Stephen Hawkings believes in God?

[Dokimas]

Well, there’s plenty of theories on how the universes came into existence (three main competing models, and one model – although intuitively far fetched, the math works very well & Fermi Laboratory is looking for evidence as we speak, well maybe not today, but tomorrow they’ll be back at it).

Not true, since even acknowledging the logic of metaphysical arguments like every event has a preceding cause, doesn’t necessitate believing the first cause is god.

whatever you say buddy

the only thing being proven here is you’re not a man with training in formal logic (or who even bothers opening his dictionary)

now you’re putting your foot in your mouth. We’ve proven the viability of evolutionary theory. If you would like to have a debate on this issue, by all means start a thread & I’ll be glad to entertain you.

it doesn’t take faith to believe these things to be true, a good physics course will do just fine

Correct I have no formal training in logic. That doesn’t negate the ability to reason logically.​

What definition am I missing?​

Prove what life is and then show how life doesn’t come from pre-existing life, then you’ll have a shot a proving materialistic evolution. Without knowing what life is, there is no validity to materialistic evolution.​

So you think the first cause has no intelligence?​

Math can prove just about anything. I can prove 0 divided by 0 equals 10. Of course it does not.

 

[josie_L]

He’s still agnostic as far as I can tell (he hasn’t changed his views – besides maybe becoming more ardently agnostic). Here’s him speaking for himself:

youtube.com/watch?v=dS1mdbDmE8g

Wait one second, it seems that Stephen is somewhat of a deist like Einstein and Spinoza (God is impersonal and subject to the laws of physics). By the way that excerpt I quoted would fit in nicely with what was said in that video, here it is:

“The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn’t have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won’t return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, I think I better stop now.”

hawking.org.uk/index.php/lectures/62

 

[yankee_doodle]

Wait one second, it seems that Stephen is somewhat of a deist like Einstein and Spinoza (God is impersonal and subject to the laws of physics). By the way that excerpt I quoted would fit in nicely with what was said in that video, here it is:

Einstein was no deist, and neither is Hawking as far as I can tell.

“The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn’t have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won’t return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, I think I better stop now.”

hawking.org.uk/index.php/lectures/62

that’s all highly speculative, and there is no generally accepted theory on what the future of the universe will be. Some think after it expands to point reaching a certain threshold, it will contract and implode. Others think it eventually stop expanding but not contract (rather the universe would slowly die as all its parts die i.e. planets, stars, neutron stars, and eventually even black holes will all die unless there’s a catastrophic event before that happens, like the universe imploding).

Under either of these scenarios the big bang could reoccur. Even where the universe dies, matter and energy never disappear. So the same conditions that existed before our big bang event may one day be present in a dead universe. At this point though these questions are highly speculative. Right now Fermi Lab is even searching for evidence of alternate universes. If they find it … it will create a whole new dynamic in this debate. Then you guys will start saying stuff like Jesus is on the other side of a wormhole

BTW Josie, thanks for the link to Hawkings site. Here’s a quote of his:

“This lecture is about whether we can predict the future, or whether it is arbitrary and random. In ancient times, the world must have seemed pretty arbitrary. Disasters such as floods or diseases must have seemed to happen without warning or apparen t reason. Primitive people attributed such natural phenomena, to a pantheon of gods and goddesses, who behaved in a capricious and whimsical way. There was no way to predict what they would do, and the only hope was to win favour by gifts or actions.”

Sounds like exactly the sort of thing I would say (and commonly do say here on CAF); and I don’t think I ever read a better explanation of quantum mechanics that Hawking provides.

 

[gearhead]

Math can prove just about anything. I can prove 0 divided by 0 equals 10. Of course it does not.

If you think that math can prove that zero divided by zero equals 10, then you don’t understand math.

0 x 10 = 0 does not imply that 0 / 0 = 10.

 

[yankee_doodle]

-Prove what life is and then show how life doesn’t come from pre-existing life, then you’ll have a shot a proving materialistic evolution. Without knowing what life is, there is no validity to materialistic evolution.

Evolution has been proven by empirical evidence (we have fossil records dating back over 3 billion years, and we’ve discovered over 13 different species of hominids, our primal ancestors).

Do you think Darwin came up with natural selection because he was part of a grand anti-god conspiracy? You do realize his theory was based on observation (he didn’t pull it out of thin air).

So you think the first cause has no intelligence?

I don’t know, I’ll wait until science provides an answer. What I do know is religion is untrue.

Math can prove just about anything. I can prove 0 divided by 0 equals 10. Of course it does not.

If you really believe that then there’s really no reasonable basis upon which we can have a fruitful discussion?

 

[gearhead]

Do you think Darwin came up with natural selection because he was part of a grand anti-god conspiracy? You do realize his theory was based on observation (he didn’t pull it out of thin air).

Fun fact: Darwin first developed the foundations of his ideas while studying beetles during his time at Cambridge as an undergraduate. He originally planned to enter the priesthood once he obtained his degree. His study of beetles was primarily done from the viewpoint of learning the details of God’s magnificent Creation.

 

[josie_L]

Einstein was no deist, and neither is Hawking as far as I can tell.

I just reviewed the video again, and it does state that Einstein believed in an impersonal God (like Spinoza), in other words, he was a deist. It’s mentioned when Carl Sagan explained the two ways in which God is perceived and/or defined (on the one hand there is the Christian God, an old man sitting on a throne who intervenes, and on the other is the God of Einstein and Spinoza, who is the sum total of the physical laws of the Universe, an impersonal God who does not intervene). It seems that Hawkings agrees with this definition of God.

that’s all highly speculative, and there is no generally accepted theory on what the future of the universe will be. Some think after it expands to point reaching a certain threshold, it will contract and implode. Others think it eventually stop expanding but not contract (rather the universe would slowly die as all its parts die i.e. planets, stars, neutron stars, and eventually even black holes will all die unless there’s a catastrophic event before that happens, like the universe imploding).

Under either of these scenarios the big bang could reoccur. Even where the universe dies, matter and energy never disappear. So the same conditions that existed before our big bang event may one day be present in a dead universe. At this point though these questions are highly speculative. Right now Fermi Lab is even searching for evidence of alternate universes. If they find it … it will create a whole new dynamic in this debate. Then you guys will start saying stuff like Jesus is on the other side of a wormhole

But you don’t understand, space and time had a starting point so whether or not our universe is one of many (that exists in a long line of pre-existing universes) is not the point per se; without a first cause space, time, matter and energy would not exist. Let me just remind you of what I quoted earlier in another thread:

So it seems that our universe did have a beginning. We call it the “big bang,” but technically, under the most widely accepted cosmological model—inflation—the big bang was not the beginning. It emerged from the cauldron of cosmic inflation, when something infinitesimally small expanded majestically in an astonishingly brief instant, cooking up space, time, energy, and matter in a colossal cosmic stew.

The fundamental question is this: No matter the theory, was there ever a “something from nothing” start? In Guth’s inflation, no matter how high the number of universes that exist at any moment, inflation had to start with a beginning. Cosmic inflation may engender infinite universes forever into the future, but it cannot do so forever into the past. Under inflationary theory, there must be a finite number of universes in the past. Time’s arrow is not symmetrical. So unless something like the Steinhardt-Turok model of cyclical universes is correct, inflation demands that the universe had a beginning and that it had to start with some stuff, however small.

scienceandreligiontoday.blogs…beginning.html

BTW Josie, thanks for the link to Hawkings site. Here’s a quote of his:

“This lecture is about whether we can predict the future, or whether it is arbitrary and random. In ancient times, the world must have seemed pretty arbitrary. Disasters such as floods or diseases must have seemed to happen without warning or apparen t reason. Primitive people attributed such natural phenomena, to a pantheon of gods and goddesses, who behaved in a capricious and whimsical way. There was no way to predict what they would do, and the only hope was to win favour by gifts or actions.”

Sounds like exactly the sort of thing I would say (and commonly do say here on CAF); and I don’t think I ever read a better explanation of quantum mechanics that Hawking provides.

But this has no correlation to Christianity for the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob did not behave capriciously or whimsically (it’s why our theology has stayed the same for 2000 years, well more, if you consider Judaism) therefore, trying to compare these myths based for the most part on the seasonal patterns of the year (rising and dying gods were connected to planting and harvesting) is completely wrong. Furthermore, Christianity is a religion which seeks to understand the world, hence the reason science took root in Christian Europe.

God bless.

 

[yankee_doodle]

I just reviewed the video again, and it does state that Einstein believed in an impersonal God (like Spinoza), in other words, he was a deist. It’s mentioned when Carl Sagan explained the two ways in which God is perceived and/or defined (on the one hand there is the Christian God, an old man sitting on a throne who intervenes, and on the other is the God of Einstein and Spinoza, who is the sum total of the physical laws of the Universe, an impersonal God who does not intervene). It seems that Hawkings agrees with this definition of God.

Einstein made statements like:

I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

Does this mean Einstein is a deist? He also made this statement:

*“From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist… I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being.” *

I might not agree with how Einstein characterizes atheists (at least it’s not true in all cases) but by his own words he’s agnostic.

But you don’t understand, space and time had a starting point so whether or not our universe is one of many (that exists in a long line of pre-existing universes) is not the point per se; without a first cause time, matter, and energy would not exist. Let me just remind you of what I quoted earlier in another thread:

but you’re saying because we can’t figure out how else the universe could have been created – therefore god. That’s a classic argument from incredulity.

So it seems that our universe did have a beginning. We call it the “big bang,” but technically, under the most widely accepted cosmological model—inflation—the big bang was not the beginning. It emerged from the cauldron of cosmic inflation, when something infinitesimally small expanded majestically in an astonishingly brief instant, cooking up space, time, energy, and matter in a colossal cosmic stew.

The fundamental question is this: No matter the theory, was there ever a “something from nothing” start? In Guth’s inflation, no matter how high the number of universes that exist at any moment, inflation had to start with a beginning. Cosmic inflation may engender infinite universes forever into the future, but it cannot do so forever into the past. Under inflationary theory, there must be a finite number of universes in the past. Time’s arrow is not symmetrical. So unless something like the Steinhardt-Turok model of cyclical universes is correct, inflation demands that the universe had a beginning and that it had to start with some stuff, however small.

scienceandreligiontoday.blogs…beginning.html

I won’t argue with the fact that it’s difficult to imagine something without a preceding cause, or something being created by and from nothing. However, modern religion is in my view simply more in a pattern of mankind saying – mythology is the best we can come up with?

But this has no correlation to Christianity for the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob did not behave capriciously or whimsically (it’s why our theology has stayed the same for 2000 years, well more, if you consider Judaism) therefore, trying to compare these myths based for the most part on the seasonal patterns of the year (rising and dying gods were connected to planting and harvesting) is completely wrong. Furthermore, Christianity is a religion which seeks to understand the world, hence the reason science took root in Christian Europe.

God bless.

That’s not exactly accurate, nor does it consider all the relevant circumstances. God’s like Osiris and Zeus have a rich history, and formed the center of religions that maintained viability for centuries (in the case of Osiris several thousand years). The reason they maintained their vitality is because of the societies they were cultivated in.

When we consider the fact that a hegamony like Rome adopted Christianity as its official religion (eventually banning all other forms of religious worship) it’s no surprise that Christianity survived as long as it has.

However, it’s also worth noting, saying something is true because a large number of people believed it for a really long time is logically fallacious.

 

[Dokimas]

If you think that math can prove that zero divided by zero equals 10, then you don’t understand math.

0 x 10 = 0 does not imply that 0 / 0 = 10.

25 - 25 = 0; it also equals (5 + 5)(5 - 5) by factoring the difference of two squares;

5 - 5 = 0;

(25 - 25) / (5 - 5) = (5 + 5)(5 - 5) / (5 - 5);

(5 - 5) in the numerator cancels with (5 - 5) in the denominator leaving (5 + 5) which = 10.​

This only goes to show that if one starts with a false premise one will end with a wrong conclusion. I’m wondering how much of the math/science that ‘tells’ us we don’t need God starts with a false premise.​

BTW, what I was saying was that one could use math principles correctly and come up with a wrong answer. I was NOT saying 0/0=10 only I could use math to prove it does.

 

[Dokimas]

Ya****nkee: Millions of men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned:​

And most of them were Christians killed by atheistic gov’ts (Communist in USSR and China for example) or gov’ts that for all practicle purposes were atheists (Hitler for example).

 

[gearhead]

25 - 25 = 0; it also equals (5 + 5)(5 - 5) by factoring the difference of two squares;

There’s your first problem. You can’t do that. When you factor out “5 - 5”, you divide by zero. Everything after that is undefined.

-BTW, what I was saying was that one could use math principles correctly and come up with a wrong answer. I was NOT saying 0/0=10 only I could use math to prove it does.

The only problem is that in your “proof”, you did not use math principles correctly.

 

[gearhead]

Ya****nkee: Millions of men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned:​

And most of them were Christians killed by atheistic gov’ts (Communist in USSR and China for example) or gov’ts that for all practicle purposes were atheists (Hitler for example).

Hitler was an atheist? He was raised a Christian, frequently used Christian language in his speeches and writing, derived quite a bit of his anti-semitism from the writings of Martin Luther and a warped interpretation of the Bible, and dabbled in the occult. What part of that says “atheist” to you?

As for your main point, it seems like the problem isn’t so much with whether the ideology you impose on the people is religious or not. More like the problem is with imposing an ideology on the people, period.

 

[Dokimas]

There’s your first problem. You can’t do that. When you factor out “5 - 5”, you divide by zero. Everything after that is undefined.

The only problem is that in your “proof”, you did not use math principles correctly.

Which math principles did I misuse? Did I factor improperly? Did I use numbers that did not equal zero when subtracted? Did I cancel incorrectly?​

The only math principle that was violated was the begining premise that one can divide by 0. Except for that, the math is correct, IMO. Am looking forward to your corrections.

 

[Dokimas]

Hitler was an atheist? He was raised a Christian, frequently used Christian language in his speeches and writing, derived quite a bit of his anti-semitism from the writings of Martin Luther and a warped interpretation of the Bible, and dabbled in the occult. What part of that says “atheist” to you?

As for your main point, it seems like the problem isn’t so much with whether the ideology you impose on the people is religious or not. More like the problem is with imposing an ideology on the people, period.

For all practicle purposes, yes I believe Hilter to be an atheist. You forgot to mention the influence Karl Marx had on him.​

Many an atheirst was brought up religious. Hilter had an agenda that included subverting religion. One way to do that was to use correct language to draw them in. No knowlegable Christian is anti Jewish.​

I’d agree the problem doesn’t lie in religion or non religion but with the wickedness of the human heart.

 

[josie_L]

That’s not exactly accurate, nor does it consider all the relevant circumstances. God’s like Osiris and Zeus have a rich history, and formed the center of religions that maintained viability for centuries (in the case of Osiris several thousand years). The reason they maintained their vitality is because of the societies they were cultivated in.

When we consider the fact that a hegamony like Rome adopted Christianity as its official religion (eventually banning all other forms of religious worship) it’s no surprise that Christianity survived as long as it has.

However, it’s also worth noting, saying something is true because a large number of people believed it for a really long time is logically fallacious.

Look at this interesting quote from Albert Einstein:

“To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?”

“As a child, I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.”

"Have you read Emil Ludwig’s book on Jesus?

“Emil Ludwig’s Jesus,” replied Einstein, “is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot.”

“You accept the historical existence of Jesus?”

“Unquestionably. No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. How different, for instance, is the impression which we receive from an account of legendary heroes of antiquity like Theseus. Theseus and other heroes of his type lack the authentic vitality of Jesus.”

“Ludwig Lewisohn, in one of his recent books, claims that many of the sayings of Jesus paraphrase the sayings of other prophets.”

“No man,” Einstein replied, “can deny the fact that Jesus existed, nor that his sayings are beautiful. Even if some them have been said before, no one has expressed them so divinely as he.”

einsteinandreligion.com/einsteinonjesus.html

 

[wallstreeterww]

I believe that Richard Dawkins said it best when he declined to debate Doctor William Lane Craig on the existence of god, when Dawkins said he will only debate a person of high stature like bishop. When atheists are forced to debate theist intellectuals they usually back down. Its when you have a kook like Kirk Cameron that the so called rational response squad will jump at that opportunity. Atheism is a very biased belief for a group that supposedly values reason and logic.

Richard Dawkins is one of the 4 horsemen of atheism and he flat out chickened out on an opportunity to not only debate the fallacies of his book the god delussion but to also prove once and for all that he presents compelling existence for gods non existence. Could it be that Dawkins knows in his heart of hearts that there is alot of compelling evidence for gods existence. Doctor Craig totally slam dunked christopher hitchens in both debates, and at the end of that debate you could see on video an atheist coming up to Doctor Craig and tellimg him that he is awesome. Doctor Craig also mentioned that there will be a huge
renaissance of theist debaters that were caused by these new, aggressive, rediculing atheists. God is using these atheists to get us theists up to par with our philosophical, scientific as well theological knowledge.

For the record I am a catholic, and I totally look up to Doctor Craig. He is brilliant for the work he has done in presenting the case for gods existence.So much so that atheisms greatest leaders refuse to embaress themselves by debating him (like Richard Dawkins.

Doctor Craig also mentioned a great catholic debater from Notre Dame, I will try to get his name as he is most likely catholic.Doctor craig makes a brilliant case for gods existence with the big bang explosion and the fine tuning needed for the 4 natural forces.

 

[Holly3278]

I believe that many great scientists believed in God. Here is a list of some of the better scientists in history who have believed in God:

1. 
   *]Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
   *]Sir Fancis Bacon (1561-1627)
   *]Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
   *]Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
   *]Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
   *]Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
   *]Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
   *]Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
   *]Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
   *]William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
   *]Max Planck (1858-1947)
   *]Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
   
   And that’s just 12!

 

[josie_L]

I believe that Richard Dawkins said it best when he declined to debate Doctor William Lane Craig on the existence of god, when Dawkins said he will only debate a person of high stature like bishop. When atheists are forced to debate theist intellectuals they usually back down. Its when you have a kook like Kirk Cameron that the so called rational response squad will jump at that opportunity. Atheism is a very biased belief for a group that supposedly values reason and logic.

Richard Dawkins is one of the 4 horsemen of atheism and he flat out chickened out on an opportunity to not only debate the fallacies of his book the god delussion but to also prove once and for all that he presents compelling existence for gods non existence. Could it be that Dawkins knows in his heart of hearts that there is alot of compelling evidence for gods existence. Doctor Craig totally slam dunked christopher hitchens in both debates, and at the end of that debate you could see on video an atheist coming up to Doctor Craig and tellimg him that he is awesome. Doctor Craig also mentioned that there will be a huge
renaissance of theist debaters that were caused by these new, aggressive, rediculing atheists. God is using these atheists to get us theists up to par with our philosophical, scientific as well theological knowledge.

For the record I am a catholic, and I totally look up to Doctor Craig. He is brilliant for the work he has done in presenting the case for gods existence.So much so that atheisms greatest leaders refuse to embaress themselves by debating him (like Richard Dawkins.

Doctor Craig also mentioned a great catholic debater from Notre Dame, I will try to get his name as he is most likely catholic.Doctor craig makes a brilliant case for gods existence with the big bang explosion and the fine tuning needed for the 4 natural forces.

I believe he also debated the former world famous atheist Anthony Flew (their debate has been written into a book). And he has written a tome really about the historical viability / evidence for the resurrection, I will try to find the title.

 

[josie_L]

Einstein made statements like:

I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

Does this mean Einstein is a deist? He also made this statement:

*“From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist… I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being.” *

But he says that he does not believe in a personal God, and thereafter states “you may call me an agnostic”, therefore stating he is agnostic when it come to believing in a personal God. Anyways, here’s a few quotes I scrounged up (and they are dated);

I want to know how God created this world. I’m not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.

— From E. Salaman, “A Talk With Einstein,” The Listener 54 (1955), pp. 370-371, quoted in Jammer, p. 123.

What I am really interested in, is knowing whether God could have created the world in a different way; in other words, whether the requirement of logical simplicity admits a margin of freedom.

— C. Seelig, Helle Zeit—Dunkle Zeit (Europa Verlag, Zuürich, 1956), p.72, quoted in Jammer, p. 124.

About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indocrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws.

—W. Hermanns, Einstein and the Poet—In Search of the Cosmic Man (Branden Press, Brookline Village, Mass., 1983), p.132, quoted in Jammer, p.123.

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive With our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible Universe, forms my idea of God.

— Quoted in the New York Times obituary April 19, 1955

My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.

— Letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215

I am a deeply religious nonbeliever… This is a somewhat new kind of religion.

— Letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434

I believe that Einstein was a deist in that he believed in an impersonal God that was the sum total of the physical laws of the Universe, and was agnostic towards the personal (religious) God.

 

[wallstreeterww]

Holly , Great List, Keep em coming, I also saw part of the debate on the history of the resurrection, and actually used part of that to respond to an atheist that claimed that there was no unbiased evidence for the resurrection outside of the bible and that there was no evidence before 30 after the event happened. I first presented my unbiased evidence outside of the bible showing conclusively that unbelievers validated the resurrection by writing about it. After that I debunked his theory of nothing before 30 years by talking about the latters of paul to the corinthian church about the resurrection (and some of those were written just 5 years after the resurrection of Jesus.

I wasnt through there. I also made the claim that theresurrection was one of the most historically accurate recorded events after and presented the case of the historical writings of Alexanders life which werent written until at least a few hundred years after his death. Suffice to say that this atheist never posted again on this subject

These debates are usually much much tougher and leave me with a splitting headache after, so Im lucky that the good lord gave me a break on this one

Josie, remember there is another quote here from Einstein in response to people calling him an atheist or panatheist.

godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html#s9CvnB0J4tGh

"However, it would also seem that Einstein was not an atheist, since he also complained about being put into that camp:

“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.”

“I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.”

It seems to me from this article that einsteins only objection about god was why he allowed evil to exist in this world, but then again he even proclaimed that god existed but also that his limited mind could not possibly comprehend the incredible nature of god. What einstein should have read up more on is free will.

Jose , I will try to look for the debate with anthony flew

I believe that many great scientists believed in God. Here is a list of some of the better scientists in history who have believed in God:

1. 
   *]Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
   *]Sir Fancis Bacon (1561-1627)
   *]Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
   *]Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
   *]Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
   *]Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
   *]Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
   *]Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
   *]Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
   *]William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
   *]Max Planck (1858-1947)
   *]Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
   
   And that’s just 12!