God Is Not Dead

  • Thread starter Thread starter Faith1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Charlemagne_III said:
But you referred to Hawking as the most intelligent person on earth, not the most intelligent scientist.

And I daresay that a few scientists would take exception to your describing him as the most intelligent scientist on earth.
Click to expand...
My vote goes to Nikola Tesla.
 
Faith1960 said:
Yes, I read/listened to them but I wanted something more scientifically definitive than what has so far been posted.
Click to expand...
Last Post continued.
  1. According to Josh, Hawkings said that gravity created the universe, that the universe created itself because " it needed to create itself. Neither of these statements make any sense. If gravity is a material reality, how could it create anything. As Josh said, if that is true we should rightly expect all kinds of things to just pop into existence without any reason. But we don’t see that.
Further, where did the gravity come from? Where did the laws of gravity come from?.

And as Professor John Lennox said, Hawking’s statement is circular reasoning. There had to be a reason for the existence of the universe, so it created itself. Is that any better reason than the " god of the gaps " they accuse us of creating out of thin air?

As I said earlier, I don’t see anything in the arguments which requires any more explaination than Josh gave. It certainly does’t require any scientific answer because the whole argument of Hawkings and Dawkins is nothing but speculation to start with.

Why don’t you tell me exactly why you are troubled.
  1. I thought the speech of the old woman was quite interesting. She responded to her son that the Devil allows people to live a comfortable life so they will be comfortable in their sin and won’t turn to God. But sin is like a jail, in time the door slams shut and we can’t get out and we die without God. Her speech is worth thinking about.
  2. I liked the scene where Josh explains the reason evil exists. It exists because of free will. If God disallowed evil, we would have no free will, and without free will we could not choose to obey God.
  3. Then Josh says, " Why do you hate someone who doesn’t exist. " Of course every atheist who appears in these forums will sware up and down they don’t hate God.
  4. And of course, Josh correctly points out, that if God does not exist, everything is permissible, if it feels good, if it helps me and mine, then it is permissible. Because without God, there is no standard of morality, because it is God who makes the standard.
  5. If God does not exist then life is basically meaningless, as Josh says.
  • It was a good movie, didn’t bother me at all. I would watch it abain if I had a good copy.
Linus2nd
 
Faith1960 said:
Idiots? Hawking is probably the most intelligent person on earth!
Click to expand...
Well, that is certainly debateable, but if you say so. Does that mean he can’t be wrong? And he is certainly wrong, I proved that to you and so did Josh. Read my posts again and watch the movie again.

And since you think so little of Philosophy, what about God. Do you think he lied?

I would suggest you read Thomas Aquinas’ Five Ways.

Linus2nd
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Last Post continued.
  1. According to Josh, Hawkings said that gravity created the universe, that the universe created itself because " it needed to create itself. Neither of these statements make any sense. If gravity is a material reality, how could it create anything. As Josh said, if that is true we should rightly expect all kinds of things to just pop into existence without any reason. But we don’t see that.
Further, where did the gravity come from? Where did the laws of gravity come from?.

And as Professor John Lennox said, Hawking’s statement is circular reasoning. There had to be a reason for the existence of the universe, so it created itself. Is that any better reason than the " god of the gaps " they accuse us of creating out of thin air?

As I said earlier, I don’t see anything in the arguments which requires any more explaination than Josh gave. It certainly does’t require any scientific answer because the whole argument of Hawkings and Dawkins is nothing but speculation to start with.

Why don’t you tell me exactly why you are troubled.
  1. I thought the speech of the old woman was quite interesting. She responded to her son that the Devil allows people to live a comfortable life so they will be comfortable in their sin and won’t turn to God. But sin is like a jail, in time the door slams shut and we can’t get out and we die without God. Her speech is worth thinking about.
  2. I liked the scene where Josh explains the reason evil exists. It exists because of free will. If God disallowed evil, we would have no free will, and without free will we could not choose to obey God.
  3. Then Josh says, " Why do you hate someone who doesn’t exist. " Of course every atheist who appears in these forums will sware up and down they don’t hate God.
  4. And of course, Josh correctly points out, that if God does not exist, everything is permissible, if it feels good, if it helps me and mine, then it is permissible. Because without God, there is no standard of morality, because it is God who makes the standard.
  5. If God does not exist then life is basically meaningless, as Josh says.
  • It was a good movie, didn’t bother me at all. I would watch it abain if I had a good copy.
Linus2nd
Click to expand...
One of the books I’m waiting for was written by Prof. Lennox. I ordered it before I watched him in a YouTube video giving a talk where he admitted he’s not on the same level as Hawking. Not so sure his observations carry much weight after all.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Well, that is certainly debateable, but if you say so. Does that mean he can’t be wrong? And he is certainly wrong, I proved that to you and so did Josh. Read my posts again and watch the movie again.

And since you think so little of Philosophy, what about God. Do you think he lied?

I would suggest you read Thomas Aquinas’ Five Ways.

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
Other than the thing about black holes, when has he ever been proven to be wrong ?
 
Faith1960 said:
Other than the thing about black holes, when has he ever been proven to be wrong ?
Click to expand...
I really don’t know, that is not the point. What he says and what Dawkins and the others say is contrary to Divine Revelation and to the Doctrine of the Catholic Church. In fact it is contrary to Defined Dogma. No Catholic can remain a Catholic in good standing, they may not validly recieve the sacraments, and believe what these men are saying, because to do so is to reject both Divine Revelation and Catholic Dogma. And because the Church speaks the Truth about God and Divine Revelation, I know they are wrong.

I also know they are wrong because the world cannot create itself. That is contrary to reason. See the Five Ways of Thomas Aquinas.

Linus2nd
 
I noticed that in the movie, when they quote Hawking (not Hawkings),
Josh had no good refutation. I was expecting a scientific argument to disprove Hawking but it wasn’t in the movie and thus far, I’ve yet to find it anywhere online.

I do have a couple books on order that I hope will help but if finding anyone Hawkings’ intellectual equal disputing him online is this hard, I’m not going to hold my breath.
 
Faith1960 said:
I noticed that in the movie, when they quote Hawking (not Hawkings),
Josh had no good refutation. I was expecting a scientific argument to disprove Hawking but it wasn’t in the movie and thus far, I’ve yet to find it anywhere online.

I do have a couple books on order that I hope will help but if finding anyone Hawkings’ intellectual equal disputing him online is this hard, I’m not going to hold my breath.
Click to expand...
Have you actually read my posts? Josh gave very good reasons. And I added a few of my own. Why do you think a scientific response is necessary, what Hawkins is saying is not science, it is pure speculation. Futher more it is contrary to reasons. Go back and read my posts again, and think about what I said in them.

Linus2nd.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Have you actually read my posts? Josh gave very good reasons. And I added a few of my own. Why do you think a scientific response is necessary, what Hawkins is saying is not science, it is pure speculation. Futher more it is contrary to reasons. Go back and read my posts again, and think about what I said in them.

Linus2nd.
Click to expand...
How is Hawking just speculating? He’s been working on this and arrived at his conclusions based on math and physics.
 
Faith1960 said:
My friend and I saw this movie yesterday and something’s been bothering me ever since. At one point the college professor quotes Stephen Hawking and his belief that the universe created itself from nothing. Can anyone link me to anything written by people qualified after his comments that refutes this belief?
Click to expand...
I have a friend who claims a rabbit “created itself from nothing.” Can you link me to anything written by people qualified to refute this possibility?

It seems to me that Hawking - regarding contingent things existing ex nihilo - is basically operating at the same level of delusion as my friend.

If a universe can create itself from nothing what is there to stop a rabbit from doing so?

Is it possible to refute either claim, scientifically?

What if Hawking claimed he had a rabbit that “created itself from nothing?” Would the fact that he is a credible scientist be all the proof required to substantiate his claim?

How would anyone set about proving that rabbits cannot create themselves from nothing? The claim is clearly an unprovable and an in-disprovable one.

How would anyone refute this belief that rabbits can “pop” into existence?

Yet, it would seem less likely that the entire universe - as opposed to one measly rabbit - could create itself from NOTHING.

Is Hawking more credible on such matters than my friend?

I realize there are subtle nuances regarding the nature of “nothing” that individuals like Krauss and Stenger capitalize on, but clearly ex nihilo nihil fit is a safe philosophical principle despite what Hawking, Krauss or Stenger contend.
 
DaddyGirl said:
Why would anyone listen to Craig on this topic? He studied philosophy and theology, not science or physics or metaphysics.
Click to expand...
The issue is not whether he has the right credentials to make you happy. If what he said is not true, then refute it. A person of such standing would not make statements lightly unless he has spoken to the right people and gotten sufficient evidence to critique Hawkings. If what Craig said is not true, then please provide your (name removed by moderator)uts.
You do see how as time goes on, we learn more and more on these topics, yes?
What we know today in biology, medicine, chemistry, astrology, physics, etc…is a vast, vast more than what we knew fifty years ago…and fifty years before that…and that…and that.
Which means that just because we don’t have answers to some questions today, it doesn’t mean we won’t have answers to those questions tomorrow.
The term “argument from ignorance” is apropos here…meaning that just because we don’t have all the answers, people then just say "God did it"Or is that “the God of the gaps”? I can’t remember the proper term…
Click to expand...
Yawn! That has became a religion of sorts. Of course that would have been a reason that you could use forever. Just say “tomorow”.

5000 yrs ago +/- God of Abraham/Moses already claimed he created the universe. There was no physics, knowledge of quantum theory etc etc etc. There was no need for God of the Gaps then.

Of course you reserved the right to claim ignorance or blindness hiding behind the skirt of “tomorrow”.
So just because we don’t know “where all that stuff came from”…doesn’t mean a God made it be.
A God might have created it, sure. No one can be positive about any of it yet. But we have less evidence of a God-creator so far than what Science has come up with.
Click to expand...
. See above. God said 5000 yrs ago he made it. Science has zilch on who created the universe. Science can only measure and hypothesize. It doesn’t know where pre-universe stuff comes from or who made them. If some evidence doesn’t support the hypotheses, fake the results or try some fancy maths which has no bearing on reality such as imaginary numbers or perpetual time for randomness to do its magic, which unfortunately at most is a theory.
 
DrTaffy said:
All we ever measure is something’s effects. Can you name a single force, or even an elemental particle, that we detect other than by its effects?

Even light, which we see ‘directly’, is only seen by its effects on the rods and cones in our eye.

We see no such directly measurable effect that is obviously due to God or the soul.
Click to expand...
The power of our mind!
 
Faith1960 said:
How is Hawking just speculating? He’s been working on this and arrived at his conclusions based on math and physics.
Click to expand...
I have tried to help you, even watched the movie with its horrible sound quality, but you refuse to listen, and gave you a detailed, intellegent analysis.But your sole concern seems to be to defend your hero on an issue on which he cannot be defended vis-a-vis Divine Revelation and Defined Catholic Dogma. I guess you will have to decide whether you are going to stand by your hero or remain a practicing Cathlic. You cannot do both.

Linus2nd
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

Genesis, 1200 B.C. : “In the beginning God said: ‘Let there be light.’”

As astronomer Robert Jastrow pointed out in God and the Astronomers.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

At the time that Lemaitre pleaded with Pope Pius XII not to jump the gun with his Big Bang theory, the theory was not fully vetted by the scientific community. Lemaitre was a member of that community and knew well enough how hostile that community could be if it thought a Catholic priest and the Pope were taking over the Big Bang theory as a vindication of Genesis.

Pius died in 1958, as I recall. Lemaitre died in 1967. Between those dates a great deal of movement was going on with respect to the Big Bang. Not only was background noise of the Big Bang predicted in the 50s, but Penzias and Wilson actually detected the noise and won a Nobel Prize for their efforts. All this news was brought to Lemaitre on his deathbed, and it must have been deeply gratifying to him that his theory was, in a general way at least, somewhat vindicated. Even Einstein had come to accept the Big Bang long before he died.

Anyone is free to assume that Lemaitre went to his grave never having overcome his caution to Pope Pius. But we are not bound by Lemaitre’s view as it existed at the time of that caution. As astronomer Robert Jastrow, by no means a Catholic, pointed out in God and the Astronomers.
Click to expand...
I acknowledge what you say is true enough. However, the conclusion is still only a speculation which must be proved. And you have not mentiond in this post that the conclusions of Hawkings and Dawkins are in absolute contradiction to Defined Catholic Dogma. The two cannot be reconciled.

Linus2nd
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Until you can overcome this illogical anger mechanism, you probably won’t be able to contribute meaningfully to any discussion. :sad_bye:
Click to expand...
Okay, well if you’re determined to play the ad hominem card (and worse, the ad hominem is not even true), then I guess I won’t bother you any further.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
" First Aquinas " ?

When have gravity " waves " or " particles " ever been detected? That is what I meant.
Click to expand...
Then you should say what you mean, not just hope that people infer it.
If gravity is a real substance, a material object, we should be able to find a " graviton. "
Click to expand...
An awful non sequitur to claim that it’s only real if we can hold one in our hand. You have a very poor understanding of science if you have a worldview such as this.
And if it is not a part of the material world, what would it be then? Perhaps it might be the actual power of God holding the universe together. I know that is a revolutionary thought, but until we can positively detect gravitons that would seem to be a reasonable conclusion.😃
Click to expand...
Not really, for it demands the inclusion of a phenomenon far more complex than seems necessary. Unless you mean that your god is nothing more than the force that we call “gravity” then you are introducing a massive over-complication. Ockham would be turning in his grave.

Incidentally, your conjecture reminds me of this article, theonion.com/articles/evangelical-scientists-refute-gravity-with-new-int,1778/, which nicely parodies the ridiculous IDC arguments.
Well, everyone can be wrong, if you prove me wrong, I will happily acknowledge it. But even if I am that would not mean that I am wrong on every thing. I doubt whether you would want to be judged by that impossible standard.
Click to expand...
My point was that if you can seriously make claims such as “science has never measured gravity” then it calls into question the reliability of your other claims.
You really should get into Aquinas, should give you plenty of laughs.
Click to expand...
I’ve read his five ways, and yes, I laughed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top