God did not create the universe, says Hawking

[Charlemagne_II]

*I have a feeling that he denounced militant atheism, but that doesn’t mean that his beliefs do not amount to atheism. *

Einstein denounced the Judeo-Christian God, and any conception of a personal God, but he never attacked the idea of God per se. There is no record of any statement made by Einstein that he believed in no God at all. Those who want to view his idea of God as a metaphor have to contend with his own statement that he believed in the God of Spinoza.

“I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.” Upon being asked if he believed in God by Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York, April 24, 1921

In his* Ethics*, Spinoza defined God: “By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of an infinity of attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence.”

Spinoza in his private letters outright denied he was an atheist, though many of his contemporaries thought his philosophy implied he was. In other words, because he did not believe in a personal God, they believed he must be an atheist. I think the same is true of Einstein, who according to at least one of his friends spoke disparagingly of the “Church of atheism.” And besides, if Einstein was an atheist, I don’t think he would have lacked the courage or the inclination to say so. There simply isn’t any statement by him that puts him anywhere else but squarely in the Deist camp. Deists are not atheists.

 

[greylorn]

greylorn
*
…talking of which, I’m beginning to think this whole new argument is based on the understanding that a) God as considered by Einstein was a metaphor for the laws of physics*

Unlikely. Since Einstein denounced atheism, what ever his idea of God was, it had to be more than “a metaphor for the laws of physics.”

That was not my quote you’ve quoted there. It was someone else’s, and my reply to him was in agreement with your thoughts here.

Do be careful, please. There’s already enough confusion.

 

[greylorn]

Hmmm… the fact of evolution… would that be the fact that thing’s changing over time? If it is, then, well, I seems pretty obvious, but is it neccesarily evolution??

There sure is evidence of a process going on, and it is useful to assign a verbal symbol to the process. “Evolution” works for me, since I prefer to use commonly agreed upon terms whenever possible.

This does not mean that I agree with anyone’s explanation for the process. In fact, I disagree with both Darwinists and Creationists, and I.D. people as well.

I’m comfortable referring to the evolution of the automobile, or computers, knowing full well that human thought causes it.

Is there another term you’d prefer to use that addresses the process better than “evolution?”

thing is, it’s such a blanket positive term… apparently the very concept of devolution has been rejected as being, er, too subjectively negative, as far as I can tell.

You’ll find that in The Edge of Evolution Michael Behe addresses devolution rigorously and competently, showing that it must have occurred more often than constructive evolutionary change if Darwinist explanations are to be taken seriously.

In the age where blind managerial positivitism survives the slowly realising biggest depression since the 1930’s, it’s a worrying factor that the deluded spirit of the age effects scientific ideologies as well, I think! Although, on second thoughts, probably not unusual in the scheme of things

Instead of a fancy turn of phrase like “blind managerial positivism,” why not cut to the chase? The term, “lying idiots,” applies nicely to 97% of the human race and explains almost all behavior.

Most everyone runs their life according to programmed belief and agreement. Critical thinking is rarely used. When it is used, it is typically applied to beliefs which the, ah, “thinker” thinks are facts, but which are simply some ideas which someone else made up. (For examples, read CAF.) The only difference between regular people and scientists is that scientists make the same kinds of mistakes, but at a different level.

Be happy that at least you see that we are in a depression. And in a religious war, and in a class and race war as well. Armed with that knowledge, and other arms, you have the opportunity to survive and get rich in the process.

Nope… actually, you might not like him, not sure. He writes books querying datings, similar to YECs, but he’s usually just questioning datings of fossils as opposed to datings of the Earth… he’s got a website: forbiddenarcheology.com/

Okay. It does not look like I need him at this point. I’ve just finished my Darwinism chapters, and found it perfectly easy to invalidate Darwinian mechanisms using probability theory and microbiological data, which are more rigorously known and do not depend upon dubious inferential dating techniques. But thanks for the tip.

I did check him out, briefly. This sentence from Wikipedia, “Cremo told Contemporary Authors that he decided to devote his life to Krishna in the early 1970s, after receiving a copy of the Bhagavad Gita at a Grateful Dead concert.,” insures me that reading his theory claiming that humans have been on earth for a few billion years will be a complete waste of my time.

By the way, you never did tell me what a YEC is. You must have filed my query in your WOM.

 

[greylorn]

A quick perusal of this thread (which we are now posting in) will show that you are a very careless reader for thinking that TS and I were referring to this thread in our posts in this thread. You shouldn’ blame that on me. You should try to read more carefully.

Mea culpa. I find context important to conversation. Maybe if I find myself dining at Micky D’s and hear someone at an adjacent table raving about the exquisite food, I’ll be smart enough to figure out that they must be talking about some other dinner and some other restaurant.

Frankly, if you had anything to say to me other than trying to pick a fight over why I respect Touchstone’s comments, I probably would pay more attention to you.

Incidentally, if you owned a dictionary (and used it) you would know that the phrase, “quick perusal” is oxymoronic.

You completely missed the point though. The fact that you agree with TS about something and call it “good stuff” is irrelevant to the point that he often seems unable to respond rationally to criticisms of his views.

He responds to my criticisms just fine. Likewise to others I’ve read. Maybe he just doesn’t hold you in quite the high level of esteem you want to be held in. You’ll have to earn that, and IMO this isn’t the way.

You’re mistaken if you think that the thread is about a movie. It is about the origin and purpose of the universe and man, and the nature of man - which, b.t.w., would not be incompatible with it being about a movie theme. If you want another good one on this extremely general theme, check out TS’s thread “Life’s ultimate meaning…[etc.]”

I assumed the thread was based on the movie theme. I thought the movie was stupid and the theme absurd. Why would I read a thread based upon an absurd fantasy? I’ll pass on your recommendations, figuring them to be of similar quality.

Wrong, it did have an antecedent: “What thread are you referring to here? Not “Refuting the Matrix Argument (Or: Why Stoned College Kids Make Bad Philosophers)” apparently.”

Since “this thread” obviously couldn’t have referred to this thread given the context, your reading comprehension skills are again obviously at fault, not the clarity of my writing.

No doubt my mind has become muddled from reading too many well regarded, published books on things like physics, microbiology, evolution, psychology, the paranormal, and general philosophy. I suspect that it was Kant who really screwed up my poor mind.

Perhaps I’ll go out and buy some comic books so that I can improve my reading comprehension skills. Which do you recommend?

Wrong again. I like TS, I really do; there’s nothing ‘personal’ between us (so far as I know). I would just really like him to make an effort to be rational when he argues with me. That’s all the strong language is for, and if you actually read this thread you should have noticed that that - strong language, ‘punishment’ - is the kind of thing which TS himself endorses.

I just can’t get anything right anymore. Sorry about that. Since I’m so incompetent, there really is no hope for me, and no point in your trying to communicate with such a nitwit ever again. Thanks!

 

[Mystic_Banana]

There sure is evidence of a process going on, and it is useful to assign a verbal symbol to the process. “Evolution” works for me, since I prefer to use commonly agreed upon terms whenever possible.

This does not mean that I agree with anyone’s explanation for the process. In fact, I disagree with both Darwinists and Creationists, and I.D. people as well.

I’m comfortable referring to the evolution of the automobile, or computers, knowing full well that human thought causes it.

Is there another term you’d prefer to use that addresses the process better than “evolution?”

“change”? It’s a bit more harmless, honest, and less given to being assumed to mean a particular theory which we both think it isn’t necessarily

You’ll find that in The Edge of Evolution Michael Behe addresses devolution rigorously and competently, showing that it must have occurred more often than constructive evolutionary change if Darwinist explanations are to be taken seriously.

Ha ha! He’s beginning to sound more interesting all the time!

Instead of a fancy turn of phrase like “blind managerial positivism,” why not cut to the chase? The term, “lying idiots,” applies nicely to 97% of the human race and explains almost all behavior.

Most everyone runs their life according to programmed belief and agreement. Critical thinking is rarely used. When it is used, it is typically applied to beliefs which the, ah, “thinker” thinks are facts, but which are simply some ideas which someone else made up. (For examples, read CAF.) The only difference between regular people and scientists is that scientists make the same kinds of mistakes, but at a different level.

Be happy that at least you see that we are in a depression. And in a religious war, and in a class and race war as well. Armed with that knowledge, and other arms, you have the opportunity to survive and get rich in the process.

Never underestimate the goldmine of delusion that is MANAGEMENT THEORY! It’s like a pseudoscience all of it’s own, and it’s ideology is at least as potent, dangerous and potentially disasterous as any scientismic assumption you can find, up to and including the “let’s make a black hole which we’re sure will be safe because it’ll be very small” assumption

Maybe I would have the opportunity, but sadly, my conscience always balks at the last moment :bluelite:

Okay. It does not look like I need him at this point. I’ve just finished my Darwinism chapters, and found it perfectly easy to invalidate Darwinian mechanisms using probability theory and microbiological data, which are more rigorously known and do not depend upon dubious inferential dating techniques. But thanks for the tip.

I did check him out, briefly. This sentence from Wikipedia, “Cremo told Contemporary Authors that he decided to devote his life to Krishna in the early 1970s, after receiving a copy of the Bhagavad Gita at a Grateful Dead concert.,” insures me that reading his theory claiming that humans have been on earth for a few billion years will be a complete waste of my time.

By the way, you never did tell me what a YEC is. You must have filed my query in your WOM.

WOM?!?! er, anyway - “Young Earth Creationist” - I’m flabbergasted you’ve not encountered this term before

Oh, I wouldn’t write him off too easily! And what’s wrong with the Grateful Dead? Eh? EH?

Anyway, up to you, but his disproofs are always interesting, in my experience

 

[greylorn]

“change”? It’s a bit more harmless, honest, and less given to being assumed to mean a particular theory which we both think it isn’t necessarily

Nope. “Change” is too generic, and does not imply vectoring. Plus the B.O. administration has dirtied the word, for me. “Evolution” implies change in the specific direction of complexity, and I think we need a term which includes that implication. And like you, I also dislike the implied connection with Darwinism.

We need a new word! I’d love one for my Darwinism chapters. Are there any wordsmiths out there with a few Latin and Greek credits who can help?

We could use Evolutionary Design, but that would get contracted to E.D., so we don’t want that.

Ha ha! He’s beginning to sound more interesting all the time!

Behe’s probably always been interesting. And those who read him are likely to become more so themselves, especially if they began with a sense of humor. Amazon has copies, cheap.

Never underestimate the goldmine of delusion that is MANAGEMENT THEORY! It’s like a pseudoscience all of it’s own, and it’s ideology is at least as potent, dangerous and potentially disasterous as any scientismic assumption you can find, up to and including the “let’s make a black hole which we’re sure will be safe because it’ll be very small” assumption

You’ll get no argument from me on either topic. Having worked 20 years in various sciences, I got to know what must be some of the dumbest managers in the world. They operated on the “3-minute Manager” theory before the book was written, because 3 minutes overtaxed their attention spans. (Also knew one managerial genius, an astronomer/EE who never read a management book in his life.)

WOM?!?! er, anyway - “Young Earth Creationist” - I’m flabbergasted you’ve not encountered this term before

I’ve heard the term and argued with some of the nits, but never put it into acronym form. Good acronym too! Has the right flavor when pronounced (as all acronyms should be), like Aarp!! and Suv.

WOM (also pronounceable) means Write-Only Memory. (Examples available if needed.)

Oh, I wouldn’t write him off too easily! And what’s wrong with the Grateful Dead? Eh? EH?

The G.D. appeared on the music scene decades after my imprinting period, which included Duane Eddy and Link Wray. You weren’t here then, alas. Since I wouldn’t know a G.D. song from those of any other rock band, you’ll have to tell me what’s wrong with them.

Anyway, up to you, but his disproofs are always interesting, in my experience.

I’d find Cremo’s disproofs very interesting if he disproved something which I regard as true or highly probable. So if you have a sense of what that might be, please do let me know. I hate it when I discover that I’ve been had by some beliefs. I hate it that I once believed in Santa.

 

[Betterave]

Mea culpa. I find context important to conversation. Maybe if I find myself dining at Micky D’s and hear someone at an adjacent table raving about the exquisite food, I’ll be smart enough to figure out that they must be talking about some other dinner and some other restaurant.

Frankly, if you had anything to say to me other than trying to pick a fight over why I respect Touchstone’s comments, I probably would pay more attention to you.

My lack of respect for TS’s comments is what *you *objected to… but *I’m *the one “picking a fight” about it? Good one.

Incidentally, if you owned a dictionary (and used it) you would know that the phrase, “quick perusal” is oxymoronic.

Not too bright, this comment. I suggest you look it up yourself. Definitely *not *an oxymoron.

He responds to my criticisms just fine. Likewise to others I’ve read. Maybe he just doesn’t hold you in quite the high level of esteem you want to be held in. You’ll have to earn that, and IMO this isn’t the way.

Maybe he does, or maybe you just lack the critical thinking skills to see that he doesn’t. (I suspect it’s mainly the latter.)

I assumed the thread was based on the movie theme. I thought the movie was stupid and the theme absurd. Why would I read a thread based upon an absurd fantasy? I’ll pass on your recommendations, figuring them to be of similar quality.

Gee, I don’t know. Maybe because it treats important philosophical themes about the nature of reality and the meaning of life? In any case, your assumption was false. Sorry you can’t just accept that.

No doubt my mind has become muddled from reading too many well regarded, published books on things like physics, microbiology, evolution, psychology, the paranormal, and general philosophy. I suspect that it was Kant who really screwed up my poor mind.

Perhaps I’ll go out and buy some comic books so that I can improve my reading comprehension skills. Which do you recommend?

Are you being sarcastic? That’s so clever of you, I’m really impressed.

I just can’t get anything right anymore. Sorry about that. Since I’m so incompetent, there really is no hope for me, and no point in your trying to communicate with such a nitwit ever again. Thanks!

Maybe so, maybe so.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Nope. “Change” is too generic, and does not imply vectoring. Plus the B.O. administration has dirtied the word, for me. “Evolution” implies change in the specific direction of complexity, and I think we need a term which includes that implication. And like you, I also dislike the implied connection with Darwinism.

We need a new word! I’d love one for my Darwinism chapters. Are there any wordsmiths out there with a few Latin and Greek credits who can help?

We could use Evolutionary Design, but that would get contracted to E.D., so we don’t want that.

Development?!? Do things always move in the direction of complexity? We still have amoebas…

Behe’s probably always been interesting. And those who read him are likely to become more so themselves, especially if they began with a sense of humor. Amazon has copies, cheap.

You’ll get no argument from me on either topic. Having worked 20 years in various sciences, I got to know what must be some of the dumbest managers in the world. They operated on the “3-minute Manager” theory before the book was written, because 3 minutes overtaxed their attention spans. (Also knew one managerial genius, an astronomer/EE who never read a management book in his life.)

Yes, the neurotic need to display decisiveness was ever a poor excuse for many an ill-considered decision…

I

've heard the term and argued with some of the nits, but never put it into acronym form. Good acronym too! Has the right flavor when pronounced (as all acronyms should be), like Aarp!! and Suv.

WOM (also pronounceable) means Write-Only Memory. (Examples available if needed.)

The G.D. appeared on the music scene decades after my imprinting period, which included Duane Eddy and Link Wray. You weren’t here then, alas. Since I wouldn’t know a G.D. song from those of any other rock band, you’ll have to tell me what’s wrong with them.

I’d find Cremo’s disproofs very interesting if he disproved something which I regard as true or highly probable. So if you have a sense of what that might be, please do let me know. I hate it when I discover that I’ve been had by some beliefs. I hate it that I once believed in Santa.

I guessed which WOM you were referring to!

Well “decade” (singular) after… the thing that’s wrong with the Dead, for what it’s worth, is their habit of playing GDTRFB or NFA far too often rather than Morning Dew or Dark Star… not that I ever saw them live - they played London once (in my adult life) before Garcia died, and the cost of a train, accomodation, and the ticket was far too much compared to the many cheap nights out I would have to have sacrificed for it…

 

[Abba]

At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.
Matthew 11:25

I am sooooo disappointed.

This may very well be his last book. Wasn’t he critically ill last spring? I thought he was going to die. I even said a prayer for him. Well, I guess he decided to go with a BANG! Maybe he fell in love with the idea of his books being popular and being a famous person and the topic of discussion all over the world. Those comments would certain put him on the New York Times bestsellers list.

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,”

“It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”

Perhaps his countryman Christopher Hitchens has been an influence. How ironic that that fellows first name is Christopher… just thinking as I am typing.

Thing is my dear Stephen, gravity does not explain everything. To quote one of your own:

“Gravitation is not responsible for people falling in love.”
—Albert Einstein — To Fred Wall, 1933. AEA 31-845