|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are religions manmade and natural or supernaturally based? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3
|
i haven't read the book, just the quote and kbertche's comment.
Is mischaracterizing this: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." as "Stephen Hawking claims that the law of gravity can create a universe from nothing" worthy of consideration? No. I wouldn't consider doing it. It's dishonest."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads." Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.-Terence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
*duplicate*
Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given. Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads." Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.-Terence |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Omnivorous writes: s mischaracterizing this: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." as "Stephen Hawking claims that the law of gravity can create a universe from nothing" worthy of consideration? No. I wouldn't consider doing it. It's dishonest. Your message wasn't a reply to any specific message, so in case you didn't see it let me repeat what I said in Message 255: It might have been more clear had Hawking and Mlodinow began, "Because there are laws such as gravity...". Given what Hawking and Mlodinow *did* say, Kbertsche's misinterpretation seems an honest one. Or so I rule. If your message was intended as a reply to my Message 255, my main thought was that Kbertsche's comment about Hawking's opinion that natural laws caused the universe seemed worth commenting on. Or is there a different interpretation of what Hawking said that you had in mind?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2131 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Omni writes:
Please don't get tripped up over my wording. I didn't quote Hawking exactly, and I didn't claim to do so. I paraphrased my understanding of his claim.
i haven't read the book, just the quote and kbertche's comment.Is mischaracterizing this: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." as "Stephen Hawking claims that the law of gravity can create a universe from nothing" worthy of consideration? No. I wouldn't consider doing it. It's dishonest.
I think Hawking's position is clear: the law of gravity existed logically prior to the universe and caused the universe to come into existence. I think Lennox' newspaper rebuttal clarifies Hawking's position and its problems extremely well (as does his follow-on book "God and Stephen Hawking"). For the universe to begin to exist, there must be a cause of some sort which logically pre-existed the universe. The two leading options for a pre-existent cause are 1) God, and 2) natural law. But if natural law is only DEscriptive and not PREscriptive, option 2 is ruled out as a cause."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
For the universe to begin to exist, there must be a cause of some sort which logically pre-existed the universe. The two leading options for a pre-existent cause are 1) God, and 2) natural law. But if natural law is only DEscriptive and not PREscriptive, option 2 is ruled out as a cause. Well, no at least to the latter idea. Descriptive simply means that what we know of how things operate is a description and not a commandment. That does not mean that absent our description things would operate differently. I'm not convinced that you are doing anything except playing with words. Beyond all that, you are making the same assertion that was a point of dispute in at least one past discussion; i.e. that all things require a logical cause. You have not shown that to be the case and there is reason to believe that such is not the case. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Even a descriptive law may be spoken of as a cause. So I would really like to see some evidence that Hawking thinks of the law of gravity as prescriptive rather than prescriptive. Some half-baked apologetics published in a low-quality newspaper hardly qualifies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi Cat,
Cat writes: Right, so since the Universe exists then there cannot be non-existence.That is what you were questioning so perhaps you may now see an answer. I would agree and have argued since my first post that there has to be existence. That existence would have to be a supernatural power that was able to supply the energy and mass required to form the universe as we see it. Now if you want to argue the universe has always existed eternally in the past, give it your best shot. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi Admin,
Admin writes:
But I did answer his question. He and apparently you didn't like my answer. If it was a reasonable question for you to ask about the universe it's certainly a reasonable question to ask about God. Could you please answer the question? I stated: "If that supernatural power did not exist we would not exist." The reason being: According to the BBT the universe had a beginning to exist.Einstein created a fudge factor because he believed in a static universe. If the universe had a beginning to exist there was non existence with out a supernatural power. Non existence would mean that two branes would not exist to bang together and create the universe. Non existence would mean that Hartly/Hawking's instanton would not exist or have a vacuum to appear in. Non existence would mean there would be no energy or mass to produce something. Therefore a supernatural power would be required to exist to provide the energy and mass which go to make up the universe we see. If there was no supernatural power to provide the energy and mass there would be no universe. Without a universe we would not exist. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
ICANT writes: stated: "If that supernatural power did not exist we would not exist." Look, you're not making a point that's difficult to understand. It just resolves to 'God did it.' Fine, we all get that. But It's been pointed out several times by several people that that just pushes the argument back a stage. So who or what caused God to exist? It's hardly an original thought, why are you not answering it? Is God a causeless cause? If such a thing can be possible then perhaps the universe can do it itself? Perhaps the universe is god? Let's see if you can get beyond goddidit. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi 1.61803
1.61803 writes: link: So as to not post bare links and equations, The proposal that things can come from uncaused causes is a idea that has, and is one of many modern theories, thoughts, dreams, guesses. I liked the link but it seems to cling to something that has been told to me in science is not allowed.
quote: I thought having faith in something was not allowed in science, is my thinking wrong? Scientist can have faith that some way something took place in non existence (nothing exists outside of the universe as it is self-contained) that produced the universe we see today. Yet if I want to have faith in a supernatural power that could supply all the energy and mass to form our present universe I am ridiculed for such faith. Yet I am told I should accept as fact that somehow our universe began to exist by two branes banging together or Hartley?Hawking's instanton popping into existence and creating our universe. When they had no place to exist without a Supernatural power that existed in existence where those things could take place. There is no scientific evidence to support either hypothesis. If you have some I would be interested in reading it. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
kbertsche writes: Or causes. Or not. Or the causes for the universe (if they existed then) don't exist anymore today. Or all the other millions of possibilities.
For the universe to begin to exist, there must be a cause of some sort... kbertsche writes: Or logically didn't survive our current Universe.
Causes that don't which logically pre-existed the universe. kbertsche writes: Two leading options? Trying a false dichotomy here?
The two leading options... kbertsche writes: Or lots of Gods who died in the meantime. Or lots of non-Gods who died in the meantime. After all, the BB happened billions of years ago...for a scientist the false dilemma you presented is disturbing.
... for a pre-existent cause are 1) God, and 2) natural law. kbertsche writes: Really? How so? I mean, nature exists today. Nature causes lots and lots of things, while any Spook or Spooks causing anything has never been observed. But if natural law is only DEscriptive and not PREscriptive, option 2 is ruled out as a cause. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
Admin writes: Given what Hawking and Mlodinow *did* say, Kbertsche's misinterpretation seems an honest one. Or so I rule. I defer to your ruling."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads." Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.-Terence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1503 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Hello ICANT,
What that sentence was referring to I believe is that because of the uncertainty principal and the strange way reality manifest, it all but impossible to predict quantum events with absolute certainty. We have had a good many discussions on EVC about absolute knowledge and how it is futile to claim absolute knowledge. That is why I mentioned earlier that the belief in God as far as I know gives one that Certainty.Hence why it is so appealing. The link is but one of thousands of points of view of people who want to know more about our cosmos and how it operates.I myself think what a boring world it would be if humanity ever finds all the answers. And If indeed God exists;what a small god it would be if God could not construct our universe without the supernatural. "You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Hi ICANT,
Tangle raised the correct issues in his Message 264, so please respond to him, not me. I'm just going to clear up some confusion before it goes too far.
But I did answer his question. He and apparently you didn't like my answer. I stated: "If that supernatural power did not exist we would not exist." etc... The question was, "Why does God exist rather than nothing at all?" Your answer is equivalent to, "A supernatural power exists because we exist," just as Straggler stated.
If the universe had a beginning to exist there was non existence with out a supernatural power. Non existence would mean that two branes would not exist to bang together and create the universe. Colliding branes is just one theory of the origin of the universe, but in any case, in this theoretical view other branes do not reside within our universe. Other branes can exist without our universe existing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
kbertsche writes:
The position is that gravity can create a universe and the Law of Gravity describes how it does it.
When Stephen Hawking claims that the law of gravity can create a universe from nothing, he is ascribing prescriptive, causative power to natural law.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024