the values of one's employer/funding body ...


To which there is added .....but I don't think its really the case with scientists).

IOW I think it is a bit disingenuous to compare the job description of the president with a scientist since the former is practically jammed to the hilt with societal obligation and the later (putting aside the wild antics of the new atheists) is practically bereft of it

Anything that carries some sort of social momentum or even the impression of one (by falling in with a pre-existing social movement, whether as an antithesis or a unison of agreement or anything in between) can certainly be critiqued along those lines.
I mean even if Hawking is blithely unaware of the format, principles, agenda and commercial success of the new atheists (something I doubt highly), his recent work can certainly be assessed in the context of the pre-existing contributions of his peers.

You seem to be unaware of the history of atheism

http://www.investigatingatheism.info/nonmarxistatheisms.html
http://www.investigatingatheism.info/marxism.html

... what to speak how these two have shaped the current aspirations of new atheism
http://www.investigatingatheism.info/causes.html

Ironically enough, sometimes atheists criticize dawkins et al for precisely this reason

If you already live in a society where belief in god is not axiomatic, what exactly are you arguing for?
To get enough people on side to vote an atheist president in? And to accomplish this without "shoving your values" around?
:scratchin:

Surprised that you responded like this.

All you have done is paint atheism up as a minority set to topple the majority ... simply on the basis of it being oppressed ... and you further drew a parallel with other pre-existing minorities.

Pressing on the point that you are echoing the rhetoric of "perpetual revolution" was simply an attempt to get you to openly admit what you see as a "healthy" balance between diametrically opposed ideologies .... and perhaps see that the ideological monologue advocated by the new atheists shares a remarkable similarity to a host of evangelical groups that they are critical of.

(As an interesting side note, there's the phenomena that diametrically opposed social ideologies often translate into identical forums. For instance communism and fascism are diametric opposites, but the nature of a society operating under them bear many similarities)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

yeah right

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

REALLY?!
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Do you always make up whatever facts you want to use to support your arguments or do you actually believe what you invent?

Well, that's what you think... But as we just demonstrated above, what you think and Real Life are not necessarily on the same terms.

A high profile scientist is still High Profile in the public eye- and subject to politics.

What is the "new Atheists?"
Is this a term you made up or did you get that terms from somewhere?

Thing one:
What do those links have to do with what you claimed? They do not support your claims.
Thing two: A LACK of belief that asks that others don't force beliefs upon them is not the same as Forcing A Belief system on another.
Thing Three: Your links do not support ANY conclusions you are trying to reach if you are using a term as "New Atheism."

And I, for one, don't. I think it's high time we emerged out of primitive superstition.

Most of this statement made no sense. My response was in regards to those questioning Hawkings words. You are trying, as you often do, to Turn It Around and present the illusion that I am somehow Pushing My Beliefs on others.
You are not putting forth a rational or logical argument. You are instead, playing a game of words, trying to outwit by pandering to the notion that uninformed readers might fall for your ploy.

Why are you surprised?
The rest of the response you made above suggests that you want to argue more than that you have an actual case to argue. You obfuscate my words and then apply different meanings than the ones I intended by separating them.

No, my imaginative friend- I pointed out that high profile people have difficulty being something other than what the majority wants them to be.

It was a no brainer.

I have no idea what this argument you are making up is all about. I said nothing of the kind above and frankly, I find your tactics at misinformation and obfuscation more annoying and disturbing than I do worthy of much more than a laugh at on the internet.

Like this one.
Seriously- what have you been smoking?

It's a good idea to not post when 'altered,' lightgigantic.

Indeed.

You make up your own "facts," claim arguments made that never were, distort the other persons post into making it appear as though they said things they had not and you obfuscate with Straw Men and Red Herrings left and right.

Perhaps when you are finished tilting at windmills, you can make an effective post. But in the meantime, I find your rather condescending attempts at forcing an argument tiresome.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wouldn't it be better if Scientists talked about science and religious people talked about religion?
I wouldn't ask a scientist to design a new building, I'd ask an architect.
If people only stuck to their own arena of expertise, things would be less fraught.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

By my perception, Captain Kremmen, scientists have no reason to not talk about such things.
There is no scientific evidence that supports the existence of Puff The Magic Dragon.
If a large portion of the population tries to scientifically support the existence of fairy tales (Puffy Dragons), then the 'experts' in the field have every right to educate and inform people as to how the scientific method works, what current models actually state and how these conclusions are reached.
In fact, I would say they have a duty to do so, rather than timidly walking on eggshells just because believers get their pantyliners in a hitch when someone has the audacity to point out there is no evidence whatsoever to support the existence of gnomes.

What you just asked is akin to:" Why not let news reporters report news instead of questioning scams and charlatans. I would not ask a news reporter to design an email fraud for me and I wouldn't ask a charlatan to report current events."

Just because someone has a different field of expertise does not mean they cannot speak out against the glaringly obvious...

 

A lot of things humans spend their time doing, have no scientific basis.
Music, watching sport, dancing, gambling, collecting stamps, etc etc.

Not everything needs to be given the rubber stamp of science.
Science is a tool. Don't let it become your religion.

 

Everything that humans do has a scientific basis. A reason that is scientifically explainable.

Now, agreed, people do not often think about the scientific reasons as to why the feel in love or why they are awe inspired by a beautiful sight.

However, these reasons do exist, regardless of how much thought people may give it at a given time. So, although it would detract from the experience to think about the biological reasons, the psychological reactions based on hormonal levels, chemical and electrical interactions and genetic predisposition when a persons heart beats faster when near someone they love... we can certainly accept these reasons as logical. Just not think about them when appreciating the moment, praise them or otherwise- call them divine.

It is just basic understanding. Not a rubber stamp of science and most certainly not a religion.

One doesn't always think about the molecular structure of rocks or the hardness of rocks when hiking. But that doesn't mean they can't. And for some people, it can increase their desire to enjoy the rocks while hiking simply because they are exercising their mind as well.

Science is the examination of ALL that we can observe, including ourselves. It is a tool used to model reality as accurately as possible in order to understand concepts and learn more...

This tangent is largely irrelevant.

Because at times we will think about the scientific aspects of our behavior. One cannot jump in every time and try to claim we should not- that ignorance is bliss- that there is no reason to... Some folks are curious and like to discuss it. Others have a point to make. Others still are defending a belief and so on.
In Hawkings case, it seems as though he wandered into the obvious "God/Creator" debate in the Universe. Well, frankly... that was inevitable that it would happen eventually.


Edit To Add:

To put this in perspective, Captain Kremmen;
Think about all the scientific work put into the studies of Criminal Behavior.
Think about the benefit of these studies.
NOW ask if these people are practicing religion, rubber stamping human behavior or otherwise engaging in Pointless Thought.

 

no

Although there continue to be important disagreements among scholars, many begin with the premise that secularism is not simply the absence of religion, but rather an intellectual and political category that itself needs to be understood as an historical construction.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Feel free to point precisely who you are talking about and how they are affected by politics and how this is the unerring trend of contemporary science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_in_Physics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAS_Award_of_Scientific_Reviewing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMA_Scientific_Achievement_Award
etc etc

I don't think the controversy is about their existence ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_atheism

They show clear historical events where atheism was forced, and go on to indicate how these have shaped a similar movement under the banner of new atheism

While that may suffice as a definition of some forms of atheism, many atheistic movements, both contemporary and from history, certainly did not draw the line at it.

Ironically, some of the sternest critics of the New Atheists to date have been fellow atheists. The philosopher of science Michael Ruse, himself a renowned critic of intelligent design, has written that 'The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist.'[1] Although himself a renowned critic of intelligent design, Ruse nevertheless defends the claim that a Darwinian can also be a Christian, despite the position of Dawkins and others. Furthermore, the anthropologist and evolutionary psychologist Scott Atran, also an atheist, subjected the New Atheists' knowledge of religion (and especially of the relationship between religion and violence) to harsh criticism following the November 2006 Beyond Belief conference.[2]
link

Given your definition of atheism :"A LACK of belief that asks that others don't force beliefs upon them is not the same as Forcing ", how do you propose to emerge without forcing your values?

let me make it easy for you.
If you want to talk of changing society in any shape or form, you are involved in pushing your beliefs around.

If you sincerely believed that it was wrong to push one's beliefs, you would simply shut up.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

because it was straight forward point that I didn't think you would have a problem with

certainly not the case with anyone on the famous scientist list given earlier ... or at least not to the degree of any position established by formal politics

the argument is simple.
You talk of the problem of belonging to a minority within a society.
You advocate that the solution to the problem is to bring the minority to a majority status and thus stamp out the opposition (all without the use of force, which is certainly a novel idea ...)

Its the nature of a fanatic (regardless whether they are atheist or theistic) to lavishly ponder the glories of living in a society governed by an ideological monologue (ie their own values). I guess its easier to take shelter of one's imagination rather than do the real work of reconciling the differences

at this point I'm just trying to help you recognize key terms like "new atheist" and "secularism" in light of contemporary society

 

Substitute religion for science in the above sentences, and you have a religious dogma.
Science is your religion.

I watched Richard Dawkins on his recent TV series confronting a leading American evangelical.
At the finish of their conversation, which led nowhere, they looked at each other.
They were each uncomprehending, unquestioning, looking pitifully at each other.
Identical.

 

Yes. All you did was reference some basic (not peer reviewed) book.

Here, I can do it too.

As usual... none of those links support anything you or I have said.

I never claimed they were oppressed within their field nor did I claim they were not permitted to achieve.

I claimed that they shun religious talk.

I was very clear. Stop obfuscating and tilting at windmills.

As Soviet Russia had "forced" it, as well. However, that is a very different situation than what we are discussing.

As you already pointed out, in the modern world, religion is tolerated.

But a LACK of Belief is NOT a belief to be forced.

Okay, so some guy you quote doesn't understand Evolution Theory.
Big whoop.

Simple. I ask that others do not force their beliefs onto me.
You are still tilting at windmills by trying to claim that me saying I don't want others absurd fairy tales shoved down my throat is me forcing my beliefs onto them.

Hog Wash!

The only way I could be forcing my beliefs onto them is for me to shove a belief system of my own down their throat.

Tilting At Windmills.

Let me make it easy for you, Don Quixote...
If we are discussing Hawking admitting to the lack of necessity for a Divine Creator in the Universe, your windmill tilting is irrelevant and off topic.

When discussing topics supported by evidence or when discussing topics unsupported and based entirely on fairy tale- You will find a great difference between the two.

I advocated nothing of the kind.

As usual- You invent your own claims and then pretend that they have merit or weight.

And as usual- it is tiresome.

Not only do you not understand them, You cannot create a coherent post.

You have been repeatedly accusing me of all kinds of claims I have never made.

You need to start addressing the things I actually say, first. Then, you need to support the claims you make as counter arguments with something more than Crap.

You claimed that the Majority of the world has been secular for a long time. All the evidence disagrees with you; yet your best effort to support your claim was to link to some book- Not a study- Not peer reviewed--- It carries no more weight as evidence than "The Cat In The Hat."

Nonsense.
I have EVIDENCE; Hard and well supported Evidence.

Dogma has None.

Science is not my religion. However, this is a COmmon Tactic Used by those that hope to make it APPEAR that science is just another religious faith in order to equalize the playing field since they lack evidence for their absurd claims (Noahs ark etc.)
Since they cannot use evidence, they use obfuscation tactics such as this one.

To quote:
http://xkcd.com/54/

Time to get over it, Quixote.

 

Anyhow, Hawking is being very dogmatic about his interpretation of God anyway. He is taking the usual stance that God is perhaps somehow outside the laws of physics. There is an equal chance that God simply is the laws of physics.

 

Why can't we do away with God or replace the notion with "hard physics"?

The universe created intelligent observers, so in Hawking's view the universe is our creator.
If the universe created itself, we might conjecture that God (= the universe) decided to exist, or "thought" itself into existence. There is still room for this idea, because Hawking is only saying that the "thought" was all God needed to create--the universe then "booted up" all by itself.

Decoding some text from one recent paper, which discusses our role as observers:

I think the authors mean here, that observers are self-contained. Observers who observe themselves also observe the universe--it's self-referential since observers are also part of the universal wavefunction.

So we can say that the universe, for all intents and purposes, is the God we think created the universe. It created itself.
Maybe God knew about Zumba back then? I mean, the limbo is a bit passe, isn't it?

 

he is smarter than you maybe? cant create something out of nothing and someone had to create god in the first place... even if everything he and others who prove the non exsistance of god.. give me one shred of evidence that god does exsist.. and not this @^@&#& hes all around us..

 

Here we go:
The one shred of evidence I'm aware of for the existence of God is my own existence.
Other shreds include my awareness of other existing beings, and of the existence of a universe (what I can see of it).

I'm still struggling, as no doubt a few other people are, with Hawking's no-boundary proposal--what does it mean and why does he claim it has implications for the existence of a God?

An ordinary sphere in 3-space has a 2-dimensional surface which is the boundary of its interior. The surface has no boundary, all paths on a sphere are great circles = unbroken (unbounded) paths.
Visualising the boundary of a 4-sphere is a bit trickier, but the logic still works for a de Sitter space embedded in a Lorentzian anti-de Sitter space, you just need to add a time dimension to it to get a spacetime. In Hawking's model, time extends to an imaginary infinite past and future.

The sum-over-histories is the most probable set of paths--recall that integrals on the boundary are equivalent to integrals in the interior.

 

see again you cant.. the exsistace is you? popycock man if you say yourself that contridicts your whole argument because YOU have EVIDENCE of EVOLUTION inside you right now only read your first line and you already supported my argument

 

If the universe created me, and God created the universe, or, the universe is God, then I must be a part of the universe.

What's wrong with that? Surely evolution is part of the universe?
Note: "God" is a word. It's a word with a lot attached to it, but it's still a word. So is "evolution".

 

lol
peer reviewed philosophy?


Its just (yet another) simple non-controversial definition that you seem to have immense difficulties with

Secularism is the concept that government or other entities should exist separately from religion and/or religious beliefs.

IOW secularism defines a certain attitude to theism in social affairs (namely that god is not axiomatic) as opposed a complete absence of theism

You claimed " A high profile scientist is still High Profile in the public eye- and subject to politics. "

If you can't provide a single example of the immense political baggage that comes with the position of being an esteemed scientist, you should just drop your point.

and as mentioned several times already, this definition of atheism is certainly not the one that marxist russia was working with, nor several other non marxist strains, nor that of the new atheists, and arguable not even of yourself if you want to to talk about changing society in a manner more conducive to your values

actually they are called moderate atheists - typical that you try to woo woo anyone who diverges a millimeter from your value system

If you live in a secular society (one where belief in god is not axiomatic), you already have this. You made reference to the president not being an atheist, but if you want that you will have to get the numbers on board ... which would involve shoving your values around

Its more that you qualified your statement by saying that the president is not an atheist and alluded to a similar circumstance existing in the scientific community. In that context, both your claims are absurd.

You are the one who started whining about your idea of a perfect society
:shrug:

when you start talking about changing society in any manner you will start talking about pushing your values around.
That doesn't necessarily make it bad or anything. Its just a simply dynamic of social change. It does make persons who advocate that it is bad to push one's values around while simultaneously advocating as line of social change hypocritical however

go back and read your first post where you start talking about the plight of a persecuted minority (a plight that you haven't established from a given list of established scientists BTW)

Not seeing the ramifications of the ideas that you post makes them look not well thought out

I've given you several opportunities to try and expand on this notion of political/religious persecution with the sciences and all you are giving us is hot air.

I claimed that we have been secular for some time now.
You countered it with a pie chart showing a/theistic break downs.
What are you trying to show?
That atheism doesn't house the majority?

 

sorry..had to post here to get a unanimous listing from me subscribed threads..

 

Perhaps, but is this not Assuming The Question?

The basis assumes that God does exist prior to speculating the nature of his existence. Before bothering to speculate as to Gods nature, I would think the first question requires at least a minimal answer.

Correct and my apologies. I misunderstood something.

However...

This statement does not match the definition of Secularism.

Sure: Hawking. As this very thread demonstrates repeatedly.

Sagan.

Einstein.

All have been plagued by believers demanding to understand their agnostic or atheistic ways.

A MINIMAL example:

The notion is so blatantly obvious, I had not realized that you required extraordinary evidence to support an ordinary claim.

Meh... well now you have some support.

From this point on- you continue your Quixotic jousting of windmills... going on and on about who is pressing whose values on whom... It is tiresome, off topic, irrelevant and I am sorry: I will not keep pandering to your Straw Men.

I do not particularly care about idiot atheists or atheists who are not non believers because of their education and knowledge but rather, are rebellious against the fundamental establishment.

This is simply not relevant to any case I had made- instead, you strike me as one pushing it onto me for your own agenda.

Hardly.
The point was not whether or not any president has been an atheist. That is unknown.
The point is whether any ADMITTED to being one.

Face it- a president that openly admitted to being an atheist would NOT get elected in the United States in this era. It is a basic tenet of the major religions in the United States that a Non Believer lacks the good wisdom and Guidance of the Grand Architect.

Straw man-- as the majority of your posts so far.
I did no such thing...

You are not one to talk...

Seriously, I've started just deleting large swaths of your posts rather than repeatedly waste my time on your straw men.

You're pretty much being dishonest at this point. Allow me to spell it out for you:
You have repeatedly made claims that I said things I did not say. For this reason, you cannot claim my posts are not well thought out simply because you went off and jumped to conclusions and ran with them like a red headed stepchild.

The problem is not my posts. The problem is your inability to stay on track.

 

Let's clarify some Misconceptions here...

And yes- misconceptions are involved. So are basic acceptances of evidence.
If I say that water is wet, it does not mean that I believe that water is wet.
It means that I accept the overwhelming evidence that supports the theory that it is wet. This results in a model of reality that describes water as wet - and is considered a highly accurate model.
Bear in mind that it is remotely possible that water is dry, however, psychotic miniature space aliens are zapping my brain with mind-zonking rays that cause me to mispercieve the nature of water. Since no one can Prove that is Not happening, I must allow for that slight possibility.
So, water is not proven wet. It is not believed wet. It is a model of reality that is highly and strongly supported by overwhelming evidence and, therefor, accepted as the most likely nature of water.
If new observations should ever demonstrate that the theory of water wetness is not as accurate as it could be- that theory that demonstrates greater accuracy to observation must replace the old model-- As it would be illogical and irrational to cling desperately to a less accurate model.

The misconceptions involved are that
-Acceptance of overwhelming evidence is a faith or belief. Wrong. Faith requires no evidence.
-Science is a faith system. Wrong. Independent verification allows for any claim to be examined. Faith does not allow for independent verification nor for falsifiability.
-Anything that people dream up or imagine that cannot be proven to exist, such as spirits, souls, deity's are "outside" of the realm of science and therefor is it allowable that people believe in them. Well, any person has the right to be a self deluded idiot if they want to be... But that does not require that I tolerate irrationality or insanity. Delusion is not evidence. Wild and totally unsupported speculation has about as much accuracy as a blind man throwing darts while bull-riding. No one is Obligated to entertain foolish flights of fancy just because someone else dreams up a deity and then declares that it is real and no one can say otherwise. Nonsense. I call it as I see it and they can grow up and deal with it.
-Here is a BIG one. Arfa Brane tried to use it: If I dream it up, it counts as evidence. Arfa brane tried to claim that his self awareness or his very existence counts as evidence for a Creator or God. HOW?! That is putting the cart before the horse.
Weather patterns are highly complex. High complexity results in great difficulty in predictability. These are defining factors of Consciousness and even "Free Will." These illusions suggest that we are divine. However, just as our planet is not the divine center, we are merely a Product of Complexity. Out brains are far, far more complex than weather. And thus, we exhibit highly complex behavior. This is not Evidence to support the notion that it was created anymore than it supports the claim that Weather is conscious or self aware simply because you see clouds change direction.
One must observe the physics of meteorology, chaos, fluid dynamics and exponential patterns to see that weather is not a conscious effort-- It is Cause And Effect. As is the effect of our self awareness or consciousness. We are simply more complex than the patterns we see around us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

"I exist; Therefor I must be created!" Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc.

There is Zero evidence whatsoever of a divine planner, designer or creator. However, those that have faith try very hard to cloud and muddy the difference between faith and acceptance of evidence. This allows them to present the illusion of thinking rationally about an irrational belief.
Lightgigantic- You are doing this very deliberately.
In fact, it's a common behavior trait of yours. I may not have posted in a long while, but I've observed.

Stephen Hawking, as in the case of many Scientific Greats, has to contend with this type of behavior constantly. It is the notion that one can apply desire to the observed in order to support a cherished belief.
That one can observe complexity and claim it must be a product of divine planning and thus: We get that Intelligent Design crap that any educated person knows is drivel and hogwash based on obfuscation and muddying the difference between faith and evidence.

-Evolution can support creationism. Well... this one is a desperate attempt to unite religion with science. As one would be very hard pressed to Deny the Mountain of overwhelming evidence in favor of Evolution ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/evolution/7550033/Missing-link-between-man-and-apes-found.html ), they must try to present evolution inaccurately as if to suggest that a Divine Planner Caused Evolution.
The very basic problem with this suggestion is that Evolution REQUIRES no intelligent intervention. It is based on mutations that either succeed or fail depending on the factors of mating and environment. It is Clear as a Bell that it lacks intelligence. Only one who does not understand Evolution can suggest that "goddidit."
http://www.talkorigins.org/

Wild speculation, attempts at aligning spirituality (not falsifiable) with science (Falsifiable), claims of divine existence Outside of measurable falsifiability (And can therefor support the claim of Puff the magic dragon or ANY Other absurd claim one wishes to make), obfuscation and muddying the waters are all attempts at inhibiting understanding and education in the desperate attempt of one that Cannot Let Go of their Deeply Cherished Belief.

Poor Ol' Santa... well, we gotta grow up and let go sometime. The Easter Bunny is not out there floating in Non Falsifiable Outer Universe, folks.
Nor is Tinkerbell. The GSM. The invisible Pink Unicorn.
Or God.

The only measurable thing we can observe is a large group of people that were indoctrinated from a very young age to believe in the divine. And we can observe their inability to let go of that indoctrination well into adulthood.
Why God (Judaic), Allah (Islamic), Buddha or Vishnu?
Well, clearly all of these descriptions are Quite Different from one another and there is No observational evidence of any one of them. They all bear the great hallmarks of mimicking readily observable traits and behaviors of the society that invented the concepts. Why does one heavily cling to any one description? Because as children they were instructed to believe in them. As children, they either accepted the idea without question or evidence... or they were advised not to question God. It is no wonder that it became habit- became a strong core of their being to cling to that belief the rest of their lives. Yet, it's glaringly clear the process involved and the inconsistent nature of the Gods Descriptions, especially when compared to the similarities between them and the society's that describe them.

And Lightgigantic, should you try to pick the clarity described here apart and try to obfuscate it in an attempt to cling to your beliefs (using the misconceptions described above)... I can only shake my head in awe and bewilderment at your determined desperation. I suggest, instead, that you take a gander... realize you're outta your league... and just move along.

 

The only real consistent description of God is the one that, upon confrontation of strong evidence that disputes a previous interactive description of the deity- requires that he be bumped up to the Next Plane of Falsifiability.

God keeps getting bumped up the ladder. The more we learn and observe and reach the next rung and say, "Welp, no God here..." Folks just bump him up to the next current unfalsifiable rung and say, "Well, he's up there." And once new observations reveal a lack of a God on that rung- He gets bumped up again, so on...ad infinitum.