In the beginning

[NickHassan]

Hi Stu,
A scriptural definition of a fool is one who says in his heart there is no God.
We do know what you say here fro the world to hear but
who knows what you say in your heart?

[Stu]

That's a very clever non-litigious answer.

Stuart

[david]

Quote

The former simply did not believe in any kind of pigeonhole, and certainly not in a supernatural creator, and Hawking uses the word god in a fanciful, almost-mocking-but-not-quite way.

Considering the importance of his work, it's no little thing that he mentions God so often.
What does he mean by “God”? Or by the “mind of God?” Please attempt an answer.

[david]

Quote

However, if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable by everyone, not just by a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason– for then we should know the mind of God. (p. 193)

Some say that he put the God references in just to make more money, increase sales, which I truly believe did increase sales. It's a book many own, but few read.

I've also heard that Hawking believes in God only if you define “God” as an expression of the laws of physics
But in that case, pretty much everyone believes in God, and why include this vague, watered-down definition of “God” which only leads to confusion.

anyway, I believe he has said:
“I do not believe in a personal God”–Stephen

Yet, also,
The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired.
– Stephen W. Hawking

[NickHassan]

Hi David,
Of course realising God exists is essential.

Heb11
Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

But to know of God is not enough.
Belief in God includes belief in His Son Jesus Christ.

Jn14
1Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

And belief in the Son demands obedience to him and his statement that you must be born again
Failure to listen to and obey Christ makes all our efforts futile.

Acts 3
19Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

20And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

21Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

22For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.

23And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

24Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.

25Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

26Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

[Stu]

Hi David

Quote

Considering the importance of his work, it's no little thing that he mentions God so often. What does he mean by “God”? Or by the “mind of God?” Please attempt an answer.

I’m sorry!? Am I your lackey or something? Why don’t you send an email to Stephen Hawking and find out what he thinks he means.?

Quote

Some say that he put the God references in just to make more money, increase sales, which I truly believe did increase sales. It's a book many own, but few read. I've also heard that Hawking believes in God only if you define “God” as an expression of the laws of physics But in that case, pretty much everyone believes in God, and why include this vague, watered-down definition of “God” which only leads to confusion. anyway, I believe he has said: “I do not believe in a personal God”–Stephen Yet, also, The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired. – Stephen W. Hawking

My opinion is that he is possibly taking the mickey out of gullible believers who ask fatuous questions. Or he may not be.

Stuart

[acertainchap]

Quote (Towshab @ Jan. 18 2008,12:11)

The real ones are.

Never seen a fake miracle. Are you saying that some of the miracles given from God are not real? If that is your statement then it's audacious, unwise, and not making sense.

[david]

If we're speaking of the universe, we have to consider the anthropic principle.

I'm not sure if it's been discussed on this thread or not.

For some reason, it turns out that the universe is full of examples where the very nature of a physical law, or the very value of some crucial physical constant (such as the proton to electron ratio) seems to be fortuitous.

There are many of these examples and they would seem to indicate:

1. Intelligence in the setting of these laws or constants
2. A multiverse, with all or at least, almost all other universes not really existing or working or lasting very long at all, or not at all.

The charges of electron and proton must be equal and opposite; the neutron must outweigh the proton by a tiny percent; a matching must exist between temperature of the sun and the absorptive properties of chlorophyll before photosynthesis can occur; if the strong force were a little weaker, the sun could not generate energy by nuclear reactions, but if it were a little stronger, the fuel needed to generate energy would be violently unstable; without two separate remarkable resonances between nuclei in the cores of red giant stars, no element beyond helium could have been formed; had space been less than three dimensions, the interconnections for blood flow and the nervous system would be impossible; and if space had been more than three dimensions, planets could not orbit the sun stably.—The Symbiotic Universe, pages 256-7.

The astronomical proof of a Beginning places scientists in an awkward position, for they believe that every effect has a natural cause.”–Robert Jastrow

Forsight and intelligence or a massive series of concidental flukes? Let’s look at the FINE TUNING.
Nature or God or blind “chance” somehow got it just right.

FORCE OF GRAVITY
If the universe had expanded one millon millionth part faster, then all the material in the Universe would have dispersed by now.
If it had been a million millionth part slower, then gravitational forces would have caused the Universe to collapse within a the first thousand million years or so. No long lived stars and no life.

ELECTRO-MAGNETIC FORCE
If this force were significantly weaker, electrons would not be held around the nucleus of an atom. Atoms could not combine to form molecules.
If this force ere much stronger, electrons would be trapped on the nucleus of an atom. There could be no chemical reactions between atoms, meaning no life.
A slight difference in the elctromagnetic force would affect the sun and thus alter the light reaching the earth, making photosynthesis in plants difficult or impossible. It could also rob water of its unique properties, which are vital for life.

Looking at the intensity of this force in relation to the others, some physicists figure this force to be 10 to the 40 times that of gravity. If this force were 10 to the 41 times that of gravity, (gravity would be proportionally weaker) the stars would be smaller, and the pressure of gravity in their interiors would not drive the temperature high enough for nuclear fusion reactions to get under way. The sun would not shine. We could not exist here.
If gravity were stronger proportionally so that the number was 10 to the 39, a star like the sun would find its life expectancy sharply reduced.
If the relative strengths of the nuclear and electromagnetic forces were to be slightly different then carbon atoms could not exist. Without carbon, there would be no life. Carbon atoms represent 20 percent of the weight of all living organisms.

STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE
This force glues protons and neutrons together in the nucleus of the atom. Because of this bonding, various elements can form—light ones (such as helium and oxygen) and heavy ones (such as gold and lead). It seems that if this binding force were a mere 2-percent weaker, only hydrogen would exist. Conversely, if this force were slightly stronger, only heavier elements, but no hydrogen, could be found.
If the universe lacked hydrogen, our sun would not have the fuel it needs to radiate life-giving energy. And, of course, we would have no water or food, since hydrogen is an essential ingredient of both.

WEAK NUCLEAR FORCE
This force controls radioactive decay. It also affects thermonuclear activity in our sun. The weak nuclear force is millions of times weaker than the nuclear force. It is just weak enough so that the hydrogen in the sun burns at a slow and steady rate. If the weak force were much stronger or much weaker, any forms of life dependent on sunlike stars would again be in difficulties.
This precise rate of burning keeps our earth warm—but not incinerated—and keeps us alive.
Scientists believe that the weak force plays a role in supernova explosions, which they give as the mechanism for producing and distributing most elements. If those nuclear forces were in any way slightly different from the way they actually are, the stars would be incapable of making the elements of which we are composed.

How could accidental, random, purposeless events result in such intricately interrelated systems?
Science writer Professor Paul Davies compared these universal laws and conditions to a set of knobs and stated: “It seems as if the different knobs have to be fine-tuned to enormous precision if the universe is to be such that life will flourish.”

All three of the gravitational, electric, and magnetic forces obey “inverse square laws” – that is the force of attraction or repulsion between two such bodies, falls off by the reciprocal of the square of the distance between them. [The force is proportional to 1/d2.] Now it happens to be the case that if the force-distance relationship was anything other than an inverse square law then solar systems and atoms would not be stable. If the gravitational force was any stronger, stable solar systems could not form because planets would quickly spiral into the sun. Likewise, if the electric force was any stronger, stable atoms could not form because electrons would spiral into the nucleus. Similarly if the gravitational force was any weaker, planets would tend to drift off into space and not remain in orbit. So it seems that the inverse square law is particularly fortuitous. It not only allows the formation of atoms (which are clearly essential for the evolution of life), it also allows the formation of solar systems to provide nice safe homes for living beings.

It turns out that the universe is full of examples like this, where the very nature of a physical law, or the very value of some crucial physical constant (such as the proton to electron ratio) seems to be fortuitous. Any change in its value would seem to throw the structure or stability of the universe so out of kilter that it is hard to see how life could ever evolve in such a universe. To physicists such as Barrow and Tipler this implies that something has carefully “tuned” the laws of nature so that life would evolve. To these scientists, the very laws of nature which Weinberg sees as purely impersonal, suggest the presence of a thoughtful intelligence acting behind the scenes – an entity that in some sense “wanted” beings like us to evolve.

What do others think?

[david]

I realize this would fit more in the “evolution” thread, but his name has been mentioned on here.

Carl Sagan, in his book “Cosmos,” acknowledged:

“The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.”
(New York, 1980), p. 29

[Stu]

Quote (david @ Jan. 23 2008,15:35)

I realize this would fit more in the “evolution” thread, but his name has been mentioned on here.   Carl Sagan, in his book “Cosmos,” acknowledged: “The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.” (New York, 1980), p. 29

There you go again, quote mining. Creationists have nothing to add to the knowledge of the world; they make it their vocation to lie for god.

Stuart

[Stu]

David, yes we have discussed a lot of this somewhere. It is a dazzling but pointless restatement of the argument from design.

Quote

a matching must exist between temperature of the sun and the absorptive properties of chlorophyll before photosynthesis can occur

The anthropic principle discusses the nature of the physical constants. The function of chlorophyll is perfectly well explained in evolutionary biological terms.

Quote

Looking at the intensity of this force in relation to the others, some physicists figure this force to be 10 to the 40 times that of gravity. If this force were 10 to the 41 times that of gravity, (gravity would be proportionally weaker) the stars would be smaller, and the pressure of gravity in their interiors would not drive the temperature high enough for nuclear fusion reactions to get under way. The sun would not shine. We could not exist here. If gravity were stronger proportionally so that the number was 10 to the 39, a star like the sun would find its life expectancy sharply reduced.

And tell me what the difference between 10^39 and 10^41 is! Is it 2 times, or 100 times different?

The inverse-square law is not fortuitous at all. It is just the result of area increasing as the square of distance, as conventionally happens in three-dimensional space.

The being that 'wanted us to evolve' must have been forever manipulating the environment in order that we adapt to it. I can't see how a deist's position here is tenable. Interference or none?

Remove the “seems to”s, “suggests that”s and speculative “would”s, and there's not much left in your post above.

Stuart

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Towshab @ Jan. 18 2008,13:20)

The need for men to prove G-d with supposed miracles shows that they need such to prove G-d. Weak. If G-d wants me to experience a true miracle to enhance my faith in Him, then He will do it. He will not just depend on words written by men so long ago. Since He knows I do not need to see these miracles, then they don't happen. Why do you need to depend so much on what others say about G-d to develop your relationship with G-d? Is G-d that impersonal to you that you need another source to describe Him to you?

Miracles are not there to prove God's existence, but to prove that God is with someone because of the miracles done through him.

John 3:2
The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

Psalm 77:14
You are the God who performs miracles; you display your power among the peoples.

Psalm 106:7
When our fathers were in Egypt, they gave no thought to your miracles; they did not remember your many kindnesses, and they rebelled by the sea, the Red Sea.

Miracles follow the true message/messenger as a sign that the message/messenger is true.

Hebrews 2:3-4
3 how shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him.
4 God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.

John 10:38
But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”

Matthew 13:58
And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith.

A lack of faith can show itself in the lack of miracles.

Jesus and miracles are almost synonymous. God did great miracles through Yeshua to prove that God was with him, even in him.

Acts 2:22
“Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.

And Paul:

Acts 19:11
God did extraordinary miracles through Paul,

And Stephen too:

Acts 6:8
Now Stephen, a man full of God's grace and power, did great wonders and miraculous signs among the people.

God gives signs Tow. It is up to us whether we ignore those signs or recognise them for what they are.

Your take on miracles is not in line with either the Old or New Testaments, but if you speak in such a way because you haven't witnessed signs and miracles, then is that is this really just a reflection about your own faith or lack of it?

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Stu @ Jan. 23 2008,22:03)

It is a dazzling but pointless restatement of the argument from design.

At face value acknowledging a designer is far more reasonable than saying it all came from nothing or from something inanimate.

But Stu writes off the most reasonable explanation because he has no faith. So his arguments are based on ignorance.

So does a lack of faith lead to foolishness?

Well scripture says so.

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”

I have to agree with this. Faith is not even needed if you can reason without bias. There is enough evidence in creation for a creator. Men have no excuse with this one.

[kejonn]

Quote (t8 @ Jan. 25 2008,07:51)

Miracles are not there to prove God's existence, but to prove that God is with someone because of the miracles done through him.

I can't agree with this t8. What you are basically saying here is that no one in some time has had God with him/her because there are no miracles being performed through people. Tumors disappearing, coming out of autombile accidents with barely a scratch, etc. is miraculous, but it happens to both believers and non-believers alike.

So You might want to rephrase this as it makes us all look bad because we are not miracle workers.

[Proclaimer]

Kejonn that is an extreme view of what I am saying.

I am saying that God performs miracles through his representatives to demonstrate that his rep is of him A lack of miracles in ones life is not a sure sign that a person has no faith, but a person who has no belief in a God of miracles surely lacks faith, for God is a god of miracles, signs, and wonders. God performed miracles through Moses, Israel, Yeshua, and others who represent him.

Not all work in miracles just as not all prophecy, but God is a God of miracles nevertheless.

[acertainchap]

Quote (t8 @ Jan. 26 2008,00:51)

Miracles are not there to prove God's existence, but to prove that God is with someone because of the miracles done through him.

I'm going to have to disagree, t8. Miracles are proof of God's existence and proof that He is with us.

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Jan. 26 2008,01:02)

Quote (Stu @ Jan. 23 2008,22:03) It is a dazzling but pointless restatement of the argument from design. At face value acknowledging a designer is far more reasonable than saying it all came from nothing or from something inanimate. But Stu writes off the most reasonable explanation because he has no faith. So his arguments are based on ignorance. So does a lack of faith lead to foolishness? Well scripture says so. The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” I have to agree with this. Faith is not even needed if you can reason without bias. There is enough evidence in creation for a creator. Men have no excuse with this one.

There is no evidence for a creator at all. I don't think anyone here can actually articulate what they mean by such evidence. Held up against the cold light of day, and viewed dispassionately, it is the maintenance of delusion by group will.

Stuart

[kejonn]

Quote (Stu @ Jan. 25 2008,20:29)

Quote (t8 @ Jan. 26 2008,01:02) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 23 2008,22:03) It is a dazzling but pointless restatement of the argument from design. At face value acknowledging a designer is far more reasonable than saying it all came from nothing or from something inanimate. But Stu writes off the most reasonable explanation because he has no faith. So his arguments are based on ignorance. So does a lack of faith lead to foolishness? Well scripture says so. The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” I have to agree with this. Faith is not even needed if you can reason without bias. There is enough evidence in creation for a creator. Men have no excuse with this one. There is no evidence for a creator at all. I don't think anyone here can actually articulate what they mean by such evidence. Held up against the cold light of day, and viewed dispassionately, it is the maintenance of delusion by group will. Stuart

But to be fair, there is no evidence against a creator either so it seems we are at an impasse. The question is then: does this creator really want a relationship with His creation? That is what all religions try to define. Human as we are, we fail in this endeavor often.

[Stu]

Quote (kejonn @ Jan. 26 2008,13:45)

Quote (Stu @ Jan. 25 2008,20:29) Quote (t8 @ Jan. 26 2008,01:02) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 23 2008,22:03) It is a dazzling but pointless restatement of the argument from design. At face value acknowledging a designer is far more reasonable than saying it all came from nothing or from something inanimate. But Stu writes off the most reasonable explanation because he has no faith. So his arguments are based on ignorance. So does a lack of faith lead to foolishness? Well scripture says so. The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” I have to agree with this. Faith is not even needed if you can reason without bias. There is enough evidence in creation for a creator. Men have no excuse with this one. There is no evidence for a creator at all.  I don't think anyone here can actually articulate what they mean by such evidence.  Held up against the cold light of day, and viewed dispassionately, it is the maintenance of delusion by group will. Stuart But to be fair, there is no evidence against a creator either so it seems we are at an impasse. The question is then: does this creator really want a relationship with His creation? That is what all religions try to define. Human as we are, we fail in this endeavor often.

I could invent all sorts of imaginary beings. Would you accept my claim that there are things about them that you should know for your own good, without questioning their existence? People who make extraordinary claims and cannot back them up with real evidence do not deserve special consideration.

Stuart

[NickHassan]

Hi Stu,
There is less evidence that you exist.

[Author]

Posts