Stephen Hawkings believes in God?

[wallstreeterww]

Most atheists want to believe that a cyclical universze theory somehow disproves the existence of god. Doctor William Lane Craig shows that even if the cyclical universe theory is true, it does absolutely nothing to disprove gods existence. Even though Craig isnt catholic he has done some fantastic work on giving compelling evidence for gods existence in philosophy and science. For historical evidence on the brutality of atheism I use my fellow catholic Dinesh Dsouza’s information.

Guys, This is incredible material. I would suggest to atheists that they should stay away from reading the full page of the link cause it might put some agnostic or deist doubts into their atheistic thought patterns. Very dangerous info .

reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6115

With respect to the alternative of Eternal Inflation, it was suggested by some theorists during the 1980s that perhaps the inflationary expansion of the universe was not confined to a brief period early in the history of the universe but is eternal in the past, each inflating region being the product of a prior inflating region. Although such models were hotly debated, something of a watershed appears to have been reached in 2003, when three leading cosmologists, Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary.

What makes their proof so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the universe prior to the Planck time. Because we can’t yet provide a physical description of the very early universe, this brief moment has been fertile ground for speculations. (One scientist has compared it to the regions on ancient maps labeled “Here there be dragons!”—it can be filled with all sorts of fantasies.) But the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is independent of any physical description of that moment. Their theorem implies that even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called “multiverse” composed of many universes, the multiverse must have an absolute beginning.

Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

The first of these string cosmologies, Ekpyrotic cyclic models, is subject to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem and so is admitted to involve a beginning of the universe. The second group, Pre-Big Bang models, cannot be extended into the infinite past if they are taken to be realistic descriptions of the universe. The third group, the string landscape models, feature the popular multiverse scenario. They are also subject to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem and so imply a beginning of the universe. Thus, string cosmological models do not serve to avert the prediction of the standard model that the universe began to exist.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Most atheists want to believe that a cyclical universze theory somehow disproves the existence of god. Doctor William Lane Craig shows that even if the cyclical universe theory is true, it does absolutely nothing to disprove gods existence. Even though Craig isnt catholic he has done some fantastic work on giving compelling evidence for gods existence in philosophy and science. For historical evidence on the brutality of atheism I use my fellow catholic Dinesh Dsouza’s information.

I respectfully disagree. When I was a Christian I used to like Craig, but then I got smarter (and now I see how bizarre his logic is). Nevertheless I agree a cyclical universe (i.e. one that keeps recreating itself) does not disprove god, but it does do considerable damage to theism.

As for historical evidence on the so called brutality of atheism, go to Scandinavia or France (and shoot me an email from those savage and brutal places and give me a report).

It’s a false cause fallacy (i.e. the Pol Pot/Stalin/Hitler comparisons). It’s also an ad hominem.

There is no evidence to suggest their atheism informed their evil. Indeed both Hitler and Stalin were raised Christians (and Stalin was studying to become an Orthodox priest when he turned to communism).

Guys, This is incredible material. I would suggest to atheists that they should stay away from reading the full page of the link cause it might put some agnostic or deist doubts into their atheistic thought patterns. Very dangerous info .

reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6115

I was a huge fan of Craig only a couple of years ago … been there done that. It’s only compelling if you’re somewhat intelligent but mediocre (I suspect this is the crowd he’s trying to reach).

With respect to the alternative of Eternal Inflation, it was suggested by some theorists during the 1980s that perhaps the inflationary expansion of the universe was not confined to a brief period early in the history of the universe but is eternal in the past, each inflating region being the product of a prior inflating region. Although such models were hotly debated, something of a watershed appears to have been reached in 2003, when three leading cosmologists, Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary.

well that’s an oversimplification (or at least fails to consider other laws of physics). The first law of thermodynamics tells us energy (and hence matter) can be neither created or destroyed. Therefore, while a big bang (from a singularity or a collision between a prior universe and a singularity) is “the beginning” of our present day universe, the matter that comprises our universe has existed infinitely.

Imagining when our space-time boundary was drawn isn’t relevant in the way you’re trying to apply it. Common sense tells us if energy (or matter) cannot be created or destroyed, and all the matter that comprises our universe has always existed, then it doesn’t matter when our current space-time boundary began (when trying to assert a beginning to the universe, which necessitated a creator).

Obviously unless you can show our universe appeared out of nowhere, from nothing – it adds nothing to say the universe as it exists today had a starting point.

What makes their proof so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the universe prior to the Planck time. Because we can’t yet provide a physical description of the very early universe, this brief moment has been fertile ground for speculations. (One scientist has compared it to the regions on ancient maps labeled “Here there be dragons!”—it can be filled with all sorts of fantasies.) But the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is independent of any physical description of that moment. Their theorem implies that even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called “multiverse” composed of many universes, the multiverse must have an absolute beginning.

Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

Vilenkin is a guy whose been working on the bizarre idea of quantum creation of the universe from nothing, which would violate the first law of thermodynamics.

The first of these string cosmologies, Ekpyrotic cyclic models, is subject to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem and so is admitted to involve a beginning of the universe. The second group, Pre-Big Bang models, cannot be extended into the infinite past if they are taken to be realistic descriptions of the universe. The third group, the string landscape models, feature the popular multiverse scenario. They are also subject to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem and so imply a beginning of the universe. Thus, string cosmological models do not serve to avert the prediction of the standard model that the universe began to exist.

I’ve spent several hours today on a protestant web site (who is hosted by some prominent Christian apologists) and although it’s a much more sort of guns blazing (don’t go there if you’re the overly sensitive type) site compared to this one is (as I’ve learned recently) … at least there’s very little pseudo-science (I guess it’s because many people on that site are actually physicists or engineers who have a strong background in physics & they’re less susceptible to pseudoscience).

 

[wallstreeterww]

Sorry but even mainstream science that believe in the big bang says that there was literally nothing in our universe. Nothing meaning no energy, no mass, nothing. The first law of thermodynamics talks about energy after the big bang, not before, so the first law of thermodynamics doesnt necessarily apply before the beginning of the universe. You are either misinformed or choose to not look at it unless it conforms to your views. This is mainstream science. Just because you claim it is an oversimplification doesnt make it so. Many scientists currently agree with it. Now I can understand why a person such as you wouldnt believe in it because it doesnt serve to back up your biased belief system. As I said before even if string theory is true those new theories actually strengthen the belief that it all had a beginning. You will not admit to this because you are an atheist, and if your a strong atheist by definition your doctrine prohibits you from believing in god. Its an absolute doctrine.

As far as the brutality of atheism, it is a fact. Just because someone kills and doesnt yell out loud that it was done in the name of atheism doesnt mean it isnt true. All these people you named plus a few more were atheists. They did not believe in god. Hitler was brought up a christian? Do you call hating christianity and god being raised a christian. A parent can send their kid off to sunday school all they want but if the kid always skips class, hates religion and wants to wipe it off the face of the earth, this is a militant atheist to me. as i said before atheists have killed more in 1 century then all of the religious wars combined throughout history. Its a fact that dinesh dsouza brought up but it didnt really need an expert debater like him for us to know this. 95% of these brutal atheist leaders supressed the church at all levels. Just because some of them were brought up christian doesnt mean squat. At the time of their killing sprees they were atheists true and true. To deny thsi would be to deny fact. To call it an fallacy shows your biasm altogether.

As far as most scientists being atheists that is also wroong as the original studies dont deceptively asked if scientists actually believed in a personal god or didnt believe in god. That conveniently lumped deists, moderate agnostists and others in the atheist camp.

Calling doctor Craig Kooky is just plain absurd and the fact that your great leader doctor Richard Dawkins is afraid to debate him and instead chooses to debate imams and pastors shows the level of intellectual confidence that dawkins has in his militant disbelief system.
Craig has a phd in the philosophy of science which means that he can argue on both the philosophic and scienctific realms. He is very well respected in both subjects. Its nice that a laymen like you can just pop along and make a blanket statement about craig and call it fact lol.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Sorry but even mainstream science that believe in the big bang says that there was literally nothing in our universe. Nothing meaning no energy, no mass, nothing. The first law of thermodynamics talks about energy after the big bang, not before, so the first law of thermodynamics doesnt necessarily apply before the beginning of the universe.

that’s not right. The singularity was a dense pin point containing all the energy, which currently exists in the universe. There is nothing to suggest that energy appeared from nowhere. Therefore, absent new information, we can assume the law of conservation of energy (first law of thermodynamics) did apply before the big bang.

You are either misinformed or choose to not look at it unless it conforms to your views. This is mainstream science.

OK here we go

Just because you claim it is an oversimplification doesnt make it so.

didn’t you get the memo from god … everything I say is right (and I know everything).

Many scientists currently agree with it.

really, then name more than the three or four scientists who you mentioned in your previous post who agree with the theory you’re endorsing?

Now I can understand why a person such as you wouldnt believe in it because it doesnt serve to back up your biased belief system. As I said before even if string theory is true those new theories actually strengthen the belief that it all had a beginning. You will not admit to this because you are an atheist, and if your a strong atheist by definition your doctrine prohibits you from believing in god. Its an absolute doctrine.

whatever … I’ve never heard any theory of string, or superstring (or M) theory that posits a quantum universe from nothing. Why don’t you argue using facts rather than hyperbole and emotive comments that lack any substance?

As far as the brutality of atheism, it is a fact.

prove it … again facts please?

Just because someone kills and doesnt yell out loud that it was done in the name of atheism doesnt mean it isnt true.

that’s absurd logic. What the heck are you even talking about anyway?

All these people you named plus a few more were atheists. They did not believe in god. Hitler was brought up a christian? Do you call hating christianity and god being raised a christian.

If you want to reduce yourself to pinning the merits of theism on pseudoscience and logical fallacies … go right ahead (hopefully enough kids in this country will see their way to a good college education & reject this absurdity).

A parent can send their kid off to sunday school all they want but if the kid always skips class, hates religion and wants to wipe it off the face of the earth, this is a militant atheist to me.

well I guess I won’t take your word for it. In my opinion a child doesn’t have enough information to make an informed opinion about anything as profound as religious belief (and I think most stable people, religious or not, would agree with me). I went to Sunday school, never skipped class, and loved religion as a child

As far as most scientists being atheists that is also wroong as the original studies dont deceptively asked if scientists actually believed in a personal god or didnt believe in god. That conveniently lumped deists, moderate agnostists and others in the atheist camp.

yes I know … it’s the global anti-god conspiracy by science (or pollsters)

Calling doctor Craig Kooky is just plain absurd and the fact that your great leader doctor Richard Dawkins is afraid to debate him and instead chooses to debate imams and pastors shows the level of intellectual confidence that dawkins has in his militant disbelief system.

Christopher Hitchens already debated Craig & made him look like an idiot.

Craig has a phd in the philosophy of science which means that he can argue on both the philosophic and scienctific realms. He is very well respected in both subjects. Its nice that a laymen like you can just pop along and make a blanket statement about craig and call it fact lol.

how do you know what kind of man I am?

 

[wallstreeterww]

Its not absurd logic my friend. If atheism is the core of what I believe and I kill millions I still killed in the name of atheism. The logical fallacy here is that you believe otherwise. The fact that you dont know what im talking about shows me that you tend to leap into arguments with your emotions and you really dont present any unbiased facts. If we were just talking about a subject and you dont know what we are talking about 5 minutes later it could be signs of alzheimer’s. You might wanna check it out,.,…,

. Of course everything you say is right because you are god. How do you want us to bow to you oh great bringer of absolute truth… As far as ad hominems it only applies to one person , not a whole group of brutal atheistic leaders that killed over 100 million people in 100 years. A truely frightening thought would be a few atheistic leaders being in control of 2 or 3 world powers one more time. I would be very afraid of ww3.

As far as what kind of man you are, i know for sure you are the kind of man that makes wild accusation about people like doctor Craig without any shred of evidence as to your accusations. Why dont you ask Christopher Hitchens what kind of man Craig is?

 

[yankee_doodle]

Its not absurd logic my friend. If atheism is the core of what I believe and I kill millions I still killed in the name of atheism. The logical fallacy here is that you believe otherwise.

OK then walk me through the nexus between atheism and totalitarianism or facism. Tell me how atheism informed the views of Stalin or Hitler (both former Christians, one of whom studying to become an Orthodox priest when he turned to communism, the other raised a Roman Catholic).

It’s a false cause fallacy. There’s no evidence to suggest atheism informed the views of Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot anymore than their respective former belief systems did.

There is, however, decisive evidence showing the church burned countless victims at the stake, killed untold numbers of people through its various inquisitions, crusades, and genocides. It was the church who endorsed slavery, confined Jews to ghettos (forcing them to wear identifying armbands), etc.

In other words, I can show the insanity that results from theocracy, whereas the case connecting atheism with the acts of men like Stalin is much more tenuous.

Indeed Stalin’s real beef with religion was driven by the Marxist view that religion was used by the ruling class to manipulate peasants (and in order to successfully gain control of the economic resources and country at large they had to suppress religion). This doesn’t show his atheism informed his Marxism, but rather his Marxism informed his atheism.

The bottom line is Christianity is the newest of a series of life-death-rebirth myths (and also finds parallels with many Hellenic virgin birth motifs).

The fact that you dont know what im talking about shows me that you tend to leap into arguments with your emotions and you really dont present any unbiased facts. If we were just talking about a subject and you dont know what we are talking about 5 minutes later it could be signs of alzheimer’s. You might wanna check it out,.,…,

great … another angry Christian

Of course everything you say is right because you are god.

isn’t that the mantra … if we don’t believe in your myths of talking snakes, flying angels, oceans being split in half, rivers turned into blood, and god-men rising from the dead, we’re the crazy ones who are arrogant and think we’re our own gods.

absurd religious diatribe only makes the weakness of your arguments shine.

 

[wallstreeterww]

Call it what you want and keep repeating the same circular arguments over and over but atheism was at the very core of what they believed in. Karl Marx, the founder of Communism himself, called religion an opiate of the masses. How much more clear can you get then that.
He believed that religion and god were created by the powerful to control the poor. In other words he believed that god was a fabrication, that god doesnt exist. The founder of communism was a hardcore atheist. Its a complete joke that we are even debating this subject. The fact that they were in certain religions before is a complete non sequitur as they left these beliefs a long time ago and turned to atheism. The logical fallacy someone who is going against the mainstream history and calling these people anything remotely close to being religios when in reality they were atheists and it formed a big core of who they were. Why do you think they supressed and killed people for practicing their religious faith? Because they were christian. Your really starting to reach when you make a cause for their death not having anything to do with their atheism. Stalin didnt believe in god. That makes him an atheist whether you want to call him that by name or not. Like dinesh dsouza said atheists were responsible for more deaths then all the religious wars in history. You can keep trying to deceptively turn the ball away from atheism but as many debaters have claimed before religion has a much mroe positive effect on society than atheism ever has.
100 million deaths in 100 years and thats not even naming other dictators
This subject is closed lol

“great … another angry Christian ”
I think your confusing anger with the truth my friend

The bottom line is Christianity is the newest of a series of life-death-rebirth myths (and also finds parallels with many Hellenic virgin birth motifs).

Typical blanket statements again from someone who doesnt even have the facts. We allready had a conversation about the historicty of the resurrection and you chose wisely not to answer my last post, but then again im sure you will find some new circular argument to validate your belief system of gaps. take some advice from Christopher Hitchens after Doctor Craig trounced him. Circular arguments and posts of volumes dont win debates:thumbsup:

God bless you my friend
I will pray that you one day recieve gods love and reason

OK then walk me through the nexus between atheism and totalitarianism or facism. Tell me how atheism informed the views of Stalin or Hitler (both former Christians, one of whom studying to become an Orthodox priest when he turned to communism, the other raised a Roman Catholic).

It’s a false cause fallacy. There’s no evidence to suggest atheism informed the views of Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot anymore than their respective former belief systems did.

There is, however, decisive evidence showing the church burned countless victims at the stake, killed untold numbers of people through its various inquisitions, crusades, and genocides. It was the church who endorsed slavery, confined Jews to ghettos (forcing them to wear identifying armbands), etc.

In other words, I can show the insanity that results from theocracy, whereas the case connecting atheism with the acts of men like Stalin is much more tenuous.

Indeed Stalin’s real beef with religion was driven by the Marxist view that religion was used by the ruling class to manipulate peasants (and in order to successfully gain control of the economic resources and country at large they had to suppress religion). This doesn’t show his atheism informed his Marxism, but rather his Marxism informed his atheism.

The bottom line is Christianity is the newest of a series of life-death-rebirth myths (and also finds parallels with many Hellenic virgin birth motifs).

great … another angry Christian

isn’t that the mantra … if we don’t believe in your myths of talking snakes, flying angels, oceans being split in half, rivers turned into blood, and god-men rising from the dead, we’re the crazy ones who are arrogant and think we’re our own gods.

absurd religious diatribe only makes the weakness of your arguments shine.

 

[swariffin]

Hi,

I’m not sure if this is the right place to post this thread. If not, please move it to where it should go. Thank you

I either heard or read somewhere that Stephen Hawkings now believes that God created the universe. Can anyone help me with this? I have a 31 yr son who has decided that God doesn’t exist and believes heavily in science. I’m trying to possibly get him to see that even the scientists believe in God. He dismisses anybody that I bring up to try to convince him as saying that they are all wrong. I’m lost as to what to do now. He keeps saying he is “open minded” but dismisses everything I show him without really looking at it or studying it to see if it could be true. Any help would be greatly appreciated!!!

If Stephen Hawking conceded that the theory of Quantum Mechanics cannot be applied to the existence of the big bang, or the probability of the existence of the big bang (without the intervention of a supernatural being) is zero, then you have a good chance to prove that Stephen Hawking believes in God.

In other word, if according to the theory of Quantum Mechanic, the probability of the existence of big bang without any supernatural being is “say” 0.01% (I don’t know for sure), then you can say that Stephen 99.99% believes in God.

 

[wallstreeterww]

If Stephen Hawking conceded that the theory of Quantum Mechanics cannot be applied to the existence of the big bang, or the probability of the existence of the big bang (without the intervention of a supernatural being) is zero, then you have a good chance to prove that Stephen Hawking believes in God.

In other word, if according to the theory of Quantum Mechanic, the probability of the existence of big bang without any supernatural being is “say” 0.01% (I don’t know for sure), then you can say that Stephen 99.99% believes in God.

Very good point Swariffin, them pmo your son should at least entertain the notion of deism. Once he is at the point you can then get him over fully by using the philosophical reasoning behind our god being a personal and caring god.

 

[exan]

Most atheists want to believe that a cyclical universze theory somehow disproves the existence of god. Doctor William Lane Craig shows that even if the cyclical universe theory is true, it does absolutely nothing to disprove gods …]
Guys, This is incredible material. I would suggest to atheists that they should stay away from reading the full page of the link cause it might put some agnostic or deist doubts into their atheistic thought patterns. Very dangerous info .

A cyclycal universe would be an interesting theory, but you go wrong in your assumptions about atheists. Namely, that (the majority) of atheists cares about what religious people think and wants religion disproved. Or that any information is dangerous to atheists. A theoretical proved beginning of the universe would not ‘endanger’ someones atheism. The majority of atheists does not seems to have issues with religion as long as religion is not pushed onto them, and does not care. Nor will a proved beginning of the universe somehow fill in a god in there for them, or make them religious and ‘endanger’ their atheism. In my country half of the population is atheist/agnost, and the majority has not the slightest idea about cyclic universes or similar theories, nor is science their reason to be not religious.

What your talking about is antitheists, people who want religion gone. Not every atheist automatically is an antitheist. Neither are most atheists fanatically opposed to religion, or ‘avoid’ to want to believe in god, ‘close their ears to a god’, the main reason they are not religious is because religion doesn’t makes sense to them. Atheism = not believe in gods/follow religion, thats all. It does not nessecarily include antitheism or a fear of finding a god. Atheists commonly do not fear becoming religious by ’ finding a god’. I don’t. I like to read what religious say, how they reason, have read a large part of the bible, they tried to convert me repeatedly, I find it fascinating to see.

Their problem with religion mostly occurs in countries where atheism is a very disliked minority, where religion is pushed in the law like the USA. The USA is quite extremely religious and to be atheist is a big problem in many parts of the USA. That creates adversity. Atheists may not fear to become religious in their minds al off a sudden, they do fear opression in their lifes, like in the middle ages. Noone likes to be forced into anything.

Scientific people like to know the truth. Wether that truth eventually would include a god or not, though to atheists that is not a likely scenario, science people keep looking. Wether thats a cyclic universe, one that started, a multi universe, alternative universes, they want answer to the “why”. A falsifiable answer. Gods are not nessecarily a problem in the truth, but as long as they are not found in the search, get measurable, quantifiable, they are not usefull for science, or make sense. As Hawking states: we should not look at what (metaphorical) god does, but at what actually happens.

What always suprises me about religions is a quite often found adversity to research and science. Why oppose to scientific ideas in the first place? If you believe, why is one afraid to find the truth in science? Discuss them in a scientific way if you disagree, not by default because they clash with the bible. In fact, if a god existed, at some point we should find him in our research, no matter if it clashes litterally with the bible of not. Yet evolution is often attacked, these universe creation theories are a big issue to quite some religious people. Unless you believe in some conspiracy from science to kill god, which is quite absurd, it makes no sense to oppose against anything new like science theories. If you believe in god don’t you think god will be found eventually?

I don’t get the adversity against atheists at all. In the USA atheists want some space to live, and they don’t get much, thats what creates the problem. Would atheists be left alone like here, there would not be much of an issue with religion. Most atheists don’t have problems with religion here or want to knock religion out of the world.

If Stephen Hawking conceded that the theory of Quantum Mechanics cannot be applied to the existence of the big bang, or the probability of the existence of the big bang (without the intervention of a supernatural being) is zero, then you have a good chance to prove that Stephen Hawking believes in God.

In other word, if according to the theory of Quantum Mechanic, the probability of the existence of big bang without any supernatural being is “say” 0.01% (I don’t know for sure), then you can say that Stephen 99.99% believes in God.

This is strange logic: If someone has no answer for some part of the existance: then it must prove he believes in god?? That logic makes no sense. Some people are perfectly fine with gaps in knowlegde without filling in god. To have a gap in your knowlegde doesnt automaticaly means you believe in a god.

Furthermore Stephen hawking does not exclude that there was ‘nothing’ before what was now call our universe. That the laws of science did not were the same in the big bang fascinates him endlessly. But not having the same laws does not mean ‘there was nothing’ → so there must be god.

He just states ‘this’ universe had some kind of start, though not in imaginary time, and started with the big bang. He still is eager as always to know what DID happen, if something happened before, how it happened. M-theory, string theory, baby universes, though all just theories, those are where he seeks on for the truth. He states he is atheist himself.

Why do some people want him so badly to be religious? And prove he is religious? And not take him serious on saying he does not believe in your god. What difference would it make to you, if he, Stephen Hawking believes in a god or not?

 

[wallstreeterww]

Exan that is a very sober response. I have no problem with seekers of the truth as I am one myself, but the problem I have is your version of this. You say that most atheists are not anti-theist but from what I have seen this is the reverse and that most atheists are militant in their views.

What you have described isnt an atheist but an agnostic and contrary to what most militant atheists believe there is a difference between the 2. True Atheists dont seem to be afraid of losing their rights. On the contrary, they seem to be taking advantage of the system to push their beliefs on others and I saw this for 2 straight years which transformed me from a bystander into someone that truely felt that these militants were trying to brainwash peopleinto believing what they believed (ala communism). Richard Dawkins himself feels that religious parents should be arrested because of what they are trying to teach to their kids.

For you to say that there is no evidence for god is absurd, if this were true then the great theist debaters would have been dismissed as nutcases a long time back, but the fact that people like Doctor Anthony(one of the greatest atheistic minds of the 20th century) flew converted from atheism in now beliving in the existence of a god proves otherwise. The fact that there has been an explosion of theist intellectual in the last 15 years also proves this thinking fallacious.

If atheism is so for the truth then why do they keep trying to disprove science on even the origins of the universe when mainstream science if pulling towards a beginning?

What you are describing my friend is agnosticism not atheism. They can sugar coat it by attaching a capital A or lower case a to it but the definitions are clear. I think that the only way that AATheists will believe in god is that if god shows up in a physical form.

I had this debate with yankeedoodle about the historicity of the resurrection and showed the timeline accuracy of the historical account (both from the bible and outside the bible) and showed how accurate they were historically compared to alexander or the roman empire and instead of admitting he was wrong on his premises of showing proof and also showing extraordinary proof and there was never a post back again. This is what I mean by being a biased, militant and cultist atheist. Just as I agree with you on people shoving their beliefs down peoples throats, I dont like people shoving their absurd disbeliefs down my throat either and if you look at my old posts here you would see that im pretty unbiased and im not afraid to speak my mind to my fellow catholic as well as to atheists.

The problem I have with most atheists is that if they are truely as you say they are they have been silenced by someone about speaking up against miltant atheism which strives to wipe out religion from the face of this earth. Once people like you can stand up to them , then I will be all for the freedom of all people to believe as they want, as I am deep down inside of me.
In all honesty, your post was one of the nicer ones I have experienced from an atheist (even though i consider your style of disbelief agnosticism)


PS, since I feel I am talking to an honest person, I would like to ask your honest opinion on what do you think of Richard Dawkins bowing out of Doctor William Lane Craigs challenge to him to debate not only his book the god delusion but also the existence of god? Do you believe what dawkins said when he claimed that he never heard of craig (even though his good friend Dennet debated craig allready?, and why does dawkins go around debating pastors and bishops instead of an intellectual theist debater like craig?
Im awaiting your honest answer

 

[swariffin]

This is strange logic: If someone has no answer for some part of the existance: then it must prove he believes in god?? That logic makes no sense. Some people are perfectly fine with gaps in knowlegde without filling in god. To have a gap in your knowlegde doesnt automaticaly means you believe in a god.

Furthermore Stephen hawking does not exclude that there was ‘nothing’ before what was now call our universe. That the laws of science did not were the same in the big bang fascinates him endlessly. But not having the same laws does not mean ‘there was nothing’ → so there must be god.

He just states ‘this’ universe had some kind of start, though not in imaginary time, and started with the big bang. He still is eager as always to know what DID happen, if something happened before, how it happened. M-theory, string theory, baby universes, though all just theories, those are where he seeks on for the truth. He states he is atheist himself.

Why do some people want him so badly to be religious? And prove he is religious? And not take him serious on saying he does not believing your god. What difference would it make to you, if he, Stephen Hawking believes in a god or not?

Basically you are correct. Whether SH believes in God or not is none of our business. In my post, I was sharing some idea with the original poster of this thread about reasoning the existence of God with respect to science. I am not arguing about SH, but using SH for the example as the OP has started the thread.

BTW, although SH stated that he is atheist, if he sticks in what he believes, especially in the field of Quantum Mechanics, there must be a probability that God does exist no matter how small the probability is. The main reason why he declares himself atheist (which only he knows for sure), probably because for all that he knows and using all the ways he understands, he cannot prove the existence of God for certainty.

 

[swariffin]

Very good point Swariffin, them pmo your son should at least entertain the notion of deism. Once he is at the point you can then get him over fully by using the philosophical reasoning behind our god being a personal and caring god.

Thanks for your advise. My son shares the idea that all the universe and its contents, including us, did not exist by chance. Although he cannot prove it scientifically. His point is simple. If science cannot explain everything completely, how can science be used to examine God? Such as an incomplete tools in the lab will never enable the students to make a complete experiment. As the result, they will never come to the correct conclusion.

 

[wallstreeterww]

Thanks for your advise. My son shares the idea that all the universe and its contents, including us, did not exist by chance. Although he cannot prove it scientifically. His point is simple. If science cannot explain everything completely, how can science be used to examine God? Such as an incomplete tools in the lab will never enable the students to make a complete experiment. As the result, they will never come to the correct conclusion.

Swariffan, Like I said to use science to get compelling evidence for gods existence I would use Craigs website. You can also use Doctor Craig to explain god philosophically as Craig has a phd in the philosophy of science. As craig says there is more evidence for the existence of god then for god not existing, but I really feel that when you want all evidence for gods existence then you lose something from within. Didnt Jesus say blessed are you that sees and believes but blessed more are those that dont see and still believe in me. Maybe your son should also explore his conscience mind (the soul) and he will find even more answers there. Ask your son if he believes that we are omposed of just flash, bloog, nerve endings and chemicals or are we much more then that.

Also he should do a very thorough study of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. There is alot of good historical evidence for jesus’s resurrection as some of my older posts have shown. paul was among the biggest prosecutors of the followers of Jesus, then he saw jesus on the road (Ibelieve it was on the road to Damascus). Paul wasnt a follower, wasnt crazy and didnt suffer from delusions and whatever it was that turned him from an unbeliever to a believer had to have been extraordinary.

Swariffan, God loves your son more then most and wants him back in his arms so bad. remember that God rejoices more when his lost sheep are found and come back to him then the sheep that are allready there. In conclusion, your son needs to hit it from a spiritual, scientific and philosophical angles.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The majority of atheists does not seems to have issues with religion as long as religion is not pushed onto them, and does not care.

Boy! I don’t know much about string theory or quantum mechanics, but I do know there seemed to be a lot of atheists in the Soviet Union, in China, in Cambodia and in Spain who sure killed a lot of religious believers. Stalin, for example, ran out of nuns to send to the logging camps so he rounded up religious laywomen and called them “nuns” just so he could enjoy causing misery and death to “nuns”. I don’t know, pardner, but that sure seems like “having issues with religion” to me.

 

[wallstreeterww]

Boy! I don’t know much about string theory or quantum mechanics, but I do know there seemed to be a lot of atheists in the Soviet Union, in China, in Cambodia and in Spain who sure killed a lot of religious believers. Stalin, for example, ran out of nuns to send to the logging camps so he rounded up religious laywomen and called them “nuns” just so he could enjoy causing misery and death to “nuns”. I don’t know, pardner, but that sure seems like “having issues with religion” to me.

Correct, but it seems like most atheists conveniently forget about these things and always say that they cant be attributed to atheism being the cause , which is totally ludicrous. These atheists that were there believed that religion was the opiate of the masses. Its like I said before I cant imagine atheists in true power. Im not talking about some tiny powerless country like Switzerland. Im talking about a power country like errrrrrrr the SOVIET UNION. Imagine how many people they would have killed if they had control of it. Opps my mistake, they allready did that

 

[exan]

Exan that is a very sober response. I have no problem with seekers of the truth as I am one myself, but the problem I have is your version of this. You say that most atheists are not anti-theist but from what I have seen this is the reverse and that most atheists are militant in their views.

…].

The problem I have with most atheists is that if they are truely as you say they are they have been silenced by someone about speaking up against miltant atheism which strives to wipe out religion from the face of this earth. Once people like you can stand up to them , then I will be all for the freedom of all people to believe as they want, as I am deep down inside of me.
In all honesty, your post was one of the nicer ones I have experienced from an atheist (even though i consider your style of disbelief agnosticism)


PS, since I feel I am talking to an honest person, I would like to ask your honest opinion on what do you think of Richard Dawkins bowing out of Doctor William Lane Craigs challenge to him to debate not only his book the god delusion but also the existence of god? Do you believe what dawkins said when he claimed that he never heard of craig (even though his good friend Dennet debated craig allready?, and why does dawkins go around debating pastors and bishops instead of an intellectual theist debater like craig?
Im awaiting your honest answer

Atheists I know, which are the majority of people I see, are anything but militant as you describe. I don’t know if you happen to get to know very different atheists, but your image of them does not match any atheist I know in my daily life. Where do you live and where do you meet these atheists?

I define someone as atheist when they either define themself as atheist or say they think they believe there is no god. If they answer is ‘I hope theres something’ or that they don’t know they are agnost. Communism is not needed to be an atheist, atheist is defined as not believing in a god. Its strange prejudice to be a ‘real’ atheist you should have anything do do with communism, I yet have to meet an atheist that does. What you call a “real atheist” sounds like someone very extreme to me who I yet have to meet. I find it a strange predjucie of atheists.

I can not say -any- atheist person I know is a communist. Not here, not on the internet. I have yet to meet an atheist that is attracted to communism. Its a strange comparison, yes, communism dictated forbidding religions, but atheism does not dictate communism at all. Its just a label for who think there is no god. At most atheists seem to be more left wing, probably because the majority is european. Europe is far more left wing than the USA - which in debate forums easily provokes the insult ‘communist’. But take that with a grain of salt. If my ideas are communist, than christian dutch would be ‘communists’ , because the majority in our left-wing cabinet who made these left wing laws are christian.

In USA forums, when I state that people should get something simple like public healthcare, I already get to hear “You communist!!”, “Socialist!”. I don’t know if you would call that communism, but thats normal european politics (left and right wing). Its a strange cultural difference, seems to be based more on cultural differences than on religious, since I have ran into the same word calling “Communist!” with several right wing USA atheists.

Richard Dawkins is an antitheist atheist, but in no way stands for the average atheist. Not every atheist is antitheist. You can ask me to explain his reasons for beeing so outspoken, but I am not Dawkins and don’t know what goes on in his head. I have no idea who Doctor Anthony is, I cannot find him by that name in the wikipedia either.

What are “atheist laws” that are in the government?

No is proof needed to convert to christianity, thats why its called a religion. As far as proof in god goes, there seems to be none. If there is some, I am happy to look into it. Direct proof, not deducted proof, I am quite convinced someone named jesus may have existed, but not that he did miracles or there was any god. I also am quite convinced someone names mozes existed too, but not alllah. What do you think about allah? Is he the same god to you as your god, or a false god?

I am atheist in the sense that I believe, know, there is no god. No offense. The idea seems absurd to me. Thats about how atheist I am. Just like Hawking, or Heisenberg, or my dad, I don’t believe any god exists. I am as sure about that, as that as I don’t believe in unicorns, goblins and faires and probably as sure as you are convinced there do is a god. I also would also need god to show up in a physical form to believe in him. Does that make me a “true” atheist to you? Or do I need to revert to communism first laughs.

As far as going against going against what you call militant atheists goes, I feel no need to do so. Dawkins uses words, not bombs. People like him do not try to get religion forbidden in the law, do not ring peoples doors to convert them, do not throw bombs or use violence. Though I don’t agree with his methods, I find them less extreme than many religious statements and actions against for example people like me.

I prefer Hawkings more peacefull method of doing. Its annoying when people swap his words around for their own use. And use a false argument to convince others that “Hawking is religious so you can be too”. Its Hawkings choice to be atheist, he doesn’t attacks anyone, and he remains even agnostic in his writings not to offend people. Hes cool. Let people like him or me be atheist in peace. When someones wants to convince people of a christian god by using a scientist, why not take a christian scientist?

3villagecsd.k12.ny.us/wmhs/Departments/Math/OBrien/hawking.html

 

[wallstreeterww]

Ok first of all here is Antony Flew en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew (my appologies as i missed his name by one letter), as far as Jesus there is lots of proof of the historicity of his resurrection and that would be the greatest miracle of all. I would suggest reading up on that first. Here is a good place to start as Doctor William lane Craig studied at both catholic and protestent universitieshttp://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5351 … If you can refute the historicity of the resurrection then be my guest and you will have accomplished something that no other historian or theologian has done yet.

Its obvious that you havent studied or looked into the concept of god much and for you to say that it is absurd shows this. The absurdity is how someone that considers thgemselves to be rational and reasoning would compare god to unicorns is absurd. there is no evidence that unicorns exist and there is pretty good evidence that god exists. In fact there is much more evidence in gods existence then there is to god not existing.

Notice that your former atheist brethren is that they used to believe that the universe was eternal. (laughing out loud big tim). The absurdity here is that many of you atheists still want to cling to the notion that the uniervse is still eternal despite what mainstream science concludes. Now tell me exan instead of using circular arguments like comparing the different gods why not just start with the basic elementary study of the concept of the existence of god. Start with the fine tuning concept at the beginning of the so called big bang (i will call it expansion for you since you might brig that up).

For a combination of philosophy and science i would also look into randall niles who was a former atheist and now believes in god youtube.com/watch?v=tiB2K_BAyAk&feature=related

As far as proof there is direct proof (the resurrection) as well as deductive proof, but for you to write off the latter shows your ignorance of how people find out the truth whether it is through science or philosophy. Science first relies on deductive proof, how do you theories are formulated? Do you think einsteins theory of relativity relsies just on direct proof?
By the way you have posted and with your blanket statements comparing god with unicorns it shows me that you not only have a basic and elemntary edcation on god,the historicity of the resurrection and science but you also seem to have a hidden bias towards atheism that is supported by only faith.

You must be joking when you are talking about dawkins arent you. Dawkins stated publicly that if he had the power he would have religious people arrested for brain washing their kids, not only that but that he would these kids away from their families and put them through a secular, atheist education . You dont call this dropping bombs on people? The only reason he hasnt done this yet is that he doesnt have the power.

Granted there are some part sof communism that show promise, but not the militantly atheist part which forms one of the core of communistic thinking.

Have you read the communist manifesto? Did you read karl marx’s statement about religion and god?

If your post is the representation of the rational and reasoning of the atheists, it leaves too much to be desired. I suggest that you start doing your reading on the subjects that I have brought up to see what is really rational and what is truely absurd my friend
god bless

 

[yankee_doodle]

Call it what you want and keep repeating the same circular arguments over and over but atheism was at the very core of what they believed in. Karl Marx, the founder of Communism himself, called religion an opiate of the masses. How much more clear can you get then that.

false cause fallacy (or post hoc ergo propter hoc). A disbelief in something cannot inform anything, much less evil actions.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Ok first of all here is Antony Flew en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew (my appologies as i missed his name by one letter), as far as Jesus there is lots of proof of the historicity of his resurrection and that would be the greatest miracle of all. I would suggest reading up on that first. Here is a good place to start as Doctor William lane Craig studied at both catholic and protestent universitieshttp://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5351 … If you can refute the historicity of the resurrection then be my guest and you will have accomplished something that no other historian or theologian has done yet.

There is no credible proof of the historicity of the resurrection of anyone, Jesus or otherwise

BTW Christopher Hitchens slaughtered William Lane Craig in a debate