God, Hawking and the Universe

Not to belittle Stephen Hawking in any way; the man is a phenomenon of intelligence and a fantastic example to the testament of the human mind, but I wonder how much of the ambiguity over whether he thinks gods aren't necessary, or whether gods did not create the universe, is quietly allowed to continue, all in the case of furthering publicity for his book. It's almost guaranteed that people on both sides of the theistic camp will now buy the book, either to uphold its claims, or attempt to refute them, because of the bold claim made in the media about the contents.

I'm fairly sure most contributors here will know my stance on the matter; it isn't necessary for gods to exist to start the universe. Whether that implies the gods don't exist at all is a question no one can really answer.

I do get amused by the default setting that a divine influence must equal Yahweh/Allah of the Abrahamic lineage. I'm sure to many Indian or Japanese religious scientists, the concept of a divine 'ultimate cause' are more polytheistic. There's no more proof for a single supreme being, or even that that being is the god of the bible, than there is for any other theistic model, be it Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, Krishna, Shiva or the almightly Flying Spaghetti Monster.

It is a bit of a "so what?" moment - we have known for years that a god is not necessary to provide an explanation for the universe. Stephen Hawking has known this too, of course.

Will, as you and Natman say, this does not equate to "there IS no god" (although I think you definitely could argue that the "God of the *bible*" is a fiction), but so what? We're back to Russel's teapot on that one.

Will, you write: Even if Hawking is right -- and it is evidentially too soon to say -- that M-theory can explain the "spontaneous creation" of the Universe, without any assistance from a divine being, it does not follow from that claim that God's existence is "unnecessary".

See, I rather think that it *does* follow, because that is where the scope of the word "necessary" lies. If you wish to extend the scope of the word thus (for instance):

But God's existence may still be considered "necesary" for non-scientific reasons.

You suggest that a coherent argument could be mounted for a "personal" or "teleological" necessity of god. I don't buy that, any more that I think we would need a teleological or personal explanation for lightning or radioactive decay. Indeed, in these instances (where the explanandum is the universe itself), invoking a teleological explanation (for instance) is quite directly and blatantly begging the question. I know you know this, but just in case John Lennox is reading, I thought I'd better point it out ;-)

As it is, I think we don't even need to go near M-theory to deduce that "God" is unnecessary (after dispensing of course with the primitive notion of the Biblical YHWH, as Swinburne and Plantinga have done, although they don't tell their homies that). Simple mathematics does the job quite nicely.

Mr. Hawking's opinions are as much based in faith as mine are that God in fact does exist and was necessary for the start of the universe. The only difference is Mr. Hawking's faith is based on his own observations in the present day and my are based on my own observations. As such I will respect that he is intelligent, but I know that even the smartest man makes mistakes. There is no way he can say with 100% certainty that God does not exist, he cant prove it. Perhaps I cant convince anyone that I am correct either.
If I die and nothing happens, perhaps he was correct. If he dies and burns in hell for eternity I will be. I think he will suffer the greater loss if proved wrong, and I will not be happy as another is lost.

I always hoped there was a God (Yahweh) but when i actually went and looked seriously looked for him i was shocked (pleasantly) to find Him. If only scientists like Hawking and yes even Dawkins put half as much study into actually seeking the creator God of the universe as they do their careers, they would make the very discovery that they spend so much of their lives trying to find. That he Is, and that he is fantastical beyond any mortal imagination. All that's needed is an open mind that the supernatural may actually be possible, some humility* (that's quite important by the way) and a bible. Collectively it would save them countless years of experiments.

* i'm not suggesting non believers are not humble in a worldly/non-believing sense

I am God

Hawking is a well known atheist and all his views about God are the same. This should not be news for anyone since there is nothing new about his "discovery" about God not creating the universe. He has said this before. All along the way, these statements are made to sell more and more products such as books, DVDs or what ever pays this man's bills. The concept of creating everything from nothing and by itself everything was created, is about as far fetched a concept as as God is from this man's heart. First of all I would not trust any atheist's view of God because they are haters of God. Their purpose is to mislead others to believe as they do.

There is no such thing as a person not believing that there is no God. There must be a belief in the concept in order to address it and all the issues associated with it. So by simple definition about an atheist not believing that there is no God, we can believe that they must believe otherwise they would never, ever, talk about Him. The Bible calls it PRIDE and pride in oneself keeps a person from experiencing God. They become their own god and they make all the new rules about the universe and comfort themselves about the evolution of life itself. This is a very shallow view of life and offers mankind no hope for the future and misleads the proud who are also very shallow in their thinking. Blind leading the blind in a concept they all hate to accept.

Showing the unseen Spirit of God is like telling someone that wind is not real because they can't see it. Sure you can see the "effects" of the wind, there are hurricanes and tornados to prove that but the wind itself is invisible. Same with the Spirit of God, you don't see the Spirit working until He has CHANGED someone from the inside out. That is the effect God (Jesus Christ) has on people who get to know the true God and Savior. The changes in the heart are the evidence in people's lives. Those that have not been changed are kidding themselves about God and are perhaps in a religion and perhaps don't know Christ.

The bottom line is God created everything that was meant to be created during the beginning of creation found in Genesis and life will give birth to new life until the return of Christ. Not only is the earth the only source of life, it is the center of life. The whole world and even the universe has the purpose of sustaining life on this planet. God has a purpose for mankind and the focus is on the heart of a man (or woman) and faith in the True God will reveal Him to you. God proves Himself to those who have faith in Him. Pride takes a man far from God as Mr. Hawkings proves with his writings.

The saddest thing I ever heard was when an atheist told me that he and his buddies were going to a cemetery to bury an atheist friend. He said that they were there for no religious reason other than to put the man's body in the hole and away from wild animals. Yet a group of them showed up and only a couple did all the work. IF the views of an atheist are right it is only a 50% to 50% chance that they are right and everything turns to darkness when we all die and we simply cease to exist and return to the earth and all that. BUT, if they are wrong, (that's 50% !!) then they will spend ALL of eternity in a place they can not get out of. Eternal (never ending) is a steep price to pay for the sake of PRIDE. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I think this sums it up better than any other article I've read today:

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/science-%26-technology/creation-did-not-involve-chocolate,-claims-hawking-201009023057/

If one could peer into space as we wish we could, one would see many worlds some very similar to a place called earth. God, nor the knowledge we have of God does not imply nor state that "we" are alone. God is something we can not comprehend, not you, me nor Mr. Hawkin.

This is the part of faith that scientist can not grasp a belief in something not seen but one knows it is there. Or can they...someone might begin to mention "higgs boson" or one might ask can anything escape a black hole. During this pondering one believes in the unseen, unknown and that that does not exist but yet must exist.

Believer, yes and thus I pray openly, out loud and seem strange to an ever know legible base of fellow humans. The world is not flat, there is water on the moon and there is a God, a creator, a giver of live and He alone knows your every thought, I believe sometimes he even laughs, we are quite humorous.

Kadius Suidak


"Dig in your yard, deeper, keep digging and shake the hand of another digging in the same direction, now replace the word yard with mind, try it"

"We are not as much like chickens as our DNA would have us believe"

"Perhaps we can all agree that we and all things are related, I have known this for decades, I read it in a book, which is over five thousand years old"

Well, you talk about God freely there without ever defining the term. Do you mean Yahweh, Odin, Zeus, Mars, Aphrodite, Mithras, Allah, etc, etc. This might seem flippant but I feel the need to press this point to counter a cultural assumption that the god of the bible is automatically assumed to be meant when talking about a creator.
Also you bring up the long-countered 'fine-tuning' argument. This has been answered many times over, but I reckon Douglas Adams put it best,
"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!""

It's quite telling that the moment before the big bang has become such a focus for the debate of religion versus science.

The simple fact is that science has so thoroughly refuted all popular religious tenets that the tiny moment at the beginning of time that still eludes our understanding has become the last refuge for God. What a sad end for the deity!

Without philosophy, our thinking is incomplete. But I take issue with the article: please explain why 'epistemic rights' allow people of belief to require more of an explanation of the "classic agnostic response: 'There just is'." That's a valid expression of belief and holds just as much weight as the view of someone who 'believes'.
If something is 'known' it logically cannot be false. But 'belief' can be false. No matter how strongly or forcefully the argument is put, it cannot be anything more than a belief.
My understanding is that it is the role of science (and therefore, scientists) to extend our collective 'knowledge'. I'm all for that!
Incidentally, it is my own belief that trying to defend one's own beliefs as being 'true for one's self' just leads to more woolly thinking and obfuscation. Give up the blog, Mr Crawley, the jig's up! You're no more qualified to comment than this poor old pirate, with my hook for a hand and my wooden leg.
PS - Oh, BTW, spelling 'necessary' in two different (incorrect) ways in as many lines, doesn't instil confidence in your arguments

It is very simple. Anything that we see in the universe is made by a person. Machines cannot create another machine. It requires man(a person) to create machines. Nothing, not even a blade of grass can be created by accident. Then what is result of an accident - only mess. Someone is hurt,bleeding or dead or has to be rushed to the hospital and cars or vehicles broken, damaged etc. What happens spontaneously in the universe and stays consistently. Only love or spontaneous thoughts, words and deeds happen but they are not consistent and permanent.

So how can anyone put the two together and say that the Universe or Universes has not creator and has come out by chance or an accident or spontaneously. How foolish can we be to believe it? These are theories and scientists who have been proven wrong again and again and keep on changing their theories again and again will keep on coming up with them.

We should know that since something comes out of nothing is wrong because it has not evidence in this universe and so we can conclude that this universe or universes have come from something. And since machines cant produce, and everything inthe universe has a person behind it, it can also be conclusively applied to the univeerse or universes. This person is called God.

Stephen Hawking will grow old and die and nothing will be heard from him after that. How can he make claims about eternity of which he is just an insignificant part. Scientists have come and gone and their theories proved wrong. But how foolish can one get to say that this universe came out of nothing or an accident and there is no one behind this unverse even though we cannot find a single item that can evidence this. There is a person behind everything - a screw,plane,car,table,glass etc. and that is a person and not a machine.

The content of the article has been expanded upon, into some interesting areas here.

https://celticlion.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/what-about-the-next-one-mr-hawking/

I'm quite happy to take my chances with Pascal's Wager (the flawed argument that it's better to believe in gods than not, just in case). Just because you believe in god, doesn't mean your belief is the right one, or you're doing all that is required to get into heaven.

1. If you believe in a single God, you will have to choose one out of infinite possible varieties.
2. If any percent of the possible gods will punish you eternally, then there are an infinite number of hypothetical gods who, if they exist, would punish you for eternity.
3. If there is only one god, then your chance of worshipping it, and not a nonexistent entity instead, is one out of infinity.
4. Therefore you will almost surely fail to pick up the correct "One True God".
5. So if a god does exist, the chance of you going to any variety of heaven is infinitesimal, regardless of whether you are religious or not.

And, in answer to a previous post (#6 I think), you can talk about something without having belief in it. Santa, for example. We discuss him every year, tell our kids stories about him and purpetuate the myth of his existance, however, no sensible adult would ever seriously consider he really exists.

The saddest thing I have ever seen is people wasting their lives in devotion to a concept that cannot be proven and has no material benefit, when you think of all the causes in this world that do have material benefit.

So I posted this in a few newspapers in response to the inevitable debate that will rage with Stephen Hawkings' provocative advertising campaign for his new book:

My perception of this age old debate, which really does get quite boring each time one of the scientific priestly caste publish and "light the blue touch paper and set the universe (debate) going" is this:

How many of us really understand the math? Proponents and protagonists alike just assume the math is correct. Essentially Hawkings and his mates, those who agree with his maths and those who don't, are telling us stuff we just have to accept as true, because honestly, we don't get it do we?

Essentially Hawkings and his ilk are like the priests of old and like the religious power men of so many religions; they hold us in awe with concepts way beyond us and then state as facts concepts which beggar belief. How does gravity exist without matter and energy? Apparently it does in some remote mathematical concept which I am sure I will never grasp, so how do I argue with this guy? He and possibly one or two other "exceptionally gifted" mathematical eggheads can now patronisingly pat us all on the head and assure us that the math is correct.

The last group of super intellectuals got their math to the level where they could blow entire continents to pieces.... From what I have read their math was faulty/incomplete and has been proven wrong on various levels - go figure - they still left their mark huh?

Which brings me to a puzzling concept bandied around predominately by the anti-god brigade.... what war was ever fought purely on religious grounds? SOME wars were certainly fought using religion as the ostensible reason, but we all know that most have been fought for power and economical reasons - invariably some megalomaniacal self proclaimed nut who wanted to go down in history for his/her glorious conquests....

Also, anti-goddists, may I ask, what constitutes these wars and other "atrocities" to "evil" status? If we merely exist by chance and will one day fade into nothingness (except we conquer space and mange to avoid being wiped out by aliens - the priest said we must do this), and if we are being driven to survive only by some indefinable force which has perchanced us evolving to sentient/conscious state, and if we are that which is destroying what said indefinable force has so haphazardly built, how can this derive a ethical/moral concept? After all, maybe the force that evolved us is trying to devolve us into these evil acts so that we wipe ourselves out, so that this indefinable force can get on with the business of building a meaningless universe....

Eh?

Interesting...it was not that long ago that Mr Hawking warned us about aliens!!...It's impossible that our planet...galaxies etc. just came together in a big bang...it takes a lot more to believe that than the existence of God.

So now all the theistic creationists come out of the woodwork and sprout the tired old arguments that have been refuted again and again.

I'm not even going to attempt to answer them all (and they're all answerable) as sometimes the answers are very simple. Instead try looking on here. It's very comprehensive and even has references and evidence. Something theists are always hesitant to provide.

Sometimes I feel as if visiting this era from the future when seeing billions groveling around praying to imaginary gods. It’s like tuning into a National Geographic documentary on primitive cultures that engaged in all kinds of crazy rites aiming for water or fertility.

We know where gods come from surely and that they are created in the images of nasty tribal patriarchs. The billions of us are too many for this little orb and yet the usual suspects, the religious, the terminally ignorant of reality, continue to churn our more litters of human animals.
They don’t seem to get that less is more.

Imitating and indoctrinating defenseless children into this or that tribal religious cult and following that up with faith schools means that too many wallow in fear of the unknown or that some imaginary CCTV watches their every move. Any cleric that declares knowledge of the gods or after life is lying and should be called out for that.

Dead bodies don’t resurrect and fly about, snakes don’t speak English nor does a burning bush.

Grow up people and quit contributing to primitive hysteria it demeans who you are.

I am protesting Ratzinger in London on September 18th objecting to that cult continuing to lie to kids.

Mr Hawking is very clever. One day he may be wise. Roll on.

Now let's just get this straight...

It is a fact that intelligent beings inhabit this universe - i.e. us. But apparently if any one of these intelligent beings dares to suggest that the existence of intelligence within the universe points to the existence of an ultimate intelligence as the first cause and foundation behind the universe, that person is derided as some kind of simpleton. Such a hypothesis is nonchalantly dismissed as preposterous - despite the fact that there is absolutely nothing illogical about it.

But those who deride the 'intelligence hypothesis' now inform us that the idea that 'nothing' can produce 'everything' has to be accepted as a far more plausible explanation, and if this explanation can be shored up in any way by any kind of concept - no matter how far-fetched - it must be accepted as 'the truth'.

If this is the way we are now supposed to think, then I reckon that I will have to embrace the book 'Alice in Wonderland' as my new guide in life. Clearly logic is now 'old hat'!!

Merely to say that "God is not necessary for the existence of the universe" - even if true (which I certainly don't accept, when we look at all aspects of life) - does not prove or even suggest that God does not exist. There is a vast logical gulf between a hypothesis and reality. But there seems to be a fallacy going round that "if we can come up with a naturalistic / materialistic explanation for something, then that undermines any other possible explanation" (let's call it the 'fallacy of materialistic preference'). But, of course, it does not do any such thing. First you would have to prove that naturalism as a philosophical presupposition is true. So we are then faced with the same circular argument that it is claimed theists use.

William Paley's watch analogy has been well and truly derided, but never actually debunked. If I could come up with an outlandish (though conceivably possible) explanation as to how a watch could be assembled without the input of intelligence, does that therefore categorically 'prove' that it could not have been designed by an intelligent being? Not at all. Such reasoning is absurd in the extreme.

To suggest that "if X is possible, therefore that proves X occurred" is ridiculous reasoning. One could apply exactly the same reasoning to the alternative hypothesis: Y. "If Y is possible, therefore that proves that Y occurred." Therefore we are faced with an absolute contradiction. I could turn Hawking's conclusion on its head: "If it is logically possible for an ultimate intelligence to have created the universe, then that proves that we don't need 'non-intelligence' as an explanation for the existence and design of the universe". That statement is just as logical as the opposite, and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong on that point.

If it is now 'proven' that ultimately 'non-intelligence creates complexity' and if we are to believe that it is absurd for 'intelligence to create complexity', then it would be good if naturalistic scientists had the integrity to apply this principle in their lives. Yet all the empirical evidence of our daily lives tells us that complexity relies on intelligence. Since the scientific method is based on empiricism, then the empirical method is all naturalists have to work with. Therefore they cannot logically deduce a conclusion which is the complete antithesis of everything we know and experience about our lives in this world (in other words, empirical evidence). Furthermore, science is pragmatic. And yet where is the pragmatic verification that proves that complexity (in particular the greatest complexity of all - that of life) must always derive from non-intelligence, and that the hypothesis of an intelligent cause (particularly an intelligent first cause) must always be regarded as nonsense?

If that last simple question can be answered, then I may be willing to listen to the likes of Hawking et al - and not before.

By the way... it doesn't suprise me that Hawking should condemn philosophy. All this suggests is that the atheists have lost the philosophical argument and haven't got the decency and intellectual integrity to admit it. Which is rather sad. If someone should reject a particular branch of philosophy - namely, epistemology - then he has no right to make any truth claims at all, since that is the study of the concept of 'truth' itself!

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

We know that there is such a thing as gravity – it is a "force" that can be measured.
We know that there is a universe – it can be seen, in part.
However the statement that "the universe can and will create itself from nothing" would seem to me to be a truly astonishing leap of faith in the dark as no man has been able to either measure it or observe it happening.

In contrast to this view the Bible repeatedly tells us that God created the universe. This been revealed by God. With all his brialliance, Stephen Hawking is not able to disprove this claim of Scripture using science. As a believer, my faith is not a leap in the dark, adopting of some weird notions, thought out by some simple people or even an intelligent person. I accept the Biblical account to be truthful as I believe it to be the revelation of the sovereign, all powerful, creator God. If it is indeed the revelation of God, my faith has the most reliable of foundations. Can the same be said of the views of Hawking and his followers who say, “the universe can and will create itself from nothing”?

LucyQ (@ 19)

"The billions of us are too many for this little orb and yet the usual suspects, the religious, the terminally ignorant of reality, continue to churn our more litters of human animals."

Thus speaketh a 'human animal' who, I am sure, is happy to be alive and therefore to be a pressure on the environment!!

By the way, Lucy, don't you find it just a tad strange that us nasty 'religious people' are often told how genocidal and murderous we are, because "religion has been the cause of innumerable wars" etc., while you are now telling us that 'religion' is a nasty influence in the world, not because of its destructive tendencies, but because of its creativity!!!

So we are damned if we create life, and we are damned if we destroy life.

Ah, but how silly of me! The same rule cannot possibly apply to those wonderful 'human animals' called atheists, can it?!

Logic, Lucy please. It's not that hard.

To quote Psalm 53 "The fool says in his heart there is no God"

I personally find it an extremely narrow view to rule out God who could have set the laws of physics in place before we had any idea about them. To discount God totally out of things is a brave step indeed. We exist and we create things. Is it asking too much that maybe God does exist and is capable of creating, if indeed He has made us in His own image.I do not think there will ever be a straightforward answer on this question, however the beauty of all I survey makes me gasp in absolute wonder. Science can explain the workings of nature very cleverly, but I feel in a very limited manner.

Just a few simple questions to all you theists you insist that 'if you only look within you'll find god' or 'the universe is far too complex to have been created without intelligence' or 'the bible tells me it's true'.

Provide me with proof of the existance of the gods, why your particular brand of god-worship is more real than any other of the multitude of gods available and then, finally, why do you all think you're qualified to comment on high level elementary physics?

LSV, you're at it again, just because you claim nothing can be proven as 'true', it doesn't detract from the evidence that naturalistic explanations work. We don't need a glorious supreme being to be there.

Arguments from increduilty, circular 'god exists because god says he exists', the bible, anecdotes and personal revelations are not evidence.

I'm very happy living my life to its fullest, knowing that everything I do benefits those to come after me. I don't pander for a mythical afterlife, I don't aim to please an invisible being and, unlike those who believe in gods, I don't feel the need to fluff up a fear of death and a dislike of a random universe by creating a more powerful being to save me.

I realise the danger in reading bits of a story, but at the moment I don't have much choice. Michael has picked up on one of the bits I also read, quoted in The Telegraph, quoting The Times: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing..." and I'm wondering, which bit of, "Because there is a law such as gravity", equates to, "nothing"?

What could be said about gravity? Gravity is only a funtion of mass (matter)and as such to say that gravity is the cause of the universe suggest that Hawkins does not understand physics.

One may say that chaos caused the universe. The suggestion of chaos has no place in a cosmos that is approaching infinitum.

Questions.
1) What supports or controls gravity? Consciousness. To assume it is bodies rotating around each other one has to question what sustains the make up of the bodies (gravity), what support the atoms rotations (gravity), what support the consciousness that ahears atoms into space. Yes consciousness

2) In antigravity is there still consciousness? Yes. So consciousness is higher than what was before universe.

Why doesn't Natman prove there is no God instead of asking for proof that there isn't one....at least I'm glad he still wants proof...whether he's serious enough...I don't know.

Natman (@ 25)

"Provide me with proof of the existance of the gods, why your particular brand of god-worship is more real than any other of the multitude of gods available and then, finally, why do you all think you're qualified to comment on high level elementary physics?"

Unless you hadn't noticed I am simply arguing between two positions: 'philosophical materialism', on the one hand, and 'a belief in an intelligent universe', on the other. If you want to discuss theology - in other words, which particular understanding of 'an intelligent cause' we should believe - then I am happy to do that. But what's the point, given that you are a supposed sceptic (I say 'supposed', because you clearly refuse to be sceptical about the claims of 'philosophical materialism'!)?

Now you exalt the claims of "high level elementary physics" above any other discipline. Care to provide irrefutable proof that physics should be exalted to this position? It is very true that I am not a physicist, but then again I am sure that Stephen Hawking is not an expert in every discipline within human knowledge. What gives him the right to set up his discipline as the basis by which we are to understand the whole of reality, especially when he is willing to rubbish other people's expertise, such as that of philosophers? In fact, the idea of positioning physics as the source of our understanding of the entirety of reality, is a philosophical and not a scientific question. The scientific method relies on a method of thinking, which can only be understood with recourse to philosophy. Studying the law of gravity, for example, will not tell us anything about whether there is any meaning to life or not, nor will it tell us why this universe is comprehensible. Hawking employs logic in asserting his views. But why is logic itself valid? That is a philosophical question (and it is a question the materialists need to answer within their own philosophy, if they are to make any valid truth claims).

Your attitude is an example of the sheer arrogance of scientific (or, to be more accurate, scientistic) elitism. Whenever you can't answer an argument you just hide behind: "You're not qualified enough to say that". But you fail to provide any evidence to support that view. You are clearly not a freethinker at all. In fact, your authoritarian approach to knowledge is little different from the pre-enlightenment dogmatism that people like you claim to be waging a war against. And you seem to have your own 'holy writ', namely 'peer reviewed scientific papers'. I dread to think what would happen to you when scientists change their minds about something (which is an inherent part of the scientific process)!

If you seriously think that the idea that "something can arise from nothing" is somehow a more logical explanation than the idea that the complexity of the universe has an intelligent first cause, then I feel sorry for you. I am providing logical evidence for the acceptability of the view that there is an intelligence behind this universe. There is nothing illogical about that explanation - and I challenge you - or anyone else - to prove to me that it is illogical. The fact that Stephen Hawking can study (with his intelligence) a comprehensible universe, and that he can discern ordered and consistent laws within it, bears testimony to this interpretation of reality. If the basis of reality is non-intelligence, then we are living in a universe which we would not be able to study, since it would be incomprehensible. Why? Because non-intelligence cannot cause intelligence, since non-intelligence is inferior to and destructive of intelligence. An effect cannot rise above its cause (I don't think you will find many principles more empirical than that!).

At the risk of sounding like a simple questioning child, can I ask those who insist that a God is necessary for the creation of the Universe "Who created God" or "Where did he come from". If the answer is "God does not require a creator" can they logically explain why a entity called God does not need a creation but the Universe supposedly does.

We have covered this in the NN blog before. It is an Omega Point question. The answer lies not in the past but the future.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point

Celtic

rochcarlie

If you accept the idea that the Universe may not need a creator, you already accept the concept, 'self-existent'; so the/a question is not, is 'self-existence' possible, but to what do we apply it. In other words, what is the self-existent 'something' and what implications follow from what we think it is.

rochcarlie (@ 31)

"...can I ask those who insist that a God is necessary for the creation of the Universe "Who created God" or "Where did he come from". If the answer is "God does not require a creator" can they logically explain why a entity called God does not need a creation but the Universe supposedly does."

Let's suppose that God needed a creator. Then we need to ask who or what created the creator of God. And then of course we need to ask who or what created the creator of the creator of God. And so we go back ad infinitum.

Either we imagine that there is an infinite regresssion (and if so, how can we conceive of something without a beginning?), or we accept that at some point there was a first cause. Please note that this is true irrespective of whichever world view we adopt. Even the most nihilistic atheist has to face this problem. That ultimate 'first cause' could therefore be called 'God', and so this brings us back to the beginning of the question.

Of course, there is one type of person who does not need to face this question. That is the person who does not believe in the idea of 'cause and effect'. If there are those who deny the reality of 'cause and effect', then I trust that they will not be so foolish as to try to make any references to science, which, of course, relies on 'cause and effect'.

One other thing... your question about "who created God?" also presupposes that God (or 'the ultimate first cause') is subject to time. But is 'time' absolute? If so, then time must never have had a beginning. Can you conceive of such a thing? And if 'time' did have a beginning, and therefore there was no reality 'before' time, since the idea of 'before the beginning of time' is meaningless and beyond our comprehension, then we come back to the idea of an uncreated 'ultimate first cause'.

Now, if some of the atheists want to use the "Who created God?" argument against theism, I reiterate that this problem of the need for an 'ultimate first cause' is as much a problem for their world view as for the theist's. So we are all 'in the same boat' on this question.

As for the universe being its own 'first cause', that depends on the nature of the universe. We see a system of cause and effect, and also a system subject to entropy. These therefore indicate that the universe is dependent on something else, which is not subject to cause and effect and entropy. Therefore it is entirely logical for theists to talk about an uncreated 'ultimate and self-sufficient intelligence' being the first cause of the universe, including time itself.

The M theory states the universe was able to spontaneously create itself without any divine intervention. Yet, the way we use the word God and divine seems to be narrowly focused, like a character from a childrens book. The fact that there is gravity, as a consequence of the big bang , doesn't (to me ) negate the role of a god or devine being earlier on in the process. To make an analogy -If gravity was an ingredient in a recipe, then the cook doesnt necessarily have to intervene when its already in the oven, cooking away. If all the building blocks/ingredients for what exists were in the big bang, maybe it didnt need any further intervention.

A different approach to Natman's comments (#25):

Take a close look at what different people down the ages have believed about their multitude of gods. They bear a striking resemblance to people - not only displaying or reflecting all their human foibles but all their worst characteristics and excesses. Could this perhaps be because they are gods created in man's image? Worshipping and putting one's trust in any of these is indeed as laughable as believing that the characters in Terry Pratchett's novels really exist.

If one compares these beliefs with the way the Bible describes the Creator God and how he has dealt with people down the ages (over a thousand years from the first books of the Bible till the last were written), God bears no resemblance to these. He is totally different from the gods of the nations and most certainly not a deity people can manipulate and get to do their bidding. By lumping together all beliefs in some or other deity, Natman and others can conveniently find a good excuse to avoid giving the message of the Bible a fair hearing. A careful reading will, however, not be a wasteful exercise. At the very least, while it may not convince the reader, it will force him to think and hopefully to go beyond the ignorance and dishonesty of many critics.

I'm not quite sure I see the point in what Dr. Hawking was said. Whether or not the universe requires a deity bring it into existence isn't terribly relevant to most religions, particularly to Christianity. The core of Christianity isn't some proposition that 'the universe required God to bring it into existence.' The core of Christianity is the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Dr. Hawking may be fitting the final nail in the coffin of the 'God of the Gaps,' but outside of caricatures, I'm not sure how any followers that particular deity has.

LSV,

Scientists are willing to accept alterations to theories readily (or at least they should), this is what marks it apart from religion. I am also perpared to alter my perceptions based on new evidence. Something religion has failed to provide in the entire history of the human race.

You ask me to prove that having an intelligent cause behind the universe is illogical. Well, a tough order. However, given the universe apparently doesn't need one, then why bother having one at all? The onus is on you, trying to insert a new variable, to provide evidence that it should be included.

You accuse me of hiding behind 'you're not qualified' when I can't answer a question. Unlike you, and unlike many other theists, I'm not prepared to debate topics that are beyond my ken. Physics of this level, and I also include evolutionary biology in this bracket, are subjects that, if you want to pass judgement on them, you should put in the mantime to learn it. Then, perhaps, you can claim that your ideas are on the par with those put forwards by the likes of Hawking and his ilk.

LSV
You use the words "beyond our comprehension". I agree that what happened before or outwith the Big Bang is incomprehensible, and am comfortable with that. I do not have a need to fill that void in my knowledge with a invented God of some description. You may find slotting in a God more satisfying, but there is no evidence for any of them.

So somebody else is trying to deny that God created the universe. I may just be a plain working class bloke originally from the Newtownards Road in Belfast, but as far as I'm concerned I believe what is written in the book of Genesis where it says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". In the book of Psalms we also read "The heavens declare the glory of the Lord". That is good enough for me. For years people have been trying to prove that God didn't create the universe and there is no such a being as a God. They may produce "evidence" to try annd back up their theory (it would only be a theory), but I believe in facts. The facts are as follows: 1 THERE IS A GOD & 2 HE IS AUTHOR AND FINISHER OF CREATION. Jesus (who is God incarnet in Revelation says " I am the Alpha & Omega, the beginning and the end, the 1st and the last.

The more that these people claim that they can prove that God didn't create the universe, deeper that my faith in God grows. The only thing that would be of concern to me would that ordinary people would believe these people and be lost in eternity because the deny the existance of a God. That's why I believe that all of our churches keep proclaiming the gospel that there is a God who made this universe and everybody can know this God by believing that jesus Christ is Lord.

Tullycarnetbertie,

As far as your concerned doesn't seem to be very far at all.

Why is your god more plausible than any of the others on offer?
You cannot get 'facts' from the bible, it's self-referencing.
God cannot be disproven, but it's fairly well established in the real world that he's not necessary.

Have fun in your delusion.

I see a theory of everything as a theory of nothing. As the theory becomes more and more abstract, it leaves out more and more. In order to explain the real world, a theory of emergence is then required,see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

At most, physics tells us how to do things. It's mathematical recipe making that has to be unraveled to actually do something. There are several views on the philosophy of science and Hawking takes the simplest: that data is data. He forgets that data is theory-laden.

As for a God, or gods, sometimes we have a sense of wonder or awe so that we feel there must be a creator. No scientific theories can remove that.

Natman (@ 38)

"Scientists are willing to accept alterations to theories readily (or at least they should), this is what marks it apart from religion. I am also perpared to alter my perceptions based on new evidence. Something religion has failed to provide in the entire history of the human race."

Oh, so you admit that what is proclaimed as 'authoritative fact' one minute may be proven to be false the next. Can I therefore take it that your current pronouncements about the nature of reality could be wrong?

I have no problem with the idea of scientific theories being held tentatively. That is, after all, the nature of a theory. But you cannot dogmatically claim that a scientific theory can be used to rubbish other people's beliefs if it is merely a theory, and therefore only tentative.

You are incredibly ignorant about the history of religious thought. It is simply not true that theists are not prepared to consider alterations or adjustments to their viewpoints. In fact, there have been many reform movements in the church throughout the centuries, but I don't expect you would have the decency to acknowledge such a thing.

I think I just have to accept that you are simply prejudiced. You ask for proof, and I have put forward many logical arguments to support my belief in an intelligent creator. You seem intent on insulting the idea and rubbishing the whole concept, and then, like a broken record keep asking for 'proof' without engaging with the arguments - or rather you simply say that anyone who challenges your viewpoint is "not qualified" to have an opinion. In fact, I am not sure what evidence you are demanding or what evidence would ever convince you anyway.

Like I said, you are neither a freethinker nor a sceptic, but a devoted believer in fundamentalist materialistic scientism, which is simply a belief system no different from any religion. You have your 'priesthood' (atheistic scientists), your 'sacred scriptures' (the theories of said scientists) and your judgmentalism towards those whom you consider 'heretics'. You consider your 'religion' to be the guardian of righteousness (see your comment here about what nice people atheists are), and those who are 'outside' are condemned as evil (see your comment here about how vile 'religious' people are).

When I analyse what you have written it is clear to me that you are, in fact, simply another kind of 'religious fundamentalist' (albeit of the inverted kind).

i would love to know hawkins views on the spiritural world does he believe it does not excist or maybe he believes its down to science.

Natman: because the kingdom of God is within - then funny enough you do have to look/go there to come to know God. Then you will know for yourself, and not because anyone is telling you or preaching to you, that God does not require to be worshipped, that there is only one God (the many names are just different cultures and traditions attempting to explain/understand God - albeit sometimes quite badly and incorrectly) and that God is love and that that love is your true nature. Simple eh?
The problem is most people are driven by the intelligence of the mind rather than the wisdom of the heart - and Hawking exemplifies this - intelligent yes, but not alot of love going on....given that the body speaks truth. God cannot be known through the mind, through intelligence - something that mind driven intelligent people do not like to hear. THe mind can learn about God, can deny God, can argue about God and regurgitate what it has been told about God in church or in the bible or elsewhere - but it CANNOT know God. God is love and only by love can God be known - that is my understanding and it has been my experience also. So Hawking can write book after book and claim whatever he likes with as many rules and laws as he likes - it doesn't change a thing re God- only affirms his own lovelessness. Dawkins is similar - mind driven anger on legs. To know God requires people to make a wee journey from their head to their heart - whilst it seems like a short trip many of us take ages to get there - taking all sorts of circuitous routes and bypasses!

It is well documented that matters of a religious nature cannot be proved or disproved scientifically. They are matters of faith and conviction. Stephen Hawking knows this very well, and so I am surprised that he should even consider postulating such a statement. The current National Curriculum GCSE Science specification encourages discussion and debate in the classroom, with a view to giving the general public now only an “understanding” of “How Science Works”, but a confidence to question conclusions scientists make. Lessons in particular are designed to get pupils to ask questions such as “Where is the proof?”, “How reliable is the data?”; “How valid are the conclusions?” etc. Indeed, an AQA Physics examination paper set in January 2010 asked a question as to why science could not answer questions such as why the Big Bang occurred or what was there before the Big Bang, for which the suggested answer was that it “was a matter of (religious) belief”. I guess that the book contains “logical” arguments and not “scientific proof” for the learned professor’s attestation. However, as every schoolboy who has been in my Physics lessons in recent years knows, one needs more than just opinion and bias in order to reach meaningful conclusions. However, now that this eminent gentleman has made the statement, no doubt many gullible members of the public will swallow it hook line and sinker without question, and probably without even reading the book.

So who made Pi? God is not necessary; medieval theology fails. But even then, the god of the bible DOES behave like just another tribal deity. Just another magic space pixie. So why do people cling to such pixies with the charming and adorable vehemence we see on this thread? It's the crutch effect I suppose; TCB's "I believe it so boo sucks" response is at least honest, if childish.

Many Christians have now put away childish things and are now Christian Atheists. Even if they don't know it yet...

#46 Eunice

The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

https://www.mindfully.org/Tao-Te-Ching-Lao-tzu.htm

Our problem is religion, perhaps not whether god is there or not.. but religion comes with god isnt it?. we are killing each other for centuries in the name of religion. what does true Christin thinks about Muslim, what does true muslim think about Christin... ask yourself you know the answer isnt?. do you think this is what GOD wants it?

Faith is a beautiful concept, it helps you to be a human, but when we cant be a human, we have to rethink about God, religion and faith.

Generally people are sacred of Death, it is all fabricated to keep you on the track, which is good, but whether it helps you it is up-to the individual

Be Good doesn't matter whether you believe in God or you are a muslim or a christian or hindu..

The stronger the assertion that there is an intelligent, living agent upon whose activity everything depends for its existence the more ridiculous it sounds.

Any of you guys watch the Big Bang Theory? Pretty funny. Sheldon's mother is a creationist.

Eunice - you are losing nothing of your power to horrify me!

You say "Hawking exemplifies this - intelligent yes, but not alot of love going on....given that the body speaks truth". You can call this vitriol if you like but that is quite the foulest thing I have ever read on this blog. Do you really look at, say, a child with cerebral palsy and think 'that is a loveless soul'? If you don't think it, then why do you say the things you do?

Will, absolutely, but that is of course the very essence of "unnecessary". But if such a god or triceratops or sausage machine "existed" in some indefinable and unverifiable sense, should we care, and would that not make religion irrelevant anyway? Maybe god wants us to be atheists.

William - # 53

This is more or less what I think. I am not sure what it means to speak of God as existing but I am convinced of His reality. I do not see any reason to posit a creator and lots of reasons to think there isn't one. God can take comfort from the fact that even when the last gap is plugged He can still inhabit the void.

I recently saw the Cross Purposes exhibition, a collection of twentieth century images of the crucifixion displayed in a Jewish museum. (I will review the excellent catalogue in the Book thread when I get time). It shows the extraordinary power of events which happened two thousand years ago. It shows that there is more to the experience of life, more to the meaning of humanity, than science can explain. As a Christian, for me it is the cross which nails a ganz andere God to the physical universe.

Maybe Blu-tac would have been better? ;-)

Helio - Blu-tac is encompassed. ;-)

BTW, I wonder whether the plethora of moaning theominnies that Stephen Hawking has (predictably) flushed out with this statement of the rather obvious are rending their raiment over the conclusions he draws, or his temerity in even addressing the issue. Yeah, "people of faith" can scurry like mice into their theological skirting boards, but it's not as if they have any hood arguments, just whingeing about epistemics. Far from being brash, Hawking's announcement of the death of philosophy seems poignantly spot-on.

Would Ireland be in such terrible social shape if the people had brave up to send the priests packing along with the snakes?

I read with interest the comments made here. I am agnostic, much to the consternation of Mr Dawkins. Having studied for a degree in Physics I then went on to develop some basic theories of my own that I postulated to my tutors and peers. These theories contradict present thinking about the universe in parts (I do not, for instance, believe the universe was created in a big bang). I never believed until the point of presenting my theories to my peers that science was dogmatic. I much rather preferred the view that has been alluded to directly and indirectly in this blog that science is the noble, unbiased pursuit of absolute truth. This simply isn’t true. As religion comes in many ‘flavours’, so too does science. It might be asked of the faithful ‘which god do you believe in?’, so too it can be asked of science ‘which theory do you believe in?’

I myself have observed two contradictory mathematical solutions supporting theory. It becomes a matter of personal choice, then, which one is adopted in the mindset – or perhaps the choice is not so much personal, as an inherited one, much like one’s parents religion.

How many students of science here can say their understanding of the universe was in any way cultivated by their own mind, rather than their experience of learning at some institution? You may feel that an elegant mathematical solution somehow infers a truth about the universe, but this is an illusion. There exist other solutions equally valid, but not widely accepted. The reason these alternatives are ignored is not because of the invalidity of the conclusions they draw, rather it is because the students who believe in these particular theories have often devoted their entire careers in the pursuit of some other ‘truth’. It has become their god.

I accept that my own theories, whilst mathematically correct, may not describe the absolute truth of the universe any more than the next persons. Isn’t this the same argument used against religious folk and the many gods that they collectively worship? And is it not the same obstacle that will forever forbid us from knowing the real truth – whether we profess to be people of science, or people of god?

Only a fraction of us study physics or have any comprehension of that branch of science.

If you have some time & the high speed web here is a fantastic lecture by physicist Lawrence Krauss on the subject of being from nothing:

A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009

https://richarddawkins.net/videos/4490-39-a-universe-from-nothing-39-by-lawrence-krauss-aai-2009

Krauss eloquently explains science, something that is exquisite.

People are tribal. Once they have made their choice as to where they stand on an issue, it is often nigh-on impossible to shift them from their adopted positions. However, that is not to devalue debate; in this instance, I too have chosen my position and will make my argument accordingly. I will defend my position robustly, and I admit to the suspicion that I will not be subjected to any successful counter-arguments, developed over many years discussing this issue with anyone willing to draw their intellectual duelling pistols. However, I also believe that, given an irrefutable rebuttal of my position, I would have the grace to back down and accept defeat. So do, if you oppose my viewpoint, try your best to refute me. Only by fierce debate can the sword of wit be sharpened, so go ahead!

I thought I'd summarise the article in my own words, followed by a rebuttal of its main points.

Don't worry, Hawking has not disproven God. People find God personally necessary to them, regardless of how necessary God is to the universe's origins and existence. The need for an existential explanation is still justification for belief in God. There are too many areas of human ignorance to comfortably dismiss the idea of God out of hand, and it is in these areas of ignorant possibility that the idea of God still dwells, existence still just as certain to those people of faith.

Here, now, is my rebuttal of the article.

Hawking shouldn't have to prove that God doesn't exist. In logic, the burden of proof lies with those making an assertion. An atheist is not someone who believes there is no God, but a person who DOES NOT believe in God. Belief in nothing is different from lack of belief. Atheists are not necessarily nihilists, contrary to what the religious might try to suggest.

The importance of this distinction is illustrated by Dawkins' Flying Spaghetti monster. If I asserted that there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster orbiting our sun in our Solar System, any sensible person would suggest that I'd invented the idea.

Is there any justification in my believing the existence of the Monster to be true? Well, I might suggest that it has a bearing on my ethics, or say that I enjoy the community I feel with fellow believers, but I would be incapable of using the concept of the truth to give weight to my argument.

In this case, the Monster being so difficult, if not impossible to disprove, the truth in its pure form cannot be sought at all because the definitive data cannot be obtained. Given the truth's out of reach status, we must make a judgement on which is likely to be true and which false.

There is an overwhelming lack of evidence for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and in favour of its existence, there is only my word, which is only as useful as hearsay, and the difficulty which lies in disproving the Monster's existence.

Have I converted anyone to believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? No. Is the evidence for God's existence any stronger than that which I have laid out for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? No. Albeit the "evidence" those with faith bring forth is much larger in volume, due to the long history of religion and aided by religion's near thousand-year monopoly on education in Europe, ultimately none of it is any more definitive.

To prove God's non-existence is unnecessary when the evidence for its existence is, as the evidence put forth for God's existence is, impossible to substatiate, completely reliant on subjectivity and so lacking in factual support as to render it unfit for the rhetorical purpose to which it has been put.

There is no reason I should believe in the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and the burden of proving its existence lies with those who do claim to believe in it. The same principle holds true for God. Believers MUST suffer the burden of proof, and I believe that no respect should be given to beliefs which fail to carry this burden and which avoid or criticise the accumulation of knowledge necessary for proof or disproof to occur.

Conversely, an Atheist actually has no case to answer. (S)He is defined only by a lack of belief in God, and so the Atheist makes no assertion, but rather a lack of one. A lack of assertion cannot be proven or disproven; there is no assertion to assess!

Atheism propagates no hierarchical structure in support of its tenet; its ideas and the culture of those who define themselves as such are based not on power and mass influence, but on evidence and the intellectual discussion of the value and reliability of evidence using logic, rhetoric, physics, mathematics etc.

In this case, Hawking has stated that the idea of God is not necessary for the beginning of the universe to have occurred in the way that his theories suggest. This has created a religious furore, and it is the religious furore which created this discussion; Will Crawley is not a science blogger. As an Atheist, I would be quite content to stay out of the debate, because I don't feel teaching the ignorant to think critically and be skeptical of what they are told just for its own sake is the best use of my limited time alive.

However, unlike atheism, religion, using widespread belief in God as the basis for its authority, DOES propagate hierarchical structure, and religions wield enormous power and influence that depend on people to retain faith in the God they have been taught to worship and fear in order to continue to wield that power and influence. This to me is a form of intellectual tyranny, and it disgusts me to the point that it motivates me to make my arguments time and time again in the face of ignorance.

Tyranny is the greatest evil we know as a species, and when its continuance is justified by such flimsy ideas, demonstrating the ideas on which their power is based are intellectually hollow is, I believe, a noble and honourable thing to contribute to humanity.

As much as theists and religious officialdom of all kinds want to argue to the contrary, god(s) and religion primarily stem from and are intended to manipulate fear and control of populations. There is no logic whatsoever in explaining what simply "is" by magic, mystical, preternatural suppositions and fantasies. We can be curious about the nature of reality, existence etc. But curiosity that spawns religious hypotheses, giving rise to "beliefs," is in no way a proof. That reality exists is its own proof. That the nature of reality can be tested, quantified, parameterized and extrapolated, and that the extrapolations can and have been testable and tested by science is fact. That the stories and philosophical meanderings of the thousands of humankind's belief systems regarding spirituality and god(s) have never been testable, tested (and for the most part remain undocumented as having any real connection to reality vis a vis history) is what forever positions religion and belief in god(s) to the territory of fantasy. Fantasies which, alas, because they have been the dominant control structures of human societies since recorded history (through fear), have been elevated to a level of respect and social/political correctness that have never been earned through evidence. The manifold evidence to the contrary regarding religions worthiness of respect and record of accuracy and even simple truth or ethics is so utterly overwhelming as to make the arguments laughable. God(s) are and have been the most convenient excuse for twisting of morality and justification of all manor of extortion, mayhem, murder and war throughout recorded history. Yet, it is the "nonbelievers" who the cowed "believers" of the world work assiduously day after day to condemn as fundamentally flawed humanity. A "believer" lecturing an objectivist about logic is like the proverbial lady of the night lecturing the world about chastity. Or politicians lecturing oneanother about truth. In a court of law society assembles evidence. The most common cause for injustice to prevail in the courts is when a jury is swayed by belief or emotion to ignore evidence. What an enormous waste of time, intellect, energy and treasure to devote lives and nations to denying the simple reality of existence. Truly sad.

Peckleton, I'll bite. What are your theories? Have you a link? You are aware that new theories are supposed to face tough challenges - the good ones get through; the dross fails.

A little boy looked up at his father and asked "Before scientists invented the law of gravity did people go flying off into space?".
"No,son. God made the physical laws and uses them to operate the universe. He gives scientists the ability to understand how some of those laws work and hopefully they use that knowledge for the good of all of us."
True scientists demand that the premise that they are using is proved to bring about the effect they predict EVERY TIME the conditions are met. If the premise meets this test it can be considered a scintific law.

Parrhasios: No soul is loveless in my view - incl those of Hawking and Dawkins - both of whom, along with EVERYONE else have a soul that is pure love....thing is we live as if we are separated or disconnected from this love and thus make loveless choices. It is my understanding that part of our human journey is to embody the soul, embody the love and light of God that we may also express it. The body is a marker of Truth - it lives all our experiences and reveals all our choices - so our lovelessness or our separation from love is manifested in many ways including illness and disease and this can be through consequences of choices over lifetimes not just this one - as previously mentioned elsewhere. Again, this is not about blame but empowerment. If people know that lovelessness is the root cause of their condition they can be empowered to make different choices, healing, loving choices - even if the body is beyond repair and prepare for death in a way that is healing and will be of benefit in their next lifetime on earth. It is a much bigger subject than I can cover here.

Hawking is putting out information that many people will accept as true and take them further away from God, from love and they will then suffer the consequences of that lovelessness. He is using mind driven intelligence to deny God - which is easy, anybody can do that but it is harming and promotes further separation from love - both for him and others. Given the harm that he is causing by leading people away from God, from Love - I was pointing out that whilst he is recognised to be very intelligent this does not help when it comes to knowing God - as God is love and only by love can God be known. To embody that love is to live with joy and vitality.

You may not like it but the body speaks Truth more than the words that come out of our mouths. I understand your reaction to what I have said - and agree that without full understanding it may seem harsh but what if it is true???? What if it is our own lovelessness that results in human suffering, illness and disease???? Would it not be appropriate and loving to inform people that it is our lack of love that causes our suffering - rather than keep them blind to that and perpetuate the suffering by pretending these things 'just happen' for no reason??? If you knew that lovelessness was the source of human suffering would you not want people to know that so that they can at least make an informed choice about whether they continue in loveless ways or can be empowered to choose differently if they so wish???? This is not about 'beliefs' that have no relevance in daily life - but choices that have real tangible effects on people's day to day living and experiences.

It has to be said that in my understanding this is just part of the human condition - we all make loveless choices and suffer the consequences of those choices because we are ignorant that our true nature IS love and NOTHING can harm that love - no illness, no disease, no suffering. PArt of the healing journey is assisting people to re-connect to their true essence of love that they may know this for themselves and make choices accordingly. So it is not about blaming or criticising people for those choices (unless of course their name is Hawking or Dawkins and they are perpetuating the lovelessness amongst humanity!!!!! ;-)) My comments are prompted by my love of humanity who are being deceived and led astray by people who are love lacking, mind driven and exacerbating the lovelessness and suffering on the planet. My comments re Hawking are based on the understanding of the human person energetically and are energetically true (as I understand/know them) rather than just personal judgments. In the absence of love, evil can work through man (evil being that which promotes separation from love) and I endeavour not to support that which is evil. That said his essence, like everyone else's in my view is love.
I too am on a learning journey of course and I endeavour to be congruent in how I express and what for me is true re love - but I make mistakes, react to things and am certainly not perfect!! (and its not about perfection anyway). It is easier to write about love and the understandings of love than to live them or express them in every moment of every day due to patterns and ways of being that have been acquired that are loveless. I endeavour to live what for me is true and it takes lots of practice!! This is all part of the human journey as I see it - undoing that which we are not to reveal that which we are = love.

So in the beginning at some point in time whatever time is.... a seemingly random assortment of atoms, electrons and matter clumped together and formed one way or another dinosaurs, humans, strawberries, roses, golden eagles, antelopes, whales, apples, oranges, bumblebees,....... bravo, bravo, bravo, encore, encore. To me if even one product on this earth came to be , i.e. a rose, without any of us or any other life it would be amazing enough but the earth teems with life and we are, to quote someone I read, " a revolving freak show of a planet ".I still do not have it in my heart to rule out someone or something greater than I possibly, just possibly having a hand in it ! The mind boggles but my heart sees Christ crucified and that has changed my life. Respect to all you physicists and scientists, I am not doubting your discoveries and intelligence.

Bfcreation

You write, “So in the beginning at some point in time whatever time is.... a seemingly random assortment of atoms, electrons and matter clumped together and formed one way or another dinosaurs, humans, strawberries, roses, golden eagles, antelopes, whales, apples, oranges, bumblebees,.......”

That does not appear to be what is being said. One of the quotes is, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing.”

Now if that is the case, then nothing must mean, nothing. It can’t mean, something: not atoms, not electrons, not energy, not any kind of something, because something is not nothing.

If the reason there is something rather than nothing is that the something created itself from nothing then nothing really must mean nothing.

But, ‘nothing’, is not where Christians begin.

It has been mentioned that the bible is self-referencing. So is the widely accepted model of the origin of the universe – that it ‘created itself’ in a big bang. Creationists believe that god created the universe and lit the metaphorical blue touch paper, whereas the scientific community prefer the latter model. Why not neither? It would avoid the infinite regress of who created who (or what) down the line if we accept that the universe has been around forever. It is a god of its own kind, then – certainly in terms of longevity, if nothing else.

The only likely way the universe could have existed for all eternity is if there is some as yet undiscovered mechanism enabling it to recycle itself – akin perhaps to Hoyle’s ‘creation fields’? His notion was rejected when it was observed that the universe was expanding and Hoyle could not explain the resultant redshifts satisfactorily. This is a shame, as they CAN be explained (and not by so called ‘tired light’ either) without the need for a big bang model of cosmology.

I mention this because in an infinite universe an infinite amount of things can happen, no matter how unlikely including the evolution of roses and humans – no god required. The counter argument to this being the old chestnut, why exist at all? I am of the opinion that it as odd to think that ‘nothing’ should exist (now, or at any ‘time’ in the past) as to believe that something MUST exist (one can imagine asking the rather odd question, ‘why doesn’t anything exist?’, if one could experience nothingness – and being equally stumped).

Also, is it true, as JustAnotherReader has suggested, that all scientific ideas and principles are both testable and tested? Anything within the grasp of human hands (almost) is and any reputable theory should, of course, be falsifiable to be considered scientific. This is generally assumed to mean that its mathematical principles can be refuted in some way. But what if the maths is right, yet the answer is fundamentally wrong?

Heliopolitan, I will dust off some of my notes if you are interested in my theory and provide you a link later. I am in software development these days and need to recollect some of my thinking!

Eunice, don't worry about Parrhaisos - I think he takes your cabbage far too seriously. I take some considerable pride in the fact that I have helped a lot of people move away from theism towards atheism, and I think Stephen Hawking has helped a lot of people make this transition too. It is too bad you seem to feel that his physical affliction is imposed on him by some karmic principle or god who is taking a petulant strop at being shown to be the fantasy of the decerebrate imposed by the manipulative. But that is your problem - not mine, Parrhaisos's or Stephen Hawking's. You seem to push a very strange viewpoint that "any god will do" - YHWH is as good as Ba'al or Thor in your view, as long as one doesn't commit the unforgivable heresy of throwing one's hands up and dispensing with the whole bally lot of 'em. Whether it's ludicrous fictions like mainstream Christianity or fraudulent waffle like "The Secret" doesn't really matter.

If you want to know what I truly *do* believe, it is that if Jesus the Nazarene were alive today, he would be an atheist too, and the people who would crucify him would be the Christians, helped along by the other "people of faith" of the other nutty cults we're unfortunate enough to have spawned on our little planet.

Peckleton, I hope you can explain it simply. Do you think Pi needed a creator?

Seanthenoisemaker...your perception of God is totally opposite to mine.
I am not subject to some tyrannical dictatorship....I don't live in fear...My life is all the better for having a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ.
Imagine if I came along and insulted your best friend...I wonder how you would feel?

Peckleton (@ 70) -

Thanks for your comments, which seem reasonable and fair-minded.

I would just like to comment on one point you made:

"I mention this because in an infinite universe an infinite amount of things can happen, no matter how unlikely including the evolution of roses and humans – no god required."

If an 'infinite amount of things' can happen in an infinite universe (or in an infinite number of universes, as some scientists theorise), then this cannot rule out the possibility of the existence of an infinite and supreme intelligence (which some of us may refer to as 'God'). If the concept of 'infinity' is the basis of reality, and if reality can produce intelligence and intelligent beings who are able to study a comprehensible universe, then it is absurd to rule out the possibility of the idea of 'infinity' also being applicable to the idea of 'intelligence'.

If we can have 'infinite space' and 'infinite time' in our 'infinite universe', then why not 'infinite intelligence'? That is hardly illogical.

Of course, we may decide that our 'infinite universe' or 'infinite set of universes' should preclude certain things, such as a 'supreme being'. The problem with that is that finite beings are saying: "everything is possible except certain things". But then you have to justify why certain things are possible and others not. It sounds to me like this is a case of 'having your cake and eating it too'. Either we posit the idea of infinity with the concomitant infinite possibilities, many of which must therefore lie outside the range of human understanding, or we abandon the idea of 'an infinite universe with infinite possibilities'.

The only basis by which I can conceive of human beings deciding what is possible and what is not possible in an infinite universe is through logic. But then we would have to prove that logic itself is valid. We would need to extend the validity of logic to the entirety of reality in order for logic to dictate what must and what must not exist. So therefore we would have to accept that an infinitely comprehensible universe is subject to the rules of logic. And this sounds suspiciously like a universe which is the product of an infinite intelligence (in other words, God) - an intelligence which pervades the whole of reality.

By contrast, an infinite universe which is not the result of a supreme and infinite intelligence, but is the result of non-intelligence (or even that mysterious thing called 'nothing') would not be bound by the rules of logic. Why should it be? Who's to say that it should be? Logic is something that flows from intelligence. It is not a characteristic of non-intelligence or of 'nothing'. And if this is what the universe is like, then we certainly have no right to dictate what can or cannot exist in such an illogical place. Our minds, being the product of such an illogical universe, would have no ability to decide what can and cannot exist, since there would be no basis by which we could ever decide what is true. We would be in an 'Alice in Wonderland' universe. Therefore anything can exist in such a universe, including God.

So whichever way you look at it (a logical or an illogical infinite universe), there is no way we can rule out God with this argument.

LSV, asking if logic is valid is a tautology, no? Is there any circumstance you can think of in which logic itself is INvalid?

Furthermore, you may be right that in an infinite universe we can't exclude an infinite being, but it is trivially provable that an infinite being does not necessarily have to *fill* an infinite universe, so even an infinite universe that contained a magic space pixie like YHWH can't be assumed to be everywhere. I think many theologians are simply lazy and slack in their use of the word "infinite".

Another VERY important point to make (for the benefit of some of the other posters) is that the explanation of the complexity of the biological world is NOT that in an infinite universe we would expect *somewhere* to see complexity. That would be wholly incorrect. The diversity and complexity of life is due to the process of evolution, and arises as a simple(!) consequence of the iterative reproduction and selection on a population of informational replicators. THAT is what explains roses and humans and ragworms and tuberculosis. Not sheer chance that "it had to happen somewhere".

[I would also point out that "the universe is intelligible, therefore it must have been produced by an intelligence" is simply fallacious, but that'll do for now].

Eunice:

To quote the opening piece of audio to one of the funniest movies I’ve seen this year, A Night At The Roxbury,

“WHAT IS LOVE?”

It seems a pertinent question to ask you, though I’m not particularly interested in how you choose to answer it. In fact, I can hazard a vague guess at the definition you attach to the word from the usage you have put it to.

Let us be clear. Love is an emotion. Emotions are simply chemical changes in the bloodstream which have different effects on the body. For example, fear induces sweaty palms, heightened senses and what is known as the fight or flight response. Love is an emotion in the same way as disgust, disappointment, pride or joy. It too has an effect on the body in physiological terms. It is both caused by and reinforced by affection and attachment. Some have compared it to hunger or thirst by labelling it a mammalian drive within us all, and yet others have used its hormonal effect on the body, which have been compared with the effects of amphetamines by researchers, to create wonderful pieces of art, or accomplish other great feats. As with other emotions, its effect is always subjective.

What love is not, however, is some kind of vague Jedi super power crossed with the spirit of God within us. The association that religion has made with love is a pragmatic one, not an existential one. Because the emotion of love is such a powerful one, and because its effects, when associated with the idea and belief in God, lead to a manifestation of affection, attachment and loyalty towards that God (in the same way we might feel towards a lover), love has always been a powerful tool for those who would keep the flame of belief alive for their own ends.

All priests have had to do having fanned the flames of love towards their chosen deity is to say that they have special knowledge of God and that they know exactly what an ordinary person must do to please said deity and assure himself a pleasant afterlife. Of course, for those who remain sceptical there is the spectre of a torturous afterlife, a wonderful stick to oppose the carrot of heaven. Love is a means to an end in this case, because it causes the subject experiencing it to become extremely vulnerable to suggestion.

Love is a wonderful thing, and at its most wonderful is probably the highest expression of joy we humans possess. Don’t sully its name by claiming it to be what it’s not.

Brian Thomas:

I did no such thing and I’ll thank you to take your accusation back. Aside from the fact that your “best friend” is someone who died many generations before you were even a twinkle in anybody’s eye, I made no personal attack on Jesus’ personality. I criticised (not insulted) YOU and people who share your beliefs. You never met the man, you have no kind of personal interaction with him, so you certainly don’t know the man in any kind of corporeal way, and I will feel free to credit both your imagination and indoctrination for any kind of personal relationship you may feel you have with Jesus.

In fact, when we take Jesus’ teachings on a philosophical level instead of offering the man blind worship, they actually make a lot more sense. I personally like to think that to love one’s neighbour as oneself, and to treat people as I would wish to be treated, that these are profound and elegant pillars of ethics and morality. I just happen to think that the writings describing the man have been hijacked to create religion, which by definition is dogmatic, tribal, authoritarian and hierarchical.

If you insulted my best friend, I would defend him to the hilt. If you offered him criticism however, I would listen, and if I agreed with the criticism, what kind of friend would I be to defend him from such valid claims? Surely, criticism is necessary for personal growth and should be embraced for its greater good despite the sting we feel when on the receiving end. It’s worth exposing yourself to.

Of course, criticising a dead man is futile. Criticising his teachings might be worthwhile, but that’s not what I was doing here. In fact, I was criticising the process of convincing people that this ordinary man, of whom we only have the vaguest historical record, was a god incarnate and that to worship him in the way taught to you is the one true path to salvation.

The Christians say that the greatest trick the devil played was convincing the world that he did not exist. If a man is deluded, surely by definition he would not be aware of his delusion? The insidiousness of the intellectual tyranny is, for me, illustrated by the fact that you cannot be made to see that you are in thrall to ideas which are propagated in order to maintain authority, keep the average person meek and accepting of such authority and thus keep the existing hierarchical structures of religion in place. I admire it in a kind of morally absent, Machiavellian sort of way.

LSV:

Logic is a reflection of the universe, a humanly-invented tool to help us to understand things like causality and reasoning a little better. Logic does not pre-date humanity. Logic does not lie behind the universe; it is an expression of OUR SUBJECTIVE understanding of the way it works, especially in relation to us as individuals and as a species.

Logic is a human invention; as you say, it flows from intelligence. Logic is not infallible. Neither can it be described as an attribute or characteristic. If the universe had been different, then logic would have been different. Logic comes from our understanding of the data we receive about the universe from our senses. THE UNIVERSE PREDATES LOGIC, and as such logic itself is only understandable as a product of human thought. Your theory, that logic is what God used to create the universe and our that understanding of it is a part of how we understand God REQUIRES a pre-existing belief in God to accept. The question of God's existence is always the cutting edge of an argument like this, and religious teachings are always built upon a foundation of circular logic: God must exist, I believe in him; I believe in God because he exists. When this belief, formed despite the complete lack of definitive supporting evidence, is challenged, the religious are praised by their leaders for the strength of their faith, rather than their criticised for their foolishness in refusing to accept an overwhelming criticism of the basis of said faith.

Infinity is an idea that humans happen to be able to conceive of in a limited sort of way, but I have yet to see it demonstrated in reality. My belief is that whether the universe is infinite or not has no relation to whether I should believe in God or not.

My opinion is that, were there to be a God of any kind, (s)he has left so little sign of presence behind as to leave the impression to me that it makes little or no difference to said God as to my beliefs on the subject.

For me, Pascal's Wager is made by an intellectual coward. If there is no particular reason to believe, other than circumstantial "evidence" which is presented in a way that is impossible to corroborate and impossibly subjective personal testimony (I like to call it hearsasy, or compare the validity of such testimonies to that of those people who whole-heartedly believe to have seen Elvis Presley alive and well), then there is no reason to accept such a wager. Not for someone who realises how far from the truth we as a species would veer if we subjected all of our beliefs about our reality to the same fearful process. It simply lacks courage and as such sacrifices truth upon the altar of a mental security blanket.

LSV: “Therefore anything can exist in such a universe, including God.” I accept this which is why I remain agnostic.

Heliopolitan: “The diversity and complexity of life is due to the process of evolution, and arises as a simple(!) consequence of the iterative reproduction and selection on a population of informational replicators.” This is correct. The process of evolution once started is simple (and, of course, is the correct explanation for the diversity and complexity of life on this planet in all its many forms), but the factors that conspired to create the fist spark of life and evoke the process, might be remote in the extreme.

Heliopolitan: “Do you think Pi needed a creator?” No. I personally think that some of the enigma surrounding Pi (and other constants) may be due to the choice of our mathematical method – which has recognised flaws and limitations [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]. I wonder if a mathematical framework could be conceived that removes the infinities that plague modern Physics?

Just a thought: If a photon A is emitted from one side of a star and at the same moment Photon B is emitted from the opposite side of the star, after travelling each for a year they will be two light years apart (one from another). From photon A’s point of view, Photon B rushed away at twice the speed of light (although this would not be observable). Moreover, if a heavier particle moved away from its twin at 49% the speed of light, which was moving away at the same velocity in the opposite direction, would an ‘observer’ on the first particle not report that the other particle was seen to be rushing away at 98% the speed of light? Yet no such velocity is actually recorded by either particle because the effect is merely ‘relative’. This simple concept I use to explain why the galaxies at the outer limits of the universe seem to be moving so rapidly away from us. The truth is, the universe is actually expanding INCREDIBLY slowly, but over the vast distances we measure using redshift, strange things can SEEM to be happening at the outer limits – things that are not actually happening at all. These gaps in our knowledge we have had to plug with ‘dark energy’ and the like.

So, science is filling gaps with theory that can neither be proved nor disproved, in much the same way that religion has been filling its own gaps of understanding with god.

Mention God and the atheists become wildly interested. They can spue out volumes of opinion why they believe that God is the equivalent of nothing. They do this while living in an environment that manifests complexity, beauty, order and design and sits within a vast host of other heavenly bodies beyond the comprehension of man. The Psalmist says in Psalm 19 v 1 "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handywork". The problem with atheists is their unwillingness to accept this as a standard of evidence unless they can bring it into their own created laboratories. However, the believing world has many people qualified in the sciences and who believe in God and can testify of having a God given spiritual experience.

Offering1:

Yes we do become wildly interested, in the same way that gay people become very interested in homophobia, or feminists in chauvinism. No we do not view God as the equivalent of nothing. We just don't believe that God has been demonstrated definitively to be responsible for the phenomena you describe. Given that we have much more mundane explanations for many of these events or attributes, Atheists believe the only evidence put forth for the existence of God is subjective, based on emotion rather than data, and therefore there is no need to indulge such blue-sky thinking until the burden of proof has been met.

The "problem" you have asserted that Atheists have is that we are more stringent in our assessment of the validity of evidence. The "evidence" you put forth is not Socratic, it is poetic. Your quote does not seek to prove or disprove anything. It simply invokes the idea of God as a poetic device, in order to exaggerate as much as possible the wonder and awe the poet feels regarding the natural world. The idea of God is a wonderful poetic device, but then, so is the idea of living happily ever after. That quality simply doesn't suffice to give it any validity as a hypothesis explaining the nature and history of the reality around us. For such a hypothesis to be a valid one, we need something more than the ability to arouse a strong emotional reaction. We need definitive, data based evidence. Until you provide said evidence, I will continue to deride your willingness to believe ideas that are not supported by this kind of evidence.

"However, the believing world has many people qualified in the sciences and who believe in God and can testify of having a God given spiritual experience."

Subjective hearsay, not empirical data. Having an extremely strong emotional and/or psychological reaction to an idea is not even close to demonstrating the idea to be a reflection of the truth regarding the reality we inhabit.

If you want to present the idea of God as a poetic concept which brings joy to your life, fine, I don't care how you live as long as I'm left alone.

But if you want to present the concept of God as a creation hypothesis, convince people that you are speaking the truth when in fact such a lack of definitive data renders the truth unreachable, and when you use this idea to encourage and propagate the kind of religious activity that has been observed in history, yes, I will get involved and I will destroy your arguments with my own beautifully crafted ones. I believe tyranny to be evil, and I believe that the continued religious indoctrination of people, coupled with the powerful hierarchies that religion forms, is purely an exercise of power and control, one that I despise the very nature of. I will not have any other motivation hinted at.

Seanthenosiemaker...I based my comments on your blanket statements..As for trying to imply that Jesus was a mere man and dead, still shows your your lack of understanding of my beliefs and therefore you are still being offensive. All you are offering are 'your' opinions...what I am defending is a my faith that I'm certain is true.
If you wish to believe there is no God that is up to you...that is your choice...It was my choice to place my trust is the resurrected Jesus.
All I know is that I have witnessed enough over the past 25 years to convince me even more that I made the right choice.

Offering1, that is a very disappointing and poorly thought-through response. Is that what you *really* think? Do you seriously think atheists are somehow blinded to the beauty and majesty of the universe? I have to say I take completely the opposite view - naive theism (apologies for the quasi-tautology) is what blinds us to the fascinating wonders of the universe; "goddidit" is a curiosity-stopper.

Peckleton, I'm going to have to take a wee bit of issue with you here - bear with me - this is important.

Just a thought: If a photon A is emitted from one side of a star and at the same moment Photon B is emitted from the opposite side of the star, after travelling each for a year they will be two light years apart (one from another).

Yes, from the star's reference frame.

From photon A’s point of view, Photon B rushed away at twice the speed of light (although this would not be observable).

No - it rushed away at the speed of light from A's POV, and similarly A rushed away at c from B's POV. Basic relativity - nothing to do with whether it was observable or not.

Moreover, if a heavier particle moved away from its twin at 49% the speed of light, which was moving away at the same velocity in the opposite direction, would an ‘observer’ on the first particle not report that the other particle was seen to be rushing away at 98% the speed of light?

No; not quite. This is all pretty straightforward to work out in relativity. Another question you could ponder would be if you have a particle K ejected from one side of the star travelling at 0.75c and one from the other side, L, at 0.75c. If you were riding on K, how fast would L appear to be receding?

Yet no such velocity is actually recorded by either particle because the effect is merely ‘relative’.

You are going to have to explain what you mean by that, because the foregoing suggests you are perhaps meaning something different from standard Special Relativity (which is what we can use to work these things out). Maybe I am misunderstanding your point - can you clarify?

This simple concept I use to explain why the galaxies at the outer limits of the universe seem to be moving so rapidly away from us. The truth is, the universe is actually expanding INCREDIBLY slowly, but over the vast distances we measure using redshift, strange things can SEEM to be happening at the outer limits – things that are not actually happening at all. These gaps in our knowledge we have had to plug with ‘dark energy’ and the like.

Again, I'm not sure from what you say that you are quite getting the standard cosmological picture. Yes, space itself is expanding very slowly, and this gives rise to colossal red-shifts that make it look like distant galaxies are receding at speeds they can't possibly "really" be receding at. This is not a problem for the standard model, and doesn'require dark energy or dark matter at this stage. Of course if you go on to ask *why* is space expanding, then dark energy becomes an "explanation" (ha!) we can invoke, but like yourself (I think) I find that a somewhat glib placeholder, and feel that a lot more meat needs to go on the bones; we need to understand more about how kinks in spacetime give rise to matter/energy. Matter and energy and spacetime (I feel) cannot be qualitatively different "things" - all are a manifestation of particular configurations of one basic "fabric", which is space itself (not space-*time*). But better cosmologists than me are scratching their heads over this. I like Max Tegmark's ideas, but am not sure I buy his entire package.

Cheers,
-H

Brian, like Sean, I have absolutely no evidence to support the strange contention that Jesus the Nazarene was anything other than just another human, and that he is not still as dead as a doornail. Sorry if you find that offensive, but there you are. Some people would claim to be offended if you told them Elvis is dead. Their emotional reaction says plenty about their mental status and nothing about the animatedness or not of the late Mr Presley. Ditto for Jesus or Octavian or Enoch or Conor MacLeod from the Clan MacLeod.

seanthenoisemaker (@ 76) -

"Logic is a reflection of the universe, a humanly-invented tool to help us to understand things like causality and reasoning a little better. Logic does not pre-date humanity. Logic does not lie behind the universe; it is an expression of OUR SUBJECTIVE understanding of the way it works, especially in relation to us as individuals and as a species.

Logic is a human invention; as you say, it flows from intelligence. Logic is not infallible. Neither can it be described as an attribute or characteristic. If the universe had been different, then logic would have been different." etc... etc...

If what you are saying is true, then give me one good reason why I should believe you? If logic is entirely subjective, then the statement that 'logic is entirely subjective' is also subjective, and therefore has no objective validity. It is a statement which reflects something to do with you (which is what the word 'subjective' means) and therefore I see no reason why you should expect anyone else to accept it! But then again, I suppose since your logic is subjective, you may decide (subjectively) that other people do have to accept it, since that is your subjective prerogative, since you have decided to operative subjectively.

In other words, we cannot have a conversation, and all possibility of knowledge collapses. We just shout at each other from our own subjective positions - or, dare I say, faith positions!!

So your critique of the concept of faith - and circular arguments - is shown to apply to you. I have demonstrated this to you by means of logic. But I don't expect you to accept this, since, for you, logic is subjective! So we are back to square one!

Is the concept of 'objectivity' also subjective? Since all logic is subjective, according to you, then even the 'law of identity' (a=a) has to be subjective, which means that we can have no objective knowledge of anything at all. In other words, your belief about logic leads ineluctably towards total solipsism and intellectual nihilism, where any statement you make has no meaning.

By the way... talking about circular arguments: you don't suppose that philosophical materialism could be based on a circular argument, do you? What is good for the goose (belief in God) is good for the gander (belief in any other philosophical position, including your belief in subjective logic!!!).

You cannot say that all logic - and knowledge which relies on the objective validity of logic - is subjective without contradicting yourself, since your belief that "all logic is subjective" is itself subjective. I know I am repeating myself, but this is such an important point that I have to ram it home to people who come out with these kinds of statements.

"Logic comes from our understanding of the data we receive about the universe from our senses."

So if 'logic' comes from our understanding of empirical data, then I take it that that 'understanding' is not itself subject to the rules of logic? How can it be, when it is the source of logic? And if that is so, then how can you refer to this thing as 'understanding', since the definition of what constitutes 'understanding' depends on the authority of logic, otherwise it cannot be called 'understanding'?

Furthermore, you seem to assume that we start with sense perception. But this is false. We start with ideas through which we can perceive the environment in which we live. If you don't accept this then imagine looking at, let's say, a door. When I look over at the door in my room where I am currently sitting, what do I see? I see a shape (in fact a series of shapes), I see a colour (or series of shades) and I see a mechanism, which has a purpose. Now, let's suppose I strip away from my visual experience of this door every conceivable idea, so that I am simply left with pure sense perception uncontaminated with any ideation. What would I then see? I have no concept of colour, since that is an idea. I have no concept of shape, since that is also an idea. I have no concept of up and down, of three dimensions, of space, of purpose, of utility. So what am I left with? The answer is: NOTHING.

I would have no consciousness whatsoever of this door, no matter how well my eyes were functioning. So therefore how can sense perception be the source of ideas?

There is also a further problem: you are assuming that empiricism is the basis of our knowledge of all that is true. I have made this point many times before on this blog, but I'll say it again. Empiricism is self-refuting. Why? Because the very idea that "all knowledge derives from sense perception" does not itself derive from sense perception. Therefore empiricism breaks its own fundamental rule, and is therefore self-contradictory.

But, of course, I am basing that argument on logic. But if logic itself is merely subjective, then I cannot say that and indeed I cannot say anything at all. And neither can you, which includes your criticism of theism!

Finally, you say that logic is a "humanly-invented tool". In other words, it is a characteristic of man, in the same way that the colour of a person's skin is a human characteristic. We would then have to ask whether logic possessed validity, if it is merely 'human', and therefore (according to your belief system) the product of natural selection. If this is so, then all human ideas arose in order to aid survival (although, in fact, even the teleology of survival is a concept read into natural selection, since there is no reason - materially speaking - why any mechanism would want to survive rather than be assembled for a moment and then disassembled again. These mechanisms are blind and brute, a bit like a chess programme which couldn't care less whether it won or lost a game - it only 'cares' about winning because of the programming put into it by an external intelligence. However, purely for the sake of argument, I will concede the point that naturally developed living mechanisms 'want to' survive). So if all ideas arose to aid survival, then the only validity any human idea has is utilitarian - whether it has some kind of usefulness. But usefulness is not the same as truth. In fact deceit can be extremely useful in certain contexts, and can certainly aid survival. So therefore ideas which are purely human cannot deliver what we term truth.

Therefore philosophical naturalists have no valid epistemology and therefore can make no truth claims at all. The moment we accept that there is such a thing as 'truth', we have to abandon naturalism, and accept that there is an objective intelligence behind the universe.

I don't expect you to agree with me, but your comments demanded a response. So there you have it.

Coming from a complete outsiders perspective- neither religious or atheist, theologian or scientist, it amazes me how both sides can be so vehemently fractious. Christianity, centuries ago, used to be supportive of science. It seems by delving into the minutiae of things where processes can be seen in action, it's deemed to be devoid of wonder and religion is said to have no place. The two camps shouldn't be so polarised. The very fact that anything exists at all ,that there was enough energy for a big bang etc should be enough to at least suggest that although we humanize God,( as if he's some big guy with a white beard & that his "son" is seen as some peoples "best friend" and can be felt inside)- the concept of god might just be the very energy that created the big bang and that god and the divine is in everything culminating from that .
I think what we all have to accept is human beings should be alot humbler in their approach, no one has a monopoly on the truth- but at least science has an inquiring mind to work out and understand our environment in a hands-on way- which in my view is a much healthier pursuit for the advancement of the human species and enlightement than the selfish face of religion and its subjugating power

Ryan, what you seem to be saying is that the concept of "god" is incoherent and not properly defined, and I would agree.

Brian Thomas:

HA! Allow me to state quite baldly that Jesus was just a man, and that if he did exist (he may well have, he may well have not), death, like every other man alive 2000 years ago, has most definitely found its inexorable way to the end of his life. If my saying this offends you, we have reached a standoff. Here's why.

It is incorrect to suggest that, if I do not agree with your position, I must therefore not understand it. I understand your absurd beliefs perfectly well; I was brought up dogmatically Catholic, and so ideas such as transsubstantiation, resurrection and eternal heaven are quite familiar to me, having been shared with me by people who have a much greater level of eloquence than you, not to mention at least a decent grasp of grammar. Ideas which, as I stated, are familiar to me, but that I share no belief in.

If this offends you, it amuses me that you expect to be taken seriously, or that your beliefs deserve respect. In fact, I think I'd like to accuse you of adopting an extremely partisan attitude, one which reminds me of nothing more strongly than it does fascism. If I disagree with your beliefs and offer perfectly reasonable and robust criticism of them, would you please offer some kind of explanation as to why you feel entitled to be offended? The only insult you have suffered is an indirect and not to mention self-inflicted one based on your awful reasoning and argument.

It seems to me that you are offended either by my criticism, in which case I submit that your inability to offer coherent argument in your defence is what really frustrates you, or you are offended by my "temerity." In the latter case, you really are a fascist, and a weak one at that. At least Hitler had decent rhetorical ability.

You're quite correct. When I venture to make an assertion, and I cannot be absolutely certain of the factual basis for my assertion, often I feel it appropriate to preface my assertion with the proviso that it is offered as only as an opinion for discussion.

When you offer your beliefs up as facts, don't be surprised if someone comes along and refutes them. That's the tricky thing about facts you see, they're subject to being proven or disproven. If at this point you feel offended, that's only natural, I'm being incredibly condescending. If only I wasn't forced to be by your willful misunderstanding of my previous posts!

H:

Goddidit as a curiosity stopper...that there is a triumph of rhetoric, because the truth of it cuts through the air with the purity of a struck bell. Beautiful.

Therefore philosophical naturalists have no valid epistemology and therefore can make no truth claims at all. The moment we accept that there is such a thing as 'truth', we have to abandon naturalism, and accept that there is an objective intelligence behind the universe.

That's a pretty bold assertion, there. You've tended to skate over your own philosophical positions in the past, and have been scornful when it was pointed out that there's a wealth of philosophising to be done over that one small word, truth.

But come on, give it your best shot. Justify the assertion.

Heliopolitan, before I offer more of my thoughts or responses, would I be correct in saying that if a particle Y moved away from particle Z at 0.51c and Z similarly moved simultaneously away from Y at 0.51c that if particle Z (could somehow) emit a photon aimed at particle Y in flight (the photon moving at c) that it would never reach particle Y?

Sorry, to be absolutely clear, that both particles moved away from a common point, each moving at 0.51c from that point away from each other.

Peckleton, of course the photon would reach the other particle. Shall I show the working?

If you don't mind, I would appreciate that.

Also H, are the results the same if it is not the particles that are moving but the space they are occupying? That is, space is expanding (from a common point central to them) and this is carrying the two particles away from each other exactly as above, but they are not moving IN space at all. Particle Z emits a photon. Will it ever reach particle Y?

LSV:

Thank the Greeks for their Stoicism, for without it I might just have flipped you off for attempting to blind me with the complexity of your argument. Instead I shall try to bring the discussion back to a simpler style of rhetoric.

Perhaps I wasn’t as clear as I could have been, but when I defined logic as subjective, I meant that it is subjective to us AS A SPECIES. I made no reference to its subjectivity on an individual level, although as you rightly point out, that is the conventional meaning of the word. I defined logic as subjective in order to separate it from objective laws of physics like gravity and relativity, which exist outside human thought and predate us. My point was that logic never appeared until humans did, unlike, say gravity. That was said in response to the idea that logic had some role to play in God’s creation of the universe.

I would argue that as a system of thought, logic has been around and subject to refinement for a very long time, and has come to exist as a concept completely independently from those who first began to explore logical principles. It is no longer subjective on the individual level, although it remains gradually so on the collective level; our collective understanding of it is subject to the eroding winds of criticism as well as being built up by the intellectual contributions of each generation. Logic, by the way, needs some sort of knowledge or data to function. It is the process of gleaning more knowledge from making different combinations of already possessed knowledge.

We are all capable of simple logic. As babies, if our cries were followed by an adult’s comforting, we took the two pieces of disparate knowledge and very quickly drew a causal link, so that when we wanted a hug, we bawled until we got one. Logic!

Empiricism is not self-refuting. The idea that all knowledge is derivative of sensory experience is one that has come about through MANY COMPOIUNDED SENSORY EXPERIENCES. There is a difference between simple data and empirical data. Simple data is a memory of something our senses have told us. Empirical data is data that has been subjected to experimentation and the most robust criticism.

Logic has allowed us to realise that sensory perception is the indirect origin of all of our knowledge. Logic is HOW we understand the reams of data our senses provide us with, and give a context to it. Logic can create new knowledge, but only from previously garnered knowledge, which will eventually be demonstrated to derive from sensory experience.

I challenge you to present knowledge to me which has not derived from sensory experiences. It can’t be done, unless you count divine revelation, but wait, that pre-supposes a belief in God, which is not universal. Empiricism, therefore, is not self-refuting in its nature at all; you’ve simply been caught in a semantic trap.

Empiricism as a process often refutes ideas to which it is subject, but it cannot be argued successfully that the concept itself is self-refuting. It has been demonstrated to work incredibly well as a well of more reliable knowledge. The only way to refute empiricism is by proving it wrong, in which case you have not destroyed empiricism; you have simply destroyed an impostor and replaced it with a more accurate version of what empiricism is.

Philosophically speaking, objectivity is incredibly hard to demonstrate. However, I am not coming from any particular position myself; I am simply saying that yours is unsatisfactory. This is a common misunderstanding of Atheists. As I have stated before, I have made no assertion, I have simply attacked your assertion. It can be seen therefore, that I have nothing to defend, and as such you have nothing to attack. You cannot attack my faith position, because I do not have any faith.

The artist may rebuke the critic by saying, “You have created nothing! What about your art?” But this is simply misdirection, a desperate attempted defence by the artist. It refutes nothing of the critics’ criticism. I freely admit that I have no idea how the universe was created, I just find the idea that there is a kind of creator God unsatisfactory due to the lack of supporting evidence, not to mention the cynicism with which I note the uses to which this widespread belief has been put throughout the ages. But the fact that I submit no ideas of my own regarding this subject bears no relation to the validity of my criticism. You have resorted to inventing a “position” for me and then attacking that position, yet you have ignored all criticism of your position, the original assertion, that the universe was created by God.

My critique of faith cannot apply to me, since I do not possess it. Yawn. As I stated earlier, you have not used logic to prove that my critiques are equally valid when levelled at me; you have been caught in a semantic trap and have failed to realise that my critiques cannot be levelled at me, since I make no assertion. Yawn.

In my opinion there is no such thing as objective meaning. It is a concept, a useful one, developed by humans through a system of cultural agreement as a survival mechanism. Objectively speaking, ie universally, not just humanly experienced, meaning is a completely useless concept. However, to us humans, things do have meaning, because we have given it to them, both individually and collectively. Your door is perceived as such because you agree with societies’ collectively applied meaning. You were introduced to the concept of a door at some stage, taught how it worked, and then you went the rest of your life knowing it was a door and what to do with one. Sensory experience, followed by applied meaning, followed by, as far as human societies which employ doors are concerned, objectively held knowledge.

The situation you describe, having stripped away all knowledge of doors and only having the sensory perception of the door: what you’re describing is the point of view of a baby. A baby is subjected to new sensory experiences every day, which remain in the memory bank and go on to help with the formation of compound ideas. But we all start off as a blank slate, gradually informed and shaped by sensory perception.

With things like the law of identity that you mention, there is near universal acceptance of the concept, and so we call the idea, ‘objectively true.’ That way, future generations will accept it as such, and man will be able to sleep well at night, safe in the knowledge that an apple is an apple, a smile is a smile, and a spade…well, is a spade. Obviously. A survival mechanism, propagated by natural selection. Still, this lends further support to my claim that all knowledge derives from sensory experience, because you are free to call an apple a pear, and since there is no objectively true meaning outside the human sphere, it must therefore have come only from sensory perception and the afore-mentioned applied meaning thereof.

You seem to suggest that the ability to deceive is evidence of mankind’s inability to grasp or create a concept of the truth. Nothing could be further from the truth. A solid understanding of the nature of truth is ESSENTIAL to successful deception. Not all human ideas have arisen to aid survival, but nearly all of them do in some indirect way. Laughter cannot be described as utilitarian, but without it I can think of at least two occasions in my life during which, without laughter, my morale may well have disappeared below the horizon and I may not have been here to make these arguments. Laughter has survived because it has a utilitarian connection; ideas that serve no purpose perish with their inventors.

Again, like logic, truth is an essentially human concept which we use to help us to understand both the world in which we live and the fellow humans that inhabit it. It has no meaning outside the human experience; what is the truth to a rock, or a star? Much like logic, it is fallacy to suggest it exists independently of human experience and activity.

Ryan_:

I am passionate about why I am such a fierce critic of religion. Having studied its history and nature, I believe it to be a cultural heresy that has caused enormous social problems and subjected far too many people to the jackboot of oppression; philosophically, mentally, economically and physically. It sits in complete opposition to my sense of morality and the love I have for my own species.

Hi Peckleton, Couple of things; we're in Einsteinian Special Relativity land. For any observer, light always travels at the same velocity. So particle Z is travelling away from point X at the speed 0.51c; at distance d it emits a photon back towards X; the time taken for that photon to reach X is of course d/0.51c. [We're operating in X's reference frame for the purposes of this exercise].

One thing that has happened is that the photon has wavelength h in Z's reference frame, but in X's reference frame it is significantly red-shifted. So the VELOCITY of the photon remains c, but the WAVELENGTH is longer.

So the photon zips past X, heading towards Y, who continues to recede from X at the velocity 0.51c; the photon is moving at c.

Are you with me so far?

Yep

grokesx (@ 87) -

"But come on, give it your best shot. Justify the assertion."

Well that's easy.

Or in another sense, it isn't, because it depends on who makes up the rules as to what constitutes a justification. If you want a logical justification, then, yes, I can provide that. But if you would prefer me to only work within the parameters of your own world view, then I'm afraid I can't do that.

I certainly cannot justify my assertion by using seanthenoisemaker's rules, since those are based on the rather shaky foundation of subjectivism - a.k.a. (what is often mistakenly termed) 'faith'. We will just have to leave the noisemaker to the joys of his subjective vuvuzela, while the rest of us (well I can only speak for myself) deal with something objectively valid called logic.

Now assuming that the rules of the game are the rules of logic, then my justification for my assertion is the one that I also have been very noisy and vuvuzela-like about for some time now: it's the idea that you once described as a 'merry-go-round'. Can you guess what it is? It's there in the post to which you have just responded.

Unless you can come up with an alternative epistemology for naturalism (other than the one which is self-refuting), then my point still stands.

LSV:

No it doesn't. You have dismissed my points by comparing them to a vuvuzela, but you've offered no real defense against the attack I've subjected your point to.

Let's try to condense it down for those who, like LSV, are quite content to over-complexify and lengthen their own statements in order to make their own point more richly, but when confronted with the same tactic in rebuttal, are secure in the knowledge that it's not really worth the effort to assess the rebuttal, and feel they can dismiss it as hot air.

LSV asserts that subjectivity is subject to infinite regress (all knowledge is subjective, including the knowledge that all knowledge is subjective, and including the knowledge of the knowledge that all knowledge is subjective etc), so how can we trust any assertion of knowledge, and where is objectivity's place in all of this?

My argument is that this infinite regress comes about not from the nature of knowledge and the subjectivity/objectivity, but rather from LSV's misunderstanding of said nature. LSV believes the truth to be an ultimately objective concept, and as a concept, it is. According to my definition of objectivity anyway. (here I quote from my previous post)

"Objectively speaking, ie universally, not just humanly experienced, MEANING is a completely useless concept. However, to us humans, things do have meaning, because we have given it to them, both individually and collectively. Your door is perceived as such because you agree with societies’ collectively applied meaning. You were introduced to the concept of a door at some stage, taught how it worked, and then you went the rest of your life knowing it was a door and what to do with one. Sensory experience, followed by applied meaning, followed by, as far as human societies which employ doors are concerned, objectively held knowledge."

According to my assertion, objectivity is something that human beings assign to knowledge which has been collectively agreed on. One example of this is the concept of the truth; the idea exists because it is one that can be universally related to and has been collectively agreed on. Its objectivity does not, however, indicate in any way that the truth is a phenomenon which exists in any external way from human thought and culture.

This is fundamentally different from LSV's assertion that objectivity is an external, non human, divine phenomenon. If our definitions of objectivity differ, then so will our definitions of subjectivity.

LSV asserts that, given my definition of objectivity, my definition of subjectivity must therefore, according to logic, suffer from the previously mentioned infinite regress, thus leaving both definitions to appear absurd and out of touch with reality. But of course, they are not.

I assert that LSV's assertion may be considered to be debunked until the necessary pre-requisite belief in the divine is justified by something other than highly subjective testimony and circumstantial evidence which is weak at best is offered in support of said pre-requisite belief.

My argument is excellently crafted. I say this not out of conceit, but out of indignation. LSV's dismissal of it was, I believe, motivated either by laziness and unwilingness to engage with the debate, or by a desperate attempt at distracting misdirection. Personally, I err to the latter, because if one was to read my argument, I feel it would be extremely difficult if not impossible for LSV to recover any intellectual ground.

"Therefore philosophical naturalists have no valid epistemology and therefore can make no truth claims at all. The moment we accept that there is such a thing as 'truth', we have to abandon naturalism, and accept that there is an objective intelligence behind the universe."

No, you have to abandon naturalism according to your fallacious understanding of the nature of the concept of the truth. I, on the other hand, with my definition of the truth, can happily marry my philosophical naturalism with my understanding of the truth, because my definition of objective is not based on a divine nature, but a mundane, human one. There is no evidence to support the opposing "divinity" argument, except for highly subjective personal testimony and the circular logic entailed in maintaining faith.

Sean...I see you are like many others who have joined the embittered against religion league. You rubbish everyone else beliefs because you have turned your back on your own....you're sadder than you think I am.

seanthenoisemaker -

You say that 'truth' is something that is based on collective agreement or collective application, but, in fact, empirically it is not, given that human beings have disagreed profoundly about both the content of truth and the idea of truth itself since time immemorial. Just as we are doing now. So this is a hopeless basis by which to define truth. I imagine you may say that only certain thinkers' ideas have a right to be dignified with the status of 'truth', but then you would have to justify laying down epistemic criteria by which to judge what is permissible and what is not. And then we depart from empiricism and collective agreement, since an idea is being established as an a priori rule - or presupposition - by which data is interpreted. One such rule is: "matter and energy are all that exist" (which is not an idea which has garnered collective support throughout recorded human history!). So your idea doesn't really make a lot of sense, according to your own logic.

You have misunderstood my 'door' analogy, by which I was showing that ideas precede sense perception. Therefore empiricism cannot be the basis of all knowledge. We bring ideas to empirical data as a prerequisite to having any meaningful sense perception at all.

If all human thought is merely 'human' it has therefore arisen by the same method as the material aspects of humanity, i.e. by natural selection (according to the claims of naturalism). Therefore the rules governing natural selection apply to all human ideas - and we cannot exempt any ideas from this explanation, if we are being faithful to a naturalistic epistemology. So my original argument stands: for what reason do ideas develop in this process? Answer: for purely utilitarian reasons, and, as I have argued, 'usefulness' is not the same as 'truth'.

I reiterate: if you are going to suggest that logic is subjective, then we have no basis for discussion, and, yes, disparaging though it may sound, the communication of ideas consonant with subjective logic is little different from the hot air of a vuvuzela, since it is a meaningless sound. That is what subjectivism is in the context of logic itself, whether individual subjectivism or a corporate variety.

Until such time as you - or any of your co-ideologues - can prove that matter can create - and most definitely has created - ideas (not to mention consciousness), then I will continue to argue that the validity of logic (and the existence of consciousness) constitutes evidence for an objective intelligent reality distinct from matter. And that argument has nothing to do with "highly subjective personal testimony and the circular logic entailed in maintaining faith". In fact, since empiricism is self-refuting, this shows that a 'faith' (and circular) element is at the heart of that epistemology.

You can call it a semantic trap if you like, but you have misunderstood my argument. Empiricism is an epistemological position. It is an idea by which it is claimed all knowledge is obtained. But that idea itself is not obtained by its own method. This actually has nothing to do with how many people believe in God (since you make the point that faith in God is not universal), and everything to do with the internal nature of empiricism. It therefore constitutes evidence that empiricism is flawed. And if empiricism is flawed, so is the entire philosophical system of naturalism which relies on empiricism. Now this is simple logic and nothing to do with "subjective personal testimony" etc. It is, in fact, nothing less than an epistemological falsification of naturalism.

Oh, I nearly forgot...

"I challenge you to present knowledge to me which has not derived from sensory experiences."

1. The knowledge of one's self, i.e. consciousness.

2. The knowledge of the validity of logic.

3. The belief that all knowledge derives from sense perception (I won't call this knowledge, but it is 'knowledge' within your world view, but it most certainly is NOT derived from sense perception, but is an a priori presupposition brought to sense perception).

4. It could be argued that the concept of morality itself is not empirically based. What sense data can provide us with moral principles? The idea that I should treat other people in a certain way is an idea I bring to my experience of other people, but it is not necessarily derived from that experience (please note the word 'necessarily' before you jump to conclusions). We know this must be true, since there are those whose experience of other people causes them to treat others in a way that I would consider immoral. So who is right? How can 'empiricism' act as the arbiter between us?

I'm sure I could think of some more, but that's enough for now to kick your challenge well into touch. If you feel inclined to go and retrieve the ball from the long grass, go ahead, but I fail to see how we can continue to play the game if we can't even agree on the most basic rule of all: the fundamental nature of logic itself.