Stephen Hawkings believes in God?

[rcscwc]

At the outset, what is your defintion of an atheist? I belive it is one who does not

In my experience, most atheists are atheists for one of three reasons:

1. inordinate intellectual pride and arrogance
2. something traumatic occurred and now they’re angry with God
3. they want to lead an immoral life and their conscience gets in the way (that is they haven’t deadened their conscience enough to just be indifferent)

#1 False.
#2 Then you are to blame
#3 Prove it.

Add to this that most atheists have serious trusts issues, where they have to personally verify everything themselves – taste, see, feel, hear for themselves. They won’t take another’s word for it. There’s also something deeply wrong with those persons who happily identify themselves as skeptics and doubters.

yeah. They do not take take your word about god, hell, heaven etc too.

 

[wallstreeterww]

Please show me this alleged evidence (a link would be much appreciated)?

factreal.wordpress.com/2009/04/13/nonchristians-prove-jesus-resurrection/
Over and over again, I have read or heard people comment that Jesus was seen alive after His death and burial only by His friends and followers. Using that argument, they attempt to water down the overwhelming impact of the multiple eyewitness accounts. But that line of reasoning is so pathetic it hardly deserves comment. No author or informed individual would regard Saul of Tarsus as being a follower of Christ. The facts show the exact opposite. Saul despised Christ and persecuted Christ’s followers. It was a life-shattering experience when Christ appeared to him. Although he was at the time not a disciple, he later became the apostle Paul, one of the greatest witnesses for the truth of the resurrection.
Ancient sources:
Josephus (Antiquities 4.8.15)
Talmud (Sotah 19a); Talmud (Rosh Hashannah 1.8); Talmud (Kiddushin 82b)
Origen (Contra Celsum 2:59; 3:55)
Gaius Suetonius, Roman historian, (The Twelve Caesars, Augustus 44) circa A.D. 115

Even Paul despised christ and was an unbeliever.
“Over and over again, I have read or heard people comment that Jesus was seen alive after His death and burial only by His friends and followers. Using that argument, they attempt to water down the overwhelming impact of the multiple eyewitness accounts. But that line of reasoning is so pathetic it hardly deserves comment. No author or informed individual would regard Saul of Tarsus as being a follower of Christ. The facts show the exact opposite. Saul despised Christ and persecuted Christ’s followers. It was a life-shattering experience when Christ appeared to him. Although he was at the time not a disciple, he later became the apostle Paul, one of the greatest witnesses for the truth of the resurrection.”
pauls letter to the corinthian church on the resurrection were dated only 5 years after the death of christ. This is by historical standards razor sharp as opposed to all other historical events such as Alexander whose history was written hundreds of years after his death. Paul was a total unbeliever who didnt even like Christ. This is the modern equivalent of an atheist, or person from another religion talking about the event.

This reminds me of an alleged study made at the university of minnesota claiming to have evidence that atheists are the most distrusted group in America. Of course all of the atheists on this message board i was on never bothered to call it alleged evidence or bothered to see the facts that they allready knew. That the people that performed this study were all atheists lol. Well unlike them there is much historic reporting outside the bible that talks about the resurrection and if compred to all other historic reportings , especially of those times its super accurate.

 

[yankee_doodle]

factreal.wordpress.com/2009/04/13/nonchristians-prove-jesus-resurrection/
Over and over again, I have read or heard people comment that Jesus was seen alive after His death and burial only by His friends and followers. Using that argument, they attempt to water down the overwhelming impact of the multiple eyewitness accounts. But that line of reasoning is so pathetic it hardly deserves comment. No author or informed individual would regard Saul of Tarsus as being a follower of Christ. The facts show the exact opposite. Saul despised Christ and persecuted Christ’s followers. It was a life-shattering experience when Christ appeared to him. Although he was at the time not a disciple, he later became the apostle Paul, one of the greatest witnesses for the truth of the resurrection.
Ancient sources:
Josephus (Antiquities 4.8.15)
Talmud (Sotah 19a); Talmud (Rosh Hashannah 1.8); Talmud (Kiddushin 82b)
Origen (Contra Celsum 2:59; 3:55)
Gaius Suetonius, Roman historian, (The Twelve Caesars, Augustus 44) circa A.D. 115

Please try to avoid misrepresenting the evidence. You said “eyewitness” accounts, Josephus never claims to have seen Jesus alive (much less resurrected). What are you trying to show here, if it’s merely that Jesus in fact lived … I don’t dispute that.

Even Paul despised christ and was an unbeliever.
“Over and over again, I have read or heard people comment that Jesus was seen alive after His death and burial only by His friends and followers. Using that argument, they attempt to water down the overwhelming impact of the multiple eyewitness accounts. But that line of reasoning is so pathetic it hardly deserves comment. No author or informed individual would regard Saul of Tarsus as being a follower of Christ. The facts show the exact opposite. Saul despised Christ and persecuted Christ’s followers. It was a life-shattering experience when Christ appeared to him. Although he was at the time not a disciple, he later became the apostle Paul, one of the greatest witnesses for the truth of the resurrection.”
pauls letter to the corinthian church on the resurrection were dated only 5 years after the death of christ. This is by historical standards razor sharp as opposed to all other historical events such as Alexander whose history was written hundreds of years after his death. Paul was a total unbeliever who didnt even like Christ. This is the modern equivalent of an atheist, or person from another religion talking about the event.

I’ve studied the bible before & I’m fully aware of Paul’s claims. The prophets and sages of every religion claim divine contact – should we believe them all?

This reminds me of an alleged study made at the university of minnesota claiming to have evidence that atheists are the most distrusted group in America. Of course all of the atheists on this message board i was on never bothered to call it alleged evidence or bothered to see the facts that they allready knew. That the people that performed this study were all atheists lol. Well unlike them there is much historic reporting outside the bible that talks about the resurrection and if compred to all other historic reportings , especially of those times its super accurate.

Who cares what people think of atheists. That doesn’t prove anything, except the ignorance and bigotry of theists (btw, I’m familiar with that study as well).

Of course there was a lot of talking about the resurrection (and Christianity in general) outside the bible, just like a lot of people talked about Zeus, Odin, Mythra, and Osiris outside their respective holy books. None of this is proof of anything (beyond the human capacity for imagination).

 

[buffalo]

Question, do you guys worship Stephen Hawking or Jesus? You sure put a whole lot of merit in what this guy says. First consider the fact that this quote is taken grossly out of context. In the next sentence he explains scientists usually shy away from the religious aspect of it (he’s not making a personal statement, rather he’s making an observation).

Stephen Hawking was a great scientist, but even great minds are wrong, as Einstein was numerous times. Modern cosmologists now believe there was stuff before the big bang, perhaps even a prior universe. It wasn’t long ago that men like Hawking believed there was nothing (no time) before the big bang. It’s beginning to look like he may have been wrong.

Recently scientists have instead suggested the Big Bang might have just been the explosive beginning of the current era of the universe, hinting at a mysterious past.

space.com/scienceastronomy/070702_mm_big_bang.html

They are finding evidence of what they think may indicate the universe is older than previously believed. Even multi-verses (something viewed as almost pseudo-science just a few years ago), is gaining steam due to advancements in physics.

I guess if I were religious, I wouldn’t put much stock in the idea of conflating science with theology. You’re only setting yourselves up for likely future embarrassment (but I guess what’s new right? ).

Well here is another one just to irritate:

“The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.”

- Ed Harrison

 

[buffalo]

boy, I never even heard of this Flew guy. But anyway, let me get this right, if I can point to a bunch of religious men who went senile does that mean I’m right?

Hey let’s have a competition, who has more senile, demented adherents … atheists or Christians

Whoever has more loses

I’m gonna love this game. Oh yeah, I also thought I’d point out (for the sake of irony) your shining Christian character … that love of Jesus shines so wonderfully when we mock the disabilities of others. I get so warm and fuzzy inside when I pick on handicapped people

You never heard of him? This is surprising, nut nonetheless does anyone know if he is really senile or he is now useless in supporting atheism? I will bet on the later.

Ans just for the record I did not post that he was senile. My post was a sarcastic response to josiel’s post which pointed out that atheists now call him an senile old man.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Well here is another one just to irritate:

“The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.”

- Ed Harrison

That’s absurd. Under your logic space aliens creating the universe is no more a compelling theory than imagining a god did it.

Moreover, we don’t know enough about what existed before the big bang to make these sort of assumptions.

 

[wallstreeterww]

Yankee , I did give eye witness accounts as Paul was an unbeliever who after seeing Jesus became a believer. I was bringing other accounts outside the bible to show the historical accuracy. Most historians believe most of ancient history even though these events were written many hundreds of years after the fact. The fact that these other accounts were written 30 years after shows how accurate these were historically, and as far as the outside the bible claims we need to stufy these further to see not only if these historians testimonies were taken from unbelievers who were there or taken a few years after from these people or they were the eyewitness people themselves.

Sorry my friend but Paul was one of the biggest unbelievers and he witnssed Jesus himself. If you know bible history you also understand that compared to almost any other historic event this is one of the most historically accurately recorded events in the history of civilization.

 

[simplynoone]

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).

**Documented fact: Hitler used Christianity as a platform against the Jewish People. Do not twist what actually happened to use your false version of it as a catalyst for the support of Christianity. **

---

**Besides, one has to wonder: if you know God exists, why use martydom as proof of God. That is anti-Life and God is the Creator of Life … thus, your argument cancells itself out (which makes sense considering the god Christians worship). **

---

If God is Truth, why do Christians insist to force Him down the throats of everyone else? Truth doesn’t need to be acknowledged to still be truth. If they (atheists) are living their life, is not this acknowledgment enough? I think mostly that atheists get turned off to even consider their Creator due to those who insist they are going to hell for questioning. Questions are good … it is faith that is bad and hinders positive growth.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Yankee , I did give eye witness accounts as Paul was an unbeliever who after seeing Jesus became a believer. I was bringing other accounts outside the bible to show the historical accuracy. Most historians believe most of ancient history even though these events were written many hundreds of years after the fact.

Believing Alexander the Great’s army made it to India is different than believing a god-man rose from the dead. Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof. Do you believe Muhammad was visited by the angel Gabriel?

The fact that these other accounts were written 30 years after shows how accurate these were historically,

no, they don’t (every religion makes virtually the same claim, it’s not proof of anything).

Sorry my friend but Paul was one of the biggest unbelievers and he witnssed Jesus himself. If you know bible history you also understand that compared to almost any other historic event this is one of the most historically accurately recorded events in the history of civilization.

Paul was a Jew (and according to him a Pharisee), not exactly an “unbeliever” by unbaised standards … but nevertheless, none of this shows anything. Your asking us to believe a myth based on an alleged eyewitness account given by one of its creators?

 

[yankee_doodle]

Well here is another one just to irritate:

“The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.”

- Ed Harrison

Ed Harrison is quite simply wrong.

 

[buffalo]

Ed Harrison is quite simply wrong.

How do we know?

 

[yankee_doodle]

How do we know?

For one, the pattern of history. Religion always bases itself on the unknown and not yet discovered. Throughout the ages god or the gods have always provided an explanation for unknown natural phenomena; and its no different today.

As far as the cosmology itself, today (contrary to only a few years ago) new discoveries are leading scientists to believe there was indeed prior universes (obviously they still need to prove it, but they’re working on it). So if I were you I wouldn’t become too wedded to a certain view of cosmology (at least insofar as believing it validates your religious views).

 

[gearhead]

How do we know?

He uses a fallacious argument. I like Douglas Adams’ puddle analogy, which illustrates the problem with that mode of thinking:

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

 

[buffalo]

For one, the pattern of history. Religion always bases itself on the unknown and not yet discovered. Throughout the ages god or the gods have always provided an explanation for unknown natural phenomena; and its no different today.

As far as the cosmology itself, today (contrary to only a few years ago) new discoveries are leading scientists to believe there was indeed prior universes (obviously they still need to prove it, but they’re working on it). So if I were you I wouldn’t become too wedded to a certain view of cosmology (at least insofar as believing it validates your religious views).

Catholicism does not base itself on the unknown but rather the known. Catholicism in the only one that eliminates pseudoscience.

If you pursue the multi-verse theory then you must allow for fake universes as well as universe with a God.

 

[buffalo]

He uses a fallacious argument. I like Douglas Adams’ puddle analogy, which illustrates the problem with that mode of thinking:

It conforms well to Occam’s Razor.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Catholicism does not base itself on the unknown but rather the known. Catholicism in the only one that eliminates pseudoscience.

That’s what they all say isn’t it?

If you pursue the multi-verse theory then you must allow for fake universes as well as universe with a God.

You have nothing to base that statement on.

 

[gearhead]

It conforms well to Occam’s Razor.

Which? Ed Harrison’s quote or Douglas Adams’?

 

[buffalo]

That’s what they all say isn’t it?

You have nothing to base that statement on.

I based that on Paul Davies statement. Do you need the quote?

 

[buffalo]

Which? Ed Harrison’s quote or Douglas Adams’?

Ed’s.

 

[gearhead]

Ed’s.

Hmm. So… you’re saying that of these two claims,

1. the universe was not made for us. The conditions in the universe allowed for our existence, but they could have just as easily been something else that didn’t allow for our existence.
2. the universe was specifically and intentionally made for us (or for life), implying that an entity that’s capable of exercising intent and is powerful enough to “fine tune” a universe necessarily exists.

Claim #2 satisfies Occam’s razor (“entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity”) better?

IOW, the number of entities in claim 2 (which calls for at least one extra entity) is less than that in claim 1 (which calls for no extra entities) .

Really?