ChatterBank6 mins ago
Stephen Hawking on God
39 Answers
I do apologise if this has already been covered in AB....
How many of you agree with Stephens conclusion that God could not exist?
How many of you agree with Stephens conclusion that God could not exist?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Matheous-2. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Dawkins does not say that god could not exist, but rather that there was no time for god to create the universe, that the universe came into being because of the laws of physics.
So he's saying that there is no necessity for god to exist to explain the existence of the universe.
That doesn't mean that god does not exist.
It can never be proved that god does not exist, just as it cannot be proved that fairies/Father Christmas do not exist.
This is a consequence of logic, not opinion.
In these cases one has to rely on probabilities based on evidence.
I am an atheist because the evidence for the non-existence of god is overwhelming.
So he's saying that there is no necessity for god to exist to explain the existence of the universe.
That doesn't mean that god does not exist.
It can never be proved that god does not exist, just as it cannot be proved that fairies/Father Christmas do not exist.
This is a consequence of logic, not opinion.
In these cases one has to rely on probabilities based on evidence.
I am an atheist because the evidence for the non-existence of god is overwhelming.
Matheous-2, //Stephen said three things are all that is needed for a Universe to spontaneously come into existence....Space, Energy and Matter. I can't get my head around the Matter - Where and how did that spring from?//
In this context I can't get my head around not just matter, but space or energy either. However, since the evidence for the God that is thrust upon us is non-existent, if something that we are unaware of is responsible, then it has to be something far greater than that.
In this context I can't get my head around not just matter, but space or energy either. However, since the evidence for the God that is thrust upon us is non-existent, if something that we are unaware of is responsible, then it has to be something far greater than that.
@ PeterPedant
Which type of god is commonly accepted by the faithful is the result of a popularity contest - one spread by conquest and cultural assimilation, and enforced by obedience to doctrine, military might and violence over the years.
A kind of X -Factor contest as to which of the many variations of god all the faithful of the world worshipped might be a more light hearted and welcome alternative way of deciding which non existent entity is to be worshipped.
There are 2 fundamentally different views about the Universe that are on offer. One is a naturalistic universe, formed and developed without the assistance of a supernatural entity, one consistent with the laws of physics, one that can be modelled and predicted through refinements in our understanding of how such laws match observed phenomena, and how they can predict other events.
The second is that "goddunit"
Either way, the views of an eminent theoretical physicist, and accomplished commentator and author, will be sought, are highly relevant and will have obviously have value in the continuing discussions over gods existence.
His views and insights become much less relevant or valuable when it comes to a paediatric vaccine, but then no one has approached him to elicit such a view as far as I know. If it were, most reasonable people would weigh up the value of his opinion on the basis of his expertise.
So, his opinions, knowledge and insight, based upon his education and training and work as a theoretical physicist have great value in any discussions about gods existence - not so much when it comes to vaccines and their place in public health measures.
Which type of god is commonly accepted by the faithful is the result of a popularity contest - one spread by conquest and cultural assimilation, and enforced by obedience to doctrine, military might and violence over the years.
A kind of X -Factor contest as to which of the many variations of god all the faithful of the world worshipped might be a more light hearted and welcome alternative way of deciding which non existent entity is to be worshipped.
There are 2 fundamentally different views about the Universe that are on offer. One is a naturalistic universe, formed and developed without the assistance of a supernatural entity, one consistent with the laws of physics, one that can be modelled and predicted through refinements in our understanding of how such laws match observed phenomena, and how they can predict other events.
The second is that "goddunit"
Either way, the views of an eminent theoretical physicist, and accomplished commentator and author, will be sought, are highly relevant and will have obviously have value in the continuing discussions over gods existence.
His views and insights become much less relevant or valuable when it comes to a paediatric vaccine, but then no one has approached him to elicit such a view as far as I know. If it were, most reasonable people would weigh up the value of his opinion on the basis of his expertise.
So, his opinions, knowledge and insight, based upon his education and training and work as a theoretical physicist have great value in any discussions about gods existence - not so much when it comes to vaccines and their place in public health measures.
@Woofgang
Yes, the notion that a divine/supernatural entity acted provided some sort of creative impulse to kickstart the formation of the universe,and then offered no further input into its development is a school of thought that I should have mentioned. I stand corrected :)
That kind of a divine entity has some logical problems though, mostly those as outlined by vascop in an earlier post - the consensus view of the big bang theory does not allow time for such divine intervention.
Even were we to accept that god was some kind of careless impregnator, fertilising the universe then moving on to pastures new, would that be an entity worthy of worship and veneration?
And it would still, fundamentally, leave us with just 2 alternative versions of reality; One,a naturalistic universe which develops according to the laws of physics, or an alternative universe in which a divine entity exists somewhere and is able to subvert or bypass the laws of physics in order to create miracles or listen and act upon intercessory prayer, when they choose to.
This is the nature of god that most of the religious and faithful adhere to, yes? This is the god of abraham, the one that is worshipped and prayed to by christians, muslims, jews etc?
Yes, the notion that a divine/supernatural entity acted provided some sort of creative impulse to kickstart the formation of the universe,and then offered no further input into its development is a school of thought that I should have mentioned. I stand corrected :)
That kind of a divine entity has some logical problems though, mostly those as outlined by vascop in an earlier post - the consensus view of the big bang theory does not allow time for such divine intervention.
Even were we to accept that god was some kind of careless impregnator, fertilising the universe then moving on to pastures new, would that be an entity worthy of worship and veneration?
And it would still, fundamentally, leave us with just 2 alternative versions of reality; One,a naturalistic universe which develops according to the laws of physics, or an alternative universe in which a divine entity exists somewhere and is able to subvert or bypass the laws of physics in order to create miracles or listen and act upon intercessory prayer, when they choose to.
This is the nature of god that most of the religious and faithful adhere to, yes? This is the god of abraham, the one that is worshipped and prayed to by christians, muslims, jews etc?
