God created the universe?

[dahermit]

From time to time there has been some quite intelligent and educated (in the sciences well beyond my education), conservatives that have made scientific arguments that they say indicate the God created the universe. Given their intelligence and superior scientific education, I have not been in the position to counter their arguments due to my own short comings. However, Stephen Hawking, arguably the most brilliant theoretical physicist since Einstein, has made his case in a recent book that would counter this forum's conservatives' advantage in the "God created the universe", argument.

http://www.aolnews.com/science/article/god-has-no-role-in-universe-says-stephen-hawking/19618260

 

[PLC1]

From time to time there has been some quite intelligent and educated (in the sciences well beyond my education), conservatives that have made scientific arguments that they say indicate the God created the universe. Given their intelligence and superior scientific education, I have not been in the position to counter their arguments due to my own short comings. However, Stephen Hawking, arguably the most brilliant theoretical physicist since Einstein, has made his case in a recent book that would counter this forum's conservatives' advantage in the "God created the universe", argument.

http://www.aolnews.com/science/article/god-has-no-role-in-universe-says-stephen-hawking/19618260

It occurs to me that the big bang sounds a lot like "Let there be light", but that's just from the perspective of a layman.

From the article:

"That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions -- the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass, far less remarkable, and far less compelling evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings," he writes. Hawking believes that other universes, as well as other solar systems, are also likely to exist. But if God's purpose was to create mankind, he wonders, why would He make these redundant and out-of-reach worlds?

To me, that means that god has created many worlds, not just this one, and that there may be a lot more to creation than humans.

Or, perhaps there are many gods creating many worlds.

Science has a long way to go before we can say definitively that there is a god, or that there is no god.

 

[steveox]

Hes right,,Theres NO GOD!! The Bible is a bunch of made up fairy tales.

 

[numinus]

From time to time there has been some quite intelligent and educated (in the sciences well beyond my education), conservatives that have made scientific arguments that they say indicate the God created the universe. Given their intelligence and superior scientific education, I have not been in the position to counter their arguments due to my own short comings. However, Stephen Hawking, arguably the most brilliant theoretical physicist since Einstein, has made his case in a recent book that would counter this forum's conservatives' advantage in the "God created the universe", argument.

http://www.aolnews.com/science/article/god-has-no-role-in-universe-says-stephen-hawking/19618260

Why do you persist on making provocative comments against 'creationists' based on what people have repeatedly explained to you as a serious flaw in the way you think, hmmmm?

First off -- creationism is an UMBRELLA TERM to describe a process of CREATION as an alternative to pure materialism. And when one talks of creation, in its truest sense, ONE SPEAKS OF SOMETHING RESULTING FROM NOTHING.

In scientific terms, what creationism would entail is a clear violation of the principle of conservation of mass and energy, is that not so? That alone should give you pause to think -- if mass and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, then the universe has existed for an infinite time in the past and will continue to exist for an infinite time hence. Even if you were simply unaware of the big bang (which suggests that the universe, indeed, came from a FINITE POINT IN THE PAST), you are staring at an OBVIOUS fallacy of infinite regress. It is a fallacy simply because it contradicts the principle of CAUSATION, the cornerstone of that science you pretend to talk about.

What exactly is your problem, hmmmm? Do you find it difficult to live in a probabilistic reality? Well, get used to it, because you do. Our reality is cut right down the middle into deterministic and non-deterministic phenomena -- whether you are talking about heisenberg's uncertainty or the workings of an artistic mind on the verge of producing a seminal idea.

That, in a nutshell, is creation.

 

[dahermit]

Why do you persist on making provocative comments against 'creationists' based on what people have repeatedly explained to you as a serious flaw in the way you think, hmmmm?

Uh...You seem to have misinterpreted the post entirely. I made no, "...provocative comments against 'creationists'..." I just referred to, and provided a link to a statement by Stephen Hawkings. hmmmmmm?

 

[numinus]

Uh...You seem to have misinterpreted the post entirely. I made no, "...provocative comments against 'creationists'..." I just referred to, and provided a link to a statement by Stephen Hawkings. hmmmmmm?

That would be an appeal to authority -- a sort of informal fallacy.

The news article you provided is ambigous at best. It begs the question -- is it even possible for the material world to 'spontaneously' spawn itself? If so, then we are looking at the conclusion that the laws of nature, are not, themselves laws, but mere properties of the material world. That is circular -- matter giving rise to the laws that govern itself????

What you need to make up your mind on is whether the material world is a consequence of the laws of nature or its cause? Is stephen hawkings even clear on that one?

 

[dahermit]

That would be an appeal to authority -- a sort of informal fallacy.

No it was not. I just provided a link to statements by someone who had more intellect and a much better scientific education that I, and therefore could present a more meaningful counter (debate) to the "God" argument. I never said he was correct because of his education, intellect, or anything else. I posted it to give an interesting alternative to religion influenced, view of "creation". Therefore, not an appeal to authority.

The news article you provided is ambigous at best. It begs the question -- is it even possible for the material world to 'spontaneously' spawn itself? If so, then we are looking at the conclusion that the laws of nature, are not, themselves laws, but mere properties of the material world. That is circular -- matter giving rise to the laws that govern itself????

The article was an abstract referencing his latest book. Of course his entire thesis on the subject was not there. What do you not understand about that? Hmmmmm?

Other than that, ask him yourself.

 

[numinus]

No it was not. I just provided a link to statements by someone who had more intellect and a much better scientific education that I, and therefore could present a more meaningful counter (debate) to the "God" argument. I never said he was correct because of his education, intellect, or anything else. Therefore, not an appeal to authority.

You said:

...However, Stephen Hawking, arguably the most brilliant theoretical physicist since Einstein, has made his case in a recent book that would counter this forum's conservatives' advantage in the "God created the universe", argument....

without even bothering to know if indeed his stated opinions in the recent book would counter this forum's conservatives' arguments, etc. etc.

That is a clear case of an appeal to authority.

The article was an abstract referencing his latest book. Of course his entire thesis on the subject was not there. What do you not understand about that? Hmmmmm?

Other than that, ask him yourself.

I understand perfectly. You are hoping hawking's 'authority' would counter any of the forum's creationist claims.

Appeal to authority -- plain and simple. What do you not understand about that, hmmmmm?

 

[PLC1]

Appeal to authority -- plain and simple. What do you not understand about that, hmmmmm?

Appeal to authority = citing an expert, as opposed to pulling your opinion out of thin air, hmmmmmmmm????

 

[GenSeneca]

Now you guys are talking my language...

Appeal to authority is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

1. Source A says that p is true.
2. Source A is authoritative.
3. Therefore, p is true.

This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false).

On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.

PLC and Dahermit... Are either of you suggesting that Hawking is infallible and his assertions are exempt from criticism?

 

[dahermit]

Now you guys are talking my language...



PLC and Dahermit... Are either of you suggesting that Hawking is infallible and his assertions are exempt from criticism?

Of course not. I do not necessarily agree with him, other than there is a plausible alternative to "God" creating the universe. I just enjoy hearing what scientists have to say on the subject without the predisposition that religion brings to the discussion. But, in the case of this thread, "you know who", is attempting to frame me as the target more than discussing Hawking's position. Criticize Hawking's all you wish; I just posted the link.

 

[numinus]

Appeal to authority = citing an expert, as opposed to pulling your opinion out of thin air, hmmmmmmmm????

Nonsense. You do not even know what the hell you are talking about.

If duh-hermit were merely citing an expert, he would have provided SPECIFIC arguments or texts -- and not merely name-drop stephen hawkings and pretend that is enough to debunk everyone that disagrees with him.

But he did not, did he?

Oh, I do not form my opinions out of thin air. I have already provided numerous published and peer-reviewed scientific papers in quantum cosmology in the other thread. The fact that you cannot make any sense of it is not my problem, now, is it?

Duh?

 

[numinus]

Of course not. I do not necessarily agree with him, other than there is a plausible alternative to "God" creating the universe. I just enjoy hearing what scientists have to say on the subject without the predisposition that religion brings to the discussion. But, in the case of this thread, "you know who", is attempting to frame me as the target more than discussing Hawking's position. Criticize Hawking's all you wish; I just posted the link.

The alternative isn't at all plausible, and is, in fact, counter-intuitive.

If matter is capable of spawning itself spontaneously, then we wouldn't even have a principle of conservation, now, would we? Even within that scientific method you pretend to know, that idea is simply preposterous. You might as well say god did it rather than imbue the material world with supernatural powers.

You really need to make up your own damn mind about it because your assertions are descending to absurd nonsense.

 

[dahermit]

If duh-hermit were merely citing an expert, he would have provided SPECIFIC arguments or texts -- and not merely name-drop stephen hawkings and pretend that is enough to debunk everyone that disagrees with him.

I did not "cite" an expert. Or name-drop. I merely provided a link to an article (with an abstract of a book), that I though of interest (to anyone not prejudiced by religious dogma). If you cannot accept that, it is not my problem, now, is it? duh?

Oh, I do not form my opinions out of thin air. I have already provided numerous published and peer-reviewed scientific papers in quantum cosmology in the other thread. The fact that you cannot make any sense of it is not my problem, now, is it?

Then why persist? duh.

 

[dahermit]

If matter is capable of spawning itself spontaneously, then we wouldn't even have a principle of conservation, now, would we? Even within that scientific method you pretend to know, that idea is simply preposterous. You might as well say god did it rather than imbue the material world with supernatural powers.

I never said it could (matter is capable of spawning itself spontaneously). Why do you persist in building straw men?

You really need to make up your own damn mind about it because your assertions are descending to absurd nonsense.

What assertions have I made? I posted a link to an article of interest. Your outrage has descended into mental illness in its obsession.