Hawking Picks Physics Over God For Big Bang

Hugh Pickens writes "The Guardian reports that in his new book, The Grand Design, Professor Stephen Hawking argues that the Big Bang, rather than occurring following the intervention of a divine being, was inevitable due to the law of gravity. 'Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,' Hawking writes. 'It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.' Hawking had previously appeared to accept the role of God in the creation of the universe. Writing in his bestseller A Brief History Of Time in 1988, Hawking wrote: 'If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we should know the mind of God.'"

Comments

Annnd... brain goes splat.

[brennanw]

This is why I never did well in the higher math classes in college.

So... I thought gravity required there be something with mass in order to create gravity. Doesn't that mean in order for there to be a law of gravity you need stuff with mass attracting each other? Which requires something, not nothing, so --

Damn. There it goes again, brain matter all over the wall. Excuse me while I get a spatula.

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[Joce640k]

I'm sure the forthcoming book will make it clear.

If not ... wait for the movie.

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[brennanw]

The movie will star Samuel L. Jackson as gravity who will quote a passage from the Old Testament before he makes my brain go splat.

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[ledow]

I'm no physicist (far from it) but the reason you have trouble is that you're still thinking in 1800's physics lessons.

Gravity probably has a lot less to do with mass than you might think. Gravity is basically a "curvature" in space-time - a dent in a rubber sheet for an everyday analogy. It can be caused by the presence of mass, and it can affect mass because it makes the "shortest path" to something shorter (imagine denting a rubber sheet with two marbles close to each other - one will "roll down" the other's "gravity" slope).

Gravitational lensing is the most prominent evidence for this - we can actually see things that are hiding behind huge space objects (e.g. galaxies, stars close to us, etc.) because the huge object "bends" space around it, so the light gets distorted like it's been through a curved lense - to the light the travel was perfectly straight, but the space it was in "curved" as it went past the massive object. Thus, we are sometimes able to see parts of space that would technically be impossible to see otherwise - we are literally looking "around and behind" large galaxies / stars.

Then go back several billion years to a time when the universe was nanoseconds old, and its entire mass and energy (and, confusing as it is, space) was crushed into something smaller than the head of a pin. The laws of physics get really "weird" to our eyes at that point and lots of strange stuff happens. The single best source of information for us to explain what happens at that point is probably Prof. Hawking, a modern-day Einstein in this exact field. Given that there are probably a million and one errors in even my simple explanation, and he has a good reputation, I'd say he probably thinks he's correct and there are very, very few people in the world who can actually argue by having a complete understanding of the same facts but a different opinion.

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[brennanw]

I'm in the strange position of having reached the realization that essentially, unless I'm willing to devote about 20 years of my life studying the matter on my own I'm going to have to decide to accept it by faith and not by reason. Oh irony, you are so delicious.

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[CrimsonAvenger]

Then go back several billion years to a time when the universe was nanoseconds old, and its entire mass and energy (and, confusing as it is, space) was crushed into something smaller than the head of a pin.

Of course, when the universe is several nanoseconds old, we're past talking about "creation", aren't we? By several nanoseconds, at least.

Ultimately, the other side of the singularity that is the Big Bang is unknowable. We can speculation all we like, and pretty much all the speculations are equally valid - they're all a pile of crap....

Note that Hawking was, most likely, talking about the galaxies, suns, planets, etc. when he said that God wasn't needed to make it happen. In that, he's correct, in that once the Big Bang happens, gravity pretty much requires the formation of planets, stars, galaxies, etc.

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[hitmark]

I think the biggest issue right now is that Hawkings "theories" relate to black holes, a physics "entity" that we have little ability to study right now (iirc). Basically, it's at around the same point that things was in physics when Einstein presented his theories, but before there where any observations or tests performed to confirm predictions (later confirmed by way of observing stars during an eclipse to see if they moved when their observed position got "close" to the sun and so on).

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[bsDaemon]

No, apparently creation goes up to around 6,000 years ago and then that is where "being" begins, I guess.

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[Mr. Slippery]

Note that Hawking was, most likely, talking about the galaxies, suns, planets, etc. when he said that God wasn't needed to make it happen.

No. RTFA. He's specifically talking about the Big Bang. Hell, RTFS, it's right there: "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

Now, according to TFA,

Hawking says the first blow to Newton's belief that the universe could not have arisen from chaos was the observation in 1992 of a planet orbiting a star other than our Sun. "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 as evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings," he writes.

So if he was only picking up on the idea that anthropocentrism might be a dumb idea in 1992, it leads one to question his thinking on the issue in general.

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[ledow]

"Of course, when the universe is several nanoseconds old, we're past talking about "creation", aren't we? By several nanoseconds, at least."

Assuming a single-universe, in only the four human-visible dimensions, that came from "nothing" rather than, say, a constantly expanding and contracting universe, or one created via intra-dimensional interactions that are invisible to us in "our" universe, or... etc.etc.etc. Simply saying "this universe looks to be several billion years old" does not negate the possibility that a) we're wrong, b) only *this* universe is that old, or c) that what we think of as time isn't quite that simple. Time and space are pretty much the same thing to a theoretical physicist, remember. Until you can get your head round that, interpreting simplified statements isn't going to get you anywhere.

"Ultimately, the other side of the singularity that is the Big Bang is unknowable. We can speculation all we like, and pretty much all the speculations are equally valid - they're all a pile of crap...."

Unknowable is a big word to a physicist. They can just about accept that you can't "know" certain things at certain times (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, for example), but they formalise that "enforced ignorance" as much as possible. Mathematicians, like myself, respect that. If you know something is impossible, work out how, why, and what the limits of that impossibility are. Otherwise, you might as well not even bother to learn physics at all past your first six months of lessons in that subject. Or mathematics. Or computing (The Halting Problem, for instance).

Saying that they're all a pile of crap is over-simplifying things. The point is, they are all logically consistent up to a point. That may be due to human error, it may be due to the fact that they are all linked by something we haven't yet found. But they ARE still logically inconsistent and until we find any mistakes or connections, they aren't "crap". Maybe unusable. Maybe unverifiable. Maybe impractical. But they are no worse than any other hypothesis at all.

"Note that Hawking was, most likely, talking about the galaxies, suns, planets, etc. when he said that God wasn't needed to make it happen. In that, he's correct, in that once the Big Bang happens, gravity pretty much requires the formation of planets, stars, galaxies, etc."

I doubt he was. Hawking generally doesn't simplify down that far and if he did, he'd probably be immensely pissed that someone was taking his high-end work and using such a simplified version of a conclusion from it. He's talking intra-dimensional gravitational interactions, most probably. Which leads into things like understanding how a dimension can exist outside our universe and inside it, and how an extra-dimensional interaction can kick-start something from nothing. Gravitons are believed to travel between dimensions that we can only describe mathematically (up to 11 of them). They are the only things we have theorised that are able to do so - electromagnetism, mass, etc. can't. Thus I think what he's saying is that if we sort out M-Theory (which is the formalisation of many string theories that are all "crap" for various values of "crap", until we get a single, logically consistent theory that explains all the shortcomings and "crap"), we'll discover that gravitons can pass through other dimensions and yet still affect our own, and thus a "Big Bang" is more an externally-triggered event that creates a universe from which it's hard to see outside, even mathematically, and guess what else is outside it.

But, hey, that's just from me reading up on M-theory since the article was published. It took me about 10 minutes and the only classes I ever came close to failing were Physics ones. Strange how a little research can provide so many possible alternative "non-crap" answers so quickly.

My own way of thinking about this is that the universe is a bubble. We can't see outside it, we can't poke the borders, we can only guess. Saying that the b

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[sourcerror]

Gravitational lensing is the most prominent evidence for this

But photons have mass too. So I don't see, how it proves your point.

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[ledow]

Strange. That's not what a lot of physicists are saying: "The photon is currently believed to be strictly massless" (citing Wiki, but I'm no expert - it does say it in about 20 different ways, though).

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[corbettw]

Time and space are pretty much the same thing to a theoretical physicist, remember.

I finally figured that part out about 40 feet ago.

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[mclaincausey]

Indeed the universe's pre-Big Bang singularity was smaller than the head of a pin, and I think even smaller than an electron. Hawking's reputation is somewhat diminished in recent years though. A "modern day Einstein" would be Ed Witten, though Hawking is a genius and had his day. Based on how Hawking's last paper was received (since I don't know enough to evaluate either on its own merits), I would not accept this as gospel or even likely until we see how it's received by the field. There are people (and plenty of them) who will challenge this, no doubt.

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[mclaincausey]

Thus I think what he's saying is that if we sort out M-Theory (which is the formalisation of many string theories that are all "crap" for various values of "crap", until we get a single, logically consistent theory that explains all the shortcomings and "crap"), we'll discover that gravitons can pass through other dimensions and yet still affect our own, and thus a "Big Bang" is more an externally-triggered event that creates a universe from which it's hard to see outside, even mathematically, and guess what else is outside it.

I'll admit I haven't RTFA, but that statement about gravitons passing through unseen dimensions is nothing new. The relative weakness of gravity compared to the other fundamental forces has already been theorized to be due to it being spread across multiple branes or parallel universes, and the idea of the Big Bang being externally triggered (say, by a collision of branes) is also old news.

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[timeOday]

Reason would only take you so far anyway. Instead of answering "why" once or twice, science enables mankind to answer it to 5 or 6 levels of depth. That level of knowledge has given most of us life (multiplying the carrying capacity of the planet by orders of magnitude) and allowed us to live better and longer lives, too. But there are no ultimate explanations. Any chain of logic (or causality) must either extend forever and ever, or stop at something that just "is," and both options are nonsensical. (This is equally true whether or not any of the links in the chain are God).

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[TheGratefulNet]

I'd say he probably thinks he's correct and there are very, very few people in the world who can actually argue by having a complete understanding of the same facts but a different opinion.

if the info is so rare that it almost cannot be verified, how is this *more* trustable, then?

I agree he's a super-thinker of the highest kind. but if I'm not able to follow what his line of thought is (due to not having sufficient background to keep up) then how can I know what he's saying is correct or not?

it sort of ends up being a line of trust, informally, so that you feel its (the theory) been vetted enough by the right people. but if you are far disconnected from that direct line, how can you really know?

pick a small number, say 10. say that 10 people in the world could 'keep up' with prof hawking. to me, having a small number of people who could critique such a person's work makes me *less* confident that the work was free of flaws.

it gets worse if the thing itself is not even remotely testable. and for what we are talking about, its clearly a non-testable thing.

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[EnsilZah]

Well, I'm in the comfortable position of having a new laptop with build in GPS that works thanks to other people's understanding of these things and the unlikelihood of a vast conspiracy to conceal that all the apparent physics formulas involved are a decoy to hide the real mechanism.
On the other hand I'm less comfortable with believing extraordinary claims with no proof and even discouragement of expecting proof.

Point is, faith that the sun is very likely to rise again tomorrow is not the same meaning of the word as faith that an omnipotent being has chosen to bend the laws of physics to appear on a piece of toast.

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[TheGratefulNet]

but the 'faith' to trust an authority is different than 'faith' that really has never had an actual authority.

the big difference is that scientists can show an audit trail of their thinking; and if its BS, they get called on it.

anyone can stand up, declare a religion and its essentially untouchable. you can't be argued with since most of mankind of brainwashed to think that you have to 'respect religion' (as a valid institution).

the two worlds could not be farther apart and the 'faith' that you talk about is not actually unverifyable. if you really wanted to put work into it, you *could* follow thru all the steps and check the process for bugs/flaws. you simply choose not to do the work, but do realize you did make a choice and that if you wanted to, you *could* replay the thoughts and check for flaws. however, in religion, no such thing exists. no such thing as 'verification' or audit in religion.

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[blueg3]

The high points could be boiled down to something comprehensible and studied within a week or so.

But don't worry. Modern physics doesn't go by "reason" so much as mathematics and experimental observation. There's nothing particularly obvious or sane about relativity or quantum mechanics.

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[chichilalescu]

I realize we're having fun, but here it goes: what you do is you talk to a few people, and when you're satisfied that they are rational like you are rational, you can choose to trust them. they learn about some things, you learn about other things, and together you "know" more. yes, it is faith in your peers, but if we can't trust our peers we might as well go live in caves again, because by ourselves we're far too weak to think about understanding the universe.

on topic: what Hawking says is a bit stupid: you can't reasonably talk about a cause for the beginning of the universe, with or without physics / with or without the help of beings outside the universe. If something is outside the known universe, then you can't observe it from inside (otherwise, you couldn't call it outside).
In terms of programming, if you have a good virtual machine, than the 80's game you're playing won't know about your new shiny laptop, and it shouldn't really care about it.
So, as much respect as I have for Stephen Hawking: you can't prove or disprove the existence of gods. Yes, you can prove that models of the universe are selfconsistent (I don't think we did that yet anyway), and you can show that it is very likely a certain model completely describes the universe; however, even a selfconsistent universe can be the plaything of a few gods.

anyway, the fact that you see the irony means you're on the good track so far. when you think you understand, it means you forgot something important along the way.

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[mea37]

For someone to be speeding, there has to be a car on the road. There is a law that defines speeding even when there are no cars on the road.

To measure a force of gravity, there must be mass. The laws of gravity, which describe (perhaps among other things) a force that will occur in the presence of mass (and how said force will behave) can exist without any mass present.

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[RivenAleem]

Oh irony, you are so delicious.

And slightly metallic.

Re: Annnd... brain goes splat.

[Black Parrot]

I'm in the strange position of having reached the realization that essentially, unless I'm willing to devote about 20 years of my life studying the matter on my own I'm going to have to decide to accept it by faith and not by reason. Oh irony, you are so delicious.

Not so ironic, IMO. You (and me) have faith that the evidence is there and we could dig through it ourselves if willing to spend a couple of decades on it. That seems quite different from faith that an omni*ent being exists and did all the stuff attributed to it.

And we can do a bit of digging without investing a full twenty years. I thought cosmic inflation sounded like an egregious epicycle to make the theory fit the observations, until I read about the odd and not obviously related phenomena that it explains.

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[CrimsonAvenger]

Saying that they're all a pile of crap is over-simplifying things. The point is, they are all logically consistent up to a point. That may be due to human error, it may be due to the fact that they are all linked by something we haven't yet found. But they ARE still logically inconsistent and until we find any mistakes or connections, they aren't "crap". Maybe unusable. Maybe unverifiable. Maybe impractical. But they are no worse than any other hypothesis at all.

If it's unverifiable, it's not a "hypothesis". It's philosophy.

And "no worse than any other hypothesis" doesn't turn "crap" into "gold".

Hawking generally doesn't simplify down that far

It's always possible that Hawking said one thing and the reporter wrote another.

That said, there's no evidence that gravity is at all meaningful until the Big Bang happened. So explaining "creation" as a result of "gravity" is a bit specious, since we're describing a cause that happened after the effect we're saying it caused.

Note that not even Hawking talks about the instant of the Big Bang (unless he's come up with something new) - he generally starts right after the Big Bang and moves forward from there. Or at least so I recall from "The Big Bang for Idiots" that he wrote....

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[mea37]

The details of GP's question were incorrect, but overall there is a point to be made here.

In the picture that relativy paints, gravity is a property of spacetime. It is reasonable to question, then, how gravity can bring "something from nothing"; at a minimum it seems it can bring "something from nothing more than a pocket of spacetime". Perhaps a more thorough understanding of the "self-creating" property of the universe given gravity wuold clarify; but at the moment that is at best an article of faith for anyone in this discussion.

I can hypothesize any number of things that would have the property that if nothing existed they would spontaniously bring themselves into existance; but they don't all exist. Absent some spacetime to set a framework for the law of gravity, what makes the law of gravity distinct from any of those other hypothetical things?

I'm agnostic. My position specifically is that it is impossible to prove in any intellectual sense whether or not an intelligent entity created the universe. I don't find much use in any interpretation of any relgion that is literal enough to require an answer to that question.

In that context, I see nothing but a leap of faith in the idea that if we understand enough of the mechanism by which the Universe came to be, we could disprove God.

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[smaddox]

Or, you could hold off on forming an opinion until there is experimental evidence supporting the hypothesis.

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[mr exploiter]

Actually we don't know it. It may very well that there is always a deeper level of truth, more exactly countable infinite levels of truth.

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[bcrowell]

I'm no physicist (far from it) but the reason you have trouble is that you're still thinking in 1800's physics lessons. Gravity probably has a lot less to do with mass than you might think.

I am a physicist, but actually I think you did a reasonably good job of summarizing some of the ideas.

The book is not out yet, and Amazon won't let you peek at it using their Look Inside feature, so I don't know exactly what Hawking is really arguing. One thing to watch out for is that when physicists talk about "God," they usually don't mean the anthropomorphic guy named Yahweh who lost a wrestling match with Jacob. They usually mean something more like the deist conception of the watchmaker's God, or simply a shorthand for "the laws of physics." E.g., let's say someone suggests a spaceship drive that violates conservation of momentum. A physicist expressing skepticism of this might say this: If momentum is not conserved, then presumably it would be possible for an isolated particle to change its own momentum. If we then get into a frame of reference where we're initially at rest relative to the particle, we see a particle that is initially at rest and then scoots off in a certain direction. This violates the symmetry of the situation -- how does God decide which way the particle should go? It's really not an argument about Yahweh, it's an argument about mathematical symmetries, with "God" thrown in for color.

One of the biggest achievements of Hawking's early career was the Hawking singularity theorem, which basically allows us to prove (within the assumed framework of classical general relativity) that the Big Bang happened, just by making some relatively crude measurements of the present-day state of the universe and then extrapolating backward. Before Hawking and Penrose proved their respective singularity theorems, there were a lot of physicists who believed that singularities were not physically realistic, and would require some kind of unrealistic symmetry. E.g., they thought that the collapse of a star might not actually produce a black hole, because the infalling particles wouldn't be aimed quite right, would slip past one another and miss. Penrose's theorem proves that the perfect symmetry isn't necessary if you extrapolate present conditions forward to the future collapse of a star into a black hole, and Hawking's proves the same thing when you extrapolate backward to the Big Bang.

Philosophically, this is really not so different from saying that the Big Bang was something that had to happen rather than something that God chose to make happen. If we observe present conditions (apple above the ground) and can predict future events (apple hits the ground), then we don't really see a role for any God other than the deistic God, who simply equals the laws of physics. The equations of general relativity treat the past and the present totally symmetrically (there is no arrow of time built into the equations), so the same argument applies when we look at present conditions and extrapolate backward to see that there really had to be a Big Bang event in the past. In this specific mathematical sense, "God" had no choice about the Big Bang.

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[DeadCatX2]

It will take you 20 years to understand Hawking now. Others who have the correct mental framework in place only need a few years. In time, the concepts that we discuss now will be covered in a semester or two at the undergraduate level. Evolution isn't limited to biology...it also works on knowledge too.

Many scientists spent their entire lives trying to come up with a single experiment that redefined our understanding of physics. Now we have mere high school students who are capable of some of these same experiments...and a few of them even understand the concepts at that young age!

That is the beauty of the human condition. It is hard to create knowledge where it was not before, but once it is created it is like Prometheus' fire, and it spreads to the rest of humanity to radically alter our society.

Sure, you can choose to take it on faith that electricity does what it does. But that is what makes science so powerful...you don't need to take anyone's word on faith. You can go get a magnet and some wire and do some experiments. You can get a DMM and an oscilloscope. More importantly, other people who are smarter than you can get those things and verify that what is said is true.

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[bar-agent]

Oh irony, you are so delicious.

And slightly metallic.

I lul'd, but have no mod pts. :(

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[evocarti]

I don't think stopping at something that just "is" is nonsensical at all. In mathematics, it happens all the time. Axioms.

Think of Godel's incompleteness theorem: any sufficiently complex system cannot be both complete and consistent. In other words, there are many truths that are unprovable within that system.

If it works for mathematics, I don't think it's too unreasonable to suspect it may work for the universe. There could very likely be truths about the universe that are unprovable within the system.

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[MightyYar]

'm in the strange position of having reached the realization that essentially, unless I'm willing to devote about 20 years of my life studying the matter on my own I'm going to have to decide to accept it by faith and not by reason.

This isn't as strange as you seem to think. You should almost always defer to experts in a field. If you want the best possible explanation of how the natural world works, then you should probably listen to scientists. If you want the best possible explanation of how the supernatural world works, then turn to religious experts.

To use a patented Slashdot car analogy: You don't try to manufacture your own brake pads, despite your very life depending on their flawless operation. Is this "faith"? Only for a very broad definition of faith IMHO.

Specialization is NOT just for insects :)

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[jewishbaconzombies]

re:"you're still thinking in 1800's physics lessons."

And fat jokes - don't forget about fat jokes.

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[nadavwr]

s/"Why"/"How"/

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[Atzanteol]

Technically photons have mass. E=mc^2. They are pure energy and energy *is* mass. Mass is just frozen energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[Spotticus]

A photon has zero rest mass, however a photon is never at rest.

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[HiThere]

I'd be interested in seeing how they make that consistent with an inverse square law. The only time I considered that, I was only expanding gravity through time, and thus I could handle the inverse square law by getting attractions from both the past and the future. I was thinking that this might allow me to derive inertia when I gave up and switched to thinking about something else.

But the inverse square law is due to the three-dimensional nature of space. (Thus an magnetic field from a long straight wire falls off as 1/r, because you are getting readings to an external point from various points along the wire.) If you are radiating through 11 dimensions, I'd expect the drop off to be like 1/r^10. This is made lots more difficult to figure, though, because most of the dimensions are very small. But if they're significant enough to cause gravity to be a weak force, they should affect the drop off rate.

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[Culture20]

it gets worse if the thing itself is not even remotely testable. and for what we are talking about, its clearly a non-testable thing.

And in terms of caring whether the answer is free of flaws, if the thing itself has no practical application to one's life, people are more inclined to not care. This is expressed in both unquestioning acceptance and willful ignorance (not always a bad thing; I'm willfully ignorant of a lot of stuff that will never apply to my life).

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[Culture20]

The equations of general relativity treat the past and the present totally symmetrically (there is no arrow of time built into the equations), so the same argument applies when we look at present conditions and extrapolate backward to see that there really had to be a Big Bang event in the past. In this specific mathematical sense, "God" had no choice about the Big Bang.

So causality is bi-directional, i.e. gravity existing in the present day (or even a microsecond after the Big Bang) exerts a force which creates the Big Bang from nothing (or annihilates the universe, depending on the arrow of time)?

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[Paracelcus]

Mass distorts space, the distortion is both gravity and time, the mass accelerated X3 (cubed) from a euclidean point to/at an unbounded velocity (non C) since space itself is following this expansion it's event horizon will move at a rate that will defy measurement until time itself will unform from mass+velocity.

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[Ihmhi]

Say 9.80665 m/s^2 again!

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[Lost Race]

It doesn't have to be like that at all. It only takes high school math, a semester of introductory physics, and some introductory primers on relativity, astrophysics, and quantum mechanics to get a sense of how such science is done. Even if you can't do (or even check) the math yourself you can at least understand how others would do it, and understand that theories don't become commonly accepted until the math all checks out and results are experimentally verified. The only "faith" required is the faith that there isn't some gigantic scientific conspiracy to promote absurd theories. ("Gigantic" as in, including everybody in the world with a 4-year science degree.)

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[jyx]

I'm in the strange position of having reached the realization that essentially, unless I'm willing to devote about 20 years of my life studying the matter on my own I'm going to have to decide to accept it by faith and not by reason. Oh irony, you are so delicious.

But you *could* study the matter and put forward your reasons for it being a load of dingoes kidneys and provide the experiment that 'breaks' the theory. You would be hailed as a genius and mankind would be better off as we stopped diverting our limited smart people resources pursuing a dead end.

Just like there is no way of disproving the invisible purple ghost of my cat that haunts our backyard, there is no research, no study, no experiment and no test that can ever disprove god

You make the point that the science is sufficiently complicated that most of us have just have to accept it - and this is true. There are a lot of things in life we just accept because, well, life is really really big.

But you seem to fail to recognise the importance of fact that the *option* of anyone understanding, testing and refining (or disproving) the theory is there for anyone to pursue. This is important, the day we all just 'accept' all scientific theories because they are scientific theory is the day we loose science forever.

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[largesnike]

It's not necessarily 1800s thinking to strongly associate mass and gravity. Your post while good, doesn't address the real issue that the OP was asking about.

Essentially, if there's literally nothing, then there is nothing from which to build a stress-energy tensor. So how did that stress-energy tensor appear? from what? nothing? The OP associated it with mass, but replace mass with energy, and I think we still have the final cause issue he was on about.

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[darthdavid]

Why should an infinite chain of 'whys' be considered nonsensical?

Why should we place claims involving 'god' on an equal footing, rationality wise, with claims based on empirical reasoning given that the existence of god is unproven and therefor illogical per Occam's Razor?*

*Since god hasn't been proven to exist or to interact with the world in any detectable way any explanation that invokes god or any other supernatural force must make the exact same predictions about the world as the scientific, empirical explanations for those phenomenon. Since just saying 'god did it' with regards to any question is completely non-predictive anyone who purports to believe in empirical reasoning and believes it's possible to make predictive observations about the world around you but still believes in god is basically saying + = = . However, per Occam's Razor when two theories produce indistinguishable predictions about the world the more complicated theory is likely wrong. Therefor belief in god is demonstrably illogical, and I at least, would say more nonsensical than looking at the universe empirically, even if that empirical view leads down an infinite regression rabbit-hole of 'whys'(adding god doesn't plug that hole either because after you put him into the equation you're just led right back down the hole with the questions "how'd he do it?" and "where'd he come from?") .

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[bcrowell]

So causality is bi-directional, i.e. gravity existing in the present day (or even a microsecond after the Big Bang) exerts a force which creates the Big Bang from nothing (or annihilates the universe, depending on the arrow of time)?

That's about right. (I could nitpick a few things, e.g., general relativity doesn't describe gravity as a force.) The fact that causality works equally well in either direction is not anything special about relativity. Newton's laws have the same property.

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[arisvega]

I beg to differ.

What you perceive as gravity in this plane is nothing but the work of Graviel, one of the Archangels.

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[Phoghat]

Hey, I saw that on TV, like 57 times, and it keeps getting funnier every time

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[FiloEleven]

"Our faith is faith in someone else's faith, and in the greatest matters this is most the case."
    - William James

Re:Annnd... brain goes splat.

[phek]

that's only the case if gravity originates from this universe. It's possible matter was added to this universe by forces outside of this universe.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[neiltrodden]

Well who created the all-mighty then?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[scharkalvin]

It's turtles all the way down!

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Winckle]

Still room for the old logical fallacy there. If God created gravity, then who created God? Most theists then state that God was always there, but then it's easier to simply say that gravity was always there.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[sunking2]

The 2nd Continental Congress.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Listen, you don't just randomly use "whom" as a sort of intelligent version of "who", you pretentious jackass.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's ninjas all the way down!

God = gravity, Gravity = God

[Wormfoud]

Following your argument that God aka Gravity has always existed...

Re:God = gravity, Gravity = God

[Anonymous Coward]

And is everywhere...

Re:God = gravity, Gravity = God

[c0lo]

Following your argument that God aka Gravity has always existed...

then TFA

Writing in his bestseller A Brief History Of Time in 1988, Hawking wrote: "If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we should know the mind of God.""

So, I wonder, what the Gravity was thinking when It created Adam and Eve?

Re:God = gravity, Gravity = God

[mr_mischief]

and binds us and flows through us, binds the whole galaxy together

Re:God = gravity, Gravity = God

[Ded Bob]

So, I wonder, what the Gravity was thinking when It created Adam and Eve?

I wonder if opposites attract?

Re:God = gravity, Gravity = God

[SmurfButcher Bob]

So pretty much, God Sucks?

Re:God = gravity, Gravity = God

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Your post has at least as much merit as the drawn out, torturous, philosophical arguments that lead to nowhere which infest this discussion and others like it.

One article, a thousand posts and nothing of substance. Welcome to theology 101.

Re:God = gravity, Gravity = God

[jfengel]

Sure, if you like. And if you want to spend your Sunday mornings telling gravity how wonderful it is, be my guest.

Re:God = gravity, Gravity = God

[flatt]

There probably was a God around 14 billion years ago, he just happened to explode after losing Pascal's Wager.

Re:God = gravity, Gravity = God

[jewishbaconzombies]

(claws at skin and thrashes around on the floor)

Aaaaaigh! Midichlorians! Get em off me! GET EM off Off Off OFF OFF!

Re:God = gravity, Gravity = God

[jabithew]

Gravity isn't required to love us or save us. Or to give a blind toss about our existence or be conscious in any sense.

Of course, arguably you could say the same thing about the concept of god, but that would a) dilute the word beyond meaning and b) neglect that "gravity" does not come with the same emotional baggage as "god".

Re:God = gravity, Gravity = God

[oh_my_080980980]

god spelled backwards is dog......

Re:God = gravity, Gravity = God

[waitwonder]

May the Force be with you.

Re:God = gravity, Gravity = God

[Puppet Master]

Wait... I thought that was duct tape?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[corbettw]

He's publicly stated a belief in an invisible sky wizard, improper use of "who" and "whom" is the least of bit of evidence pointing to a lack of intelligence.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who created this law of things can only exist if it first have to go through the process of creation then?

well duh.

[grub]

You could have just said "Hawking Picks Rational Thinking Over Superstition"

.

Re: well duh.

[Black Parrot]

You could have just said "Hawking Picks Rational Thinking Over Superstition"

Yes, but that might have started a flame war.

Ermmm, never mind.

Re:well duh.

[Kozz]

In the grand Slashdot tradition, I have not read the article. However, it seems one might also write a headline which says, "Hawking fuels false dichotomy".

Re:well duh.

[grub]

I think I would have said it more of "Hawking picks one religion over another."

Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Re:well duh.

[elashish14]

Except it's noteworthy because, as mentioned in TFA, that he "previously appeared to accept the role of God in the creation of the universe." So he's changing his position basically. Contrary to what you claim, it's not trivial that he would make such a claim based on his previous statements. Maybe that's the surprising bit.

Re:well duh.

[Robert Zenz]

He loves you so much and you reject him.

If he's coming down from heaven and tells me he loves me in person, I'm gonna bow to and believe in him. On the other hand, if Shiva comes down from heaven, I'll bow to her...same applies to the Flying Spaghetti Monster btw. .

But as long as someone (a real person) tells me "you gonna give me your money and do whatever I say or otherwise you'll burn for all eternity in hell (and maybe even that I have to sacrifice myself and take innocents with me to get to paradise (crusades, stacks, anyone?)) because I have this very old book which was rewritten whenever something in there didn't suit the needs of the one in charge and I have no reasonable proof what so ever which I can show you" I'll pass that opportunity, thank you. :)

Re:well duh.

[colinrichardday]

But Spartacus died on the cross for me! Does that mean I should foment slave revolts?

Re:well duh.

[s66iw]

Do you know A person who would be willing to be mocked, beaten, stabbed, have their legs and arms broken and eventually DIE on a CRUCIFIX for you?

Can't be sure anyone would do it for me, but I'd do it for any of my kids. Not proving anything, just saying.

Re:well duh.

[enzo1]

Believing that gravity has always existed is no different than believing that God has always existed. Both are an all-encompassing force with no clearly defined origin.

Re:well duh.

[Dalambertian]

Or, even more accurate: "Hawking modded down for massive flamebait"

Re:well duh.

[grub]

Yes, and black holes are a science like creationism is. Nice mathematical principal yet the accepted physical proof is a rapidly rotating ball of plasma?

Creationism is not a science. They don't present any evidence to back up their silly claims. They don't even have a mathematical model to work with, you just have to believe.

lol

Re:well duh.

[c6gunner]

The what now?

Where exactly is the false dichotomy?

Re:well duh.

[HeckRuler]

Wow dude, going through your history, I don't think you have much room to talk about anything pertaining to religion, love, or beauty.

I mean, I try to keep an open mind about those that go on rants like this. It's important to them or whatever.
but whoa! WHOA!

Re:well duh.

[kyse-zenith]

see, you can't just dismiss religion as simply as that. I'm definitely a believer in science. the world is not the center of the universe, and it wasn't made 5000 years ago. But to simply dismiss religion, or faith in general as superstition, you are shrinking a philosophy into something its not. It is entirely possible for someone to rationally believe that religion can coexist with science. It depends on how you actually classify God. Even with Hawking's theory, that still doesn't explain how gravity came to be, therefore, like someone suggested, universal force can be God. I don;t use the term gravity in this context because I read somewhere that in the begining, gravity was actually combined with the weak, strong and electromagnetic forces, (I think I named them all right), and when the big bang occurred, this "superforce" was split. Anyway, what this force creates can be part of God, and therefore, like most beliefs, God is in and all around us. People get hung up on the stories told in holy texts when they are most likely something to get people to lead a moral life, (for the most part).

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[tercero12]

Well who created the all-mighty then?

You're missing the point...the Almighty is not created. He is not physical. I good philosophical book to read is "I Don't Have Faith Enough to be an Atheist". Take a look.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[genner]

Still room for the old logical fallacy there. If God created gravity, then who created God? Most theists then state that God was always there, but then it's easier to simply say that gravity was always there.

It's easier to ignore the whole debate and watch TV. This doesn't mean that's the correct decision.

The true believer

[elrous0]

A true believer will just argue that God designed gravity that way for that very reason.

Personally, I think scientists should stay completely out of the religious sphere. They're not going to change anyone's mind, science and religion mix very badly, and commenting on theological issues only increases the perception among many religious types that science is their enemy/competitor.

Re:The true believer

[grub]

Personally, I think scientists should stay completely out of the religious sphere. They're not going to change anyone's mind, science and religion mix very badly

True enough, but the religious folks think it's OK to warp science to fit into their primitive belief systems.

Just look at the Creationist nonsense going on in US schools. This is 2010?!

Re:The true believer

[Anonymous Coward]

True enough, but the religious folks think it's OK to warp science to fit into their primitive belief systems.

Just look at the Creationist nonsense going on in US schools. This is 2010?!

Also true. But that seems to be mostly a US thing. Along with televangelists. Most major Christian religions actually accept science and really don't interpret Genesis literally. So evolution is not that big an issue.

Stephen Jay Gould had it right with the Noma Principle.

Re:The true believer

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

...I don't believe that has anything to do with the parent's comment, good sir. Look at you, warping the conversation to fit your primitive disgust.

Re:The true believer

[rotide]

True, but I simply don't believe science has any reason to even consider, let alone mention "God" in any fashion. You can't waste time disproving something that no one can prove. The onus here is on those who believe. Basically, science need not worry itself with theological ideas. Just keep learning new facts, coming up with new theories and keep teaching them to the best of your ability.

If somehow, one day, the paths do truly cross, still don't mention religion. Just put the information out there and let those who are willing to accept new ideas, learn.

Re:The true believer

[Anonymous Coward]

The only time atheists really object to superstition is when it is taught to children as fact.
 
Look at it this way. I've got a job as a geography teacher. Turns out I am also a member of the Flat Earth Society. I decide to enlighten the children in class that all those photos from space are fake, and that if you sail too far in one direction, you are going to fall off the edge.
 
How long would I last in the job?
 
Now say I'm the Religious Education teacher. I am perfectly entitled to teach them that mankind started off 6000 years ago, in a garden with a magic apple and a talking snake.

Re:The true believer

[grub]

If somehow, one day, the paths do truly cross, still don't mention religion. Just put the information out there and let those who are willing to accept new ideas, learn.

That approach has failed to work when Creationists get involved; they aren't willing to learn new ideas. Rather, they attack the entire method of coming up with the new ideas.

Re:The true believer

[aBaldrich]

It is the Big Bang theory we are talking about, surely Georges Lemaître would not agree with you.

Re:The true believer

[rotide]

And that's fine. You can't convince those with their eyes and ears closed. It's like trying to talk to a 2yr old who just sticks their fingers into their ears and yells "NAH NAH NAH NAH!". To put it another way, there are those that will fight merely because they are scared of being wrong and will _never_ listen to reason. Let them be. When it comes down to it. It doesn't matter what you believe. It only matters how happy you are and how much you contribute to society (so long as you live in one).

Re:The true believer

[Artifex33]

The problem is that people use religion to fill the void of what science does not know. If science was never allowed to encroach on religion's territory, all scientific progress would stop. We'd still believe the planets and sun orbited the earth in perfect circles.

Re:The true believer

[16K Ram Pack]

I think that where it matters, where we have a better scientific explanation, (like evolution over creation), then science should be involved. Yes, there's always going to be people telling everyone that god falsifies carbon dating, or planted fossils to test our beliefs, and those people are a lost cause. But most people aren't like that. They're willing to put evidence over faith and we should encourage that.

But I think that "what came before the big bang?" (or if you're saying there's something before that, what came before that) is always likely to be down to people's own beliefs.

Re:The true believer

[uncanny]

Maybe the religious "thinkers" should stay out of science? Stick to what it's for, keeping people moral.

Re:The true believer

[mr_mischief]

Isn't saying that you've disproved something that can't be detected or tested by the very definitions of the people you're debating warping science?

Invoking a being outside the physical laws violates Occam's Razor. Dismissing philosophically something that can't be disproved using the scientific method violates the falsifiability principle.

If something isn't falsifiable, stating that it is true or false is simply, unscientific. To say that there is a god or isn't a god is unscientific. To say you can't be sure but that a god is superfluous to your explanation of things is perfectly scientific (so long as a god remains superfluous to all explanations in science, which so far remains the case).

Re:The true believer

[belrick]

Yes, rationality and irrationality clearly don't mix.

Re:The true believer

[Lord Ender]

A true believer of what? All formal religions I'm familiar with make specific claims about creation. Which religion contains the tenet "in the beginning, God created the rules of M-theory, and the rest followed naturally from that?"

Re:The true believer

[blueg3]

Science doesn't mention God. Hawking did, but he's just a scientist with a particular opinion.

Now, science does mention a lot of factual things that contradict what people who believe in God thought, and even factual things that contradict what people who believe in God claim that God said. That's up to the religious to deal with. Most scientists don't care what a person believes as long as they're not wrong.

Re:The true believer

[Joce640k]

The Bible says what steps were taken to create the Universe and in what order.

Even if god just made the rules and then let everything else sort itself out it couldn't have happened exactly as stated in the Bible.

Re:The true believer

[JoshuaZ]

Your claim that science should stay out of religion is misguided: People frequently make this claim and have had the area that constituted religion be simply larger. 300 years ago this consisteted of explaining lightning. 150 years ago explaining the origin of species was science stamping on religion. 130 years ago explaining the biological cause of disease was science moving into the sphere of religion. It is insufficient to say "Well, we don't already understand this so I'm going to label this as only for theology. Keep out science!"

Your claim that scientific evidence never convinces religious people is also wrong. When I was a little kid I was a Young Earth Creationist and later had strong sympathies with Old Earth Creationism. I changed my mind when it became clear to me that the scientific evidence was overwhelmingly against such positions (the general mendacity and ignorance of the creationists didn't help matters either). So let science do everything it can do. And if someone won't listen? That's their own damn fault.

Re:The true believer

[SmurfButcher Bob]

No.

Please re-read the simple steps that define "The Scientific Method".

You also seem to confuse "prove a negative" with "disprove a negative".

Re:The true believer

[Jorl17]

Scientists can keep out of religion's way if the reverse is also true. Without proper proof, nothing should be said. Since religion's proof is non-deductible, and most scientific proof is deductible (hence, fail-proof unless we challenge one of the base axioms), then I can confidently say that Science is the only one to hear when it comes to religion if proof is given.

Re:The true believer

[the_womble]

+5 mod for a comment that shows you do not know what you are talking about.

Can you provide a single contemporary example of mainstream Christianity (i.e. not creationist nut cases) warping science?

Re:The true believer

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Just look at the Creationist nonsense going on in US schools. This is 2010?!

It certainly is. But unfortunately the science/religion "debate" is an American disease which has unfortunately infected discourse in most other anglophone countries. This kind of tripe coming from Stephen Hawkings himself is a symptom of just how chronic the infection has become.

Call me nostalgic, but I seem to recall that in the 1990's, anyone talking about the place of God or Religion in the sciences or indeed politics was viewed as an outlandish crackpot or a cultist of some kind. People seemed to leave their religion at home (I'm talking about countries outside the US). Nowadays, everyone seems to have no shame dropping out juvenile level inanity about creationism or belief in the divine at the drop of a hat.

In my opinion, all this jawing about religion in virtually any context is a waste of air, and worse has a divisive, and poisonous effect on our society. We're going downhill ever since we caught this bug from US newsfeeds--as well as the internet--and its only going to get worse until we stop allowing backward opinions from conservative America to pollute our airwaves.

Garbage like this is why I find myself turning to sources like Russia Today, Al-Jazzeera and China Daily for news. At least the totalitarian regimes don't cater to this pre-Enlightenment prattle. We may as well start reading horoscopes and celebrity gossip than give credence to this crud.

Re:The true believer

[the_womble]

You should that religious people have realised that the line of reasoning you describe is fallacious a long time ago.

For a good look at the issue in a reasonably contemporary book read (physicist) Russell Stannard's "Science and the Renewal of Belief" - look for the discussion of "God of the gaps".

Re:The true believer

[Rich0]

If something isn't falsifiable, stating that it is true or false is simply, unscientific.

I doubt that the parent was arguing with that at all. They were simply suggesting that science and religion really deal with completely different domains of knowledge/etc. They are orthogonal.

There is nothing wrong with saying that something is both scientifically true and religiously false, since the meaning of the words "truth" and "false" aren't the same in both cases. Granted, outright contradictions generally don't make sense in the common use of those words, but generally religion and science are applied to different problems so they don't conflict much (or at least ought not to).

You can say that God is scientifically unnecessary to the creation of the universe. Granted, that is still a bit of a statement since I don't think that Hawking's statement in a book really has the weight of the consensus of modern physics, but hey, let's go ahead and assume that his mechanism is plausible. That really isn't the same as a statement that there is scientific proof that the universe was not created by God - unless you could observe the creation of the universe, and observe it from the point of view of a creator that apparently you don't think exists, how could you even prove this?

Now, to say that the claim that God did create the universe is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific is also perfectly valid. That doesn't make it true or false from a scientific perspective. It simply makes the statement irrelevant from a scientific standpoint.

So, let the physicists speculate on the physical causes for the nature of the observable universe. Let the theologians speculate on the metaphysical causes for the same. Rest assured that since the standards of truth and falsehood are different in both disciplines you'll never be able to reconcile them. That doesn't bother me. If I read the Bible it isn't for the purpose of assigning a numeric value to pi...

Re:The true believer

[colinrichardday]

Keep in mind that the scriptures are not meant as a detailed how-to on the earth's history.

Gee, I guess the priests who ordered the burning of Giordano Bruno didn't get the memo.

Eppor si muove!!!

Re:The true believer

[colinrichardday]

But doesn't his version of NOMA presume that religion has a magisterium in the first place?

Re:The true believer

[Missing.Matter]

No, a true believer will say that gravity is pseudo science propagated by the liberal dominated academic institutions. Here's a good start on what to do:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity

Re:The true believer

[Stiletto]

mainstream Christianity (i.e. not creationist nut cases)

Mainstream Christianity (at least in the USA) consists largely of nut cases.

Imagine a hypothetical world without religion. One day, I walk up to you and say that a few thousand years ago, this invisible man who lives in the sky waved his hands and created everything (including the sky, where he had already been living) then put people on the earth, then made a whole bunch of random rules about diet and sex and how many slaves you are allowed to own. Then he started alternating between being kind of hands-off and being a punishing, miracle-making, war-making supernatural force. Then, for some reason sky-man decided to impregnate some random woman. Then the kid that came out got himself in trouble with the law, was executed, came back from the dead, and now the invisible sky-man decided that if you believe in all that stuff, he'll remove an evil force from your insides and you'll eventually get to go visit him in the sky after you're dead.

You'd think I was a nut case and send me to the loony bin!

But since it's written down in a special black book, that makes it totally sane and mainstream.

Re:The true believer

[AvitarX]

But the order is somewhat there (in the one telling of creation), which is kind of amazing I think.

Of course, there are those that believe somehow someone can perfectly interpret the word of God, and write it down, and then others can perfectly understand what they wrote and translate it. And if they fail to do it right, there will be a plague upon them (this is from an actual conversation I had). Therefore the Earth must have literally been made in seven days.

A looser

0) there was nothing
1) there was stars
2) there are planets
3) Planets form continents and Oceans
4) don't really know
5) Sea creatures anyway, I think we'd dispute about birds being this early
6) land creatures

This is contrary to people coming first, then the animals to name. Also Man and Woman are created the same day, different than the story of Eden.

I am personally somewhere between and atheist and a Deist depending my mood, but I find the first telling of creation a remarkably accurate way to describe the big bang "let there be light" through the rise of man, in a nice shorthand without using science.

Re:The true believer

[infinite9]

Personally, I think scientists should stay completely out of the religious sphere. They're not going to change anyone's mind, science and religion mix very badly, and commenting on theological issues only increases the perception among many religious types that science is their enemy/competitor.

The problem isn't science, it's the scientists. To me, science is the study of God's creation. If you've rejected God, it doesn't matter what your reasoning is. I believe you've rejected God because you're unwilling to surrender your will, and/or you're unwilling to change your lifestyle.

For the huge argument between scientists and christians, I think we're both doing it wrong. One doesn't disprove the other. Christians and scientists should be working together to understand the universe. Adversarial relationships tend to make people stick stead-fast to their beliefs no matter what, even if they're based on incorrect science, even if they're based on an incorrect interpretation of the bible.

Re:The true believer

[ukemike]

The problem is that people use religion to fill the void of what science does not know.

Ah yes the "God of the gaps." That idea that a god is responsible for whatever science has yet to explain would get a lot more traction a few hundred years ago. Today the gaps are much smaller. The start of life on earth has been shown to be plausible in the conditions that existed way back when, evolution has explained how life developed from that initial start to the abundance of today, and physics has explained the history of the universe back to the first infinitesimal moments of time.

The trouble with inserting a god into the history of the universe is that it raises extremely difficult questions without adding any useful understanding of how the universe came into being. If there was a being that had a part in starting the universe, then who or what created that being? Was it another such being? If so did yet another such being come before and is it "turtles all they way down?"

Of course science could be wrong about so many things, just like Newton was "wrong." F=ma is great but it totally falls apart when speeds approach the speed of light. This is what is so cool, so beautiful about science. It is a process that allows for continual improvement of our understanding. Einstein comes along and says that if you go fast enough all sorts of paradoxes exist. So he proposed a modified theory that eliminated those paradoxes (and later caused others when looked at in terms of quantum mechanics.) We'll figure that out eventually too.

Religion is the opposite of science. It is a statement that things are this particular way (dogma) and it is "sin" to challenge dogma. This idea of "faith" is the idea of believing something in the face of contradictory evidence. Faith is considered a virtue by nearly all religions. In fact a believer is considered more virtuous if his/her faith is particularly strong. So someone who believes absurd things like the world is around 7,000 years old and the first woman was literally made from a rib from the first man, is more virtuous than someone who waffles and says "well maybe evolution is a tool that God used to create the world's abundance." Religion makes it a virtue to accept what authority tells you without question. The process of science is to question, to look for evidence, to build a model based on the evidence found, and then to test your model through experimentation (and to allow others to test your model.). If a model is more successful at predicting outcome of experimentation and observations then it will eventually be accepted as the new model. If it fails to account for the results of experimentation or observation then the model will be rejected. Richard Dawkins the esteemed evolutionary biologist has publicly stated what would cause him to abandon the theory of evolution: fossil rabbits in the pre-cambrian. In other words evidence that the theory cannot account for. Ask a deist what would convince him that a god did not create the universe.

But here's the really big difference. Science yields useful results. Religion yields... people who are taught to believe things in the face of overwhelming evidence.

I can't resist one last jab. You've probably heard that "there are no atheists in a foxhole." Personally I have faced my own imminent death and didn't become a deist. Here's good reply, "there are no honest creationists getting useful treatment for multiple drug resistant TB."
http://sciencefun.wordpress.com/2007/02/20/i-love-doonesbury/

Re:The true believer

[LanMan04]

We'd still believe the planets and sun orbited the earth in perfect circles.

We require more epicycles.
 
/Protoss

Re:The true believer

[Barrinmw]

Actually, it was science on why they believed that. All evidence they had pointed to that being the case for the universe. Hell, using evidence, they determined that the Earth was flat because the earth really hardly curves from ground level. It was later that new evidence proved those wrong aka science doing what science does.

Re:The true believer

[EEGeek]

And we all know what happens when scientists try to mix science and religion... they just end up pissing the priests off, and you don't want to see what happens when a priest gets pissed off... he takes it out on poor little Timmy, the church Alter Boy in a way that we don't want to see.

Re:The true believer

[EEGeek]

I'll have you know that this "radio carbon dating" thing that says the Earth is 4.5 billion years old is off by a couple years. The Earth is actually 6000 years old. Its a proven fact, look it up in Genesis!

Re:The true believer

[Idiomatick]

Nah, stomp on their beliefs with science repeatedly until they either give up or move far far away from rational folks.

Science IS religion's enemy. They contradict one another, as you say 'mix very badly'. As such one is right and another is wrong. Just obliterate the irrational views until they paint themselves into a very tiny corner and leave them there. We are playing too nice and it is hurting us (us being atheists).

Watch the glenn beck rally of a few days ago. And realize that the religious are moving to try and obliterate atheism. The words used were scary. Part of the speech he talked about coming together and working together. Saying that everyone has differences in opinion that we can debate about anything in America, even the fundamentals. Ending on a 'but we are united in our belief that GOD is the only true answer'. 35% of americans support the tea party movement.

At this rate, playing it nice, atheists are going to get steamrolled and forced back into the closet before we get it together at all. It'd be more pathetic than the gay movement 1950-1970. I think I'll end this rant on a quote.

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." -- G.W. Bush

Re:The true believer

[AK Marc]

You forgot the part about the evil inside us coming to Earth on a DC-8.

Re:The true believer

[cain]

Err... Hawking, Richard Dawkins, Chrisopher Hitchens, Salman Rushdie, and quite a few others will be surprised when they find out that they are not American!

Re:The true believer

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, science can be a religion too. Unless you're smart enough to grok shit on Hawking's level, you're really just accepting what he says on faith. Not too different from Christians accepting what their pastor or the Bible says.

That aside, I disagree with your characterization of "mainstream" Christians. Most are normal people who aren't beating you over the head with their beliefs. The ones who get the attention are the nutjobs. This exposure system isn't restricted to religion, it's just how people work. You won't remember ever car on your way home today, but if you see a car flipped upside down and surrounded by paramedics you'll probably remember that one. Everybody likes a spectacle...

Re:The true believer

[Artifex33]

I wasn't implying that to make scientific discoveries, you can't believe in God. What I am saying is that you have to be willing to push back the boundaries of the divine domain.

If, instead, you are rigid in your belief that the immutable secrets of the universe were figured out by a bunch of guys who had to be conquered by the Romans in order to get running water, you might be happier in a monastery than in a lab.

Re:The true believer

[HeronBlademaster]

You can make any position look insane if you adopt the position of some vocal minority extremists and ignore the important bits (Christ's birth, according to the scriptures, was neither arbitrary nor random, so your "for some reason" was either ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation)... How would you react if I used the amusingly absurd claims of the Flat Earth Society to mock various fields of modern science? That's essentially what you're doing.

I often hear non-Christians mock Christians for this supposed "six thousand year old Earth" belief, but the truth is, few Christians actually believe that, and those few haven't bothered studying the text they claim supports that belief.

I firmly believe that both science and religion can coexist without issue. Back on topic: it's entirely possible that Hawking is correct, that the Big Bang was caused by gravity. However, that does not speak as to the existence of God either way, and anyone who claims it does is just trying to argue -- the fact is, science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, and logically speaking, in order for a religion to be true, it must not attempt to contradict scientific fact. The sooner both sides of this argument understand those two facts, the better off we'll be.

I have often observed that science and religion seek to provide fundamentally different information: science attempts to determine causes and effects, whereas religion looks for purposes and reasons. There is no need for antagonism between science and religion; it only happens when misguided people take one and try to impose it on the other's territory (and to be clear, I'm referring to people on both sides of the fence).

Re:The true believer

[decoy256]

What "creationists" do is irrelevant to what scientists do. Why should the claims of creationists worry scientists? Why should creationists pushing creationism in schools worry scientists?

How many great scientists have succeeded and excelled within the confines of a creationist society? Nearly every great scientist lived in a society that predominantly favored the creationist (or superstitious) model. They still found out the truth (or at least got closer to the truth) despite the pull towards superstition.

So, who cares if creationists continue to push a particular non-scientific view? Will it hinder or change science? History suggests otherwise... or at least it suggests that the impact would not be as catastrophic as some claim.

Re:The true believer

[AK Marc]

Imagine a hypothetical world without science.

They had science since before documented history. So to imagine a world without science would be imagining a world without people. Monkeys and dolphins have traits that approximate science, but we aren't able to confirm because when we ask "why did you use that as a tool" they rudely don't answer. So, in your hypothetical world without science, the highest life form is the mouse (give or take).

One day I walk up to you and say that the universe started as an infinitely dense point that suddenly started expanding faster than light. And eventually it turned into stars, which look like tiny little dots to you, but are actually giant balls of gas billions and billions of miles away, and these balls of gas are turning huge amounts of matter into energy, and have been doing so for billions of years.

I think the response in describing the creation of the universe to a planet that doesn't have science would result in a desire for cheese. You've proven there is a natural "god" and that god is cheese. I guess that's why the moon was worshiped as a god and why people thought it was made of cheese.

Most christians, even in the USA, aren't nearly as nutty and rabidly religious as you imply.

I agree. They are "Christians" in that they would like there to be a god, and the Christian one sounds pleasing to them. They don't believe most of the Bible. The people who actually believe in a holy book that's elevated to the level of Literal Word of God necessarily makes then nutjobs, whether Scientologists, Muslims, or Christians. And most Christians in the USA do not believe in the Bible as the Literal Word of God, which the rabidly religious require.

Re:The true believer

[decoy256]

You know, I could give an equally ridiculous sounding recitation of fundamental scientific principles. The ability to mock something does not prove that the thing is ridiculous... it usually just proves that an individual has a skewed or inaccurate view of the thing.

The point is that religion is not full of "nut cases". After all, since any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic, we can work that backwards... Anything we may think of as "magic" or "miraculous" is simply the application of very advanced science.

Re:The true believer

[Grizzley9]

The problem is that people use religion to fill the void of what science does not know. If science was never allowed to encroach on religion's territory, all scientific progress would stop. We'd still believe the planets and sun orbited the earth in perfect circles.

So you're telling me all those great scientists of yore had no great religious inclinations. It was only their rejection of that that allowed them to pursue the truths of this world?

History disagrees with you.

Re:The true believer

[TheoMurpse]

Nice and convenient, but it's only a few centuries since people would have been burned at the stake for such heresy.

Yeah, and it's only a few centuries^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hseconds since people would have been killed unjustly for secular reasons, too.

Re:The true believer

[Artifex33]

Again, I'm not saying scientists can't have religious beliefs. I'm just saying those beliefs have to be flexible enough to allow them to push the boundaries of their world view.

Re:The true believer

[Altrag]

For the dense point theory, we have really smart people who have taken a look at the universe as we can see it, they've applied mathematics to "fit" the universe (remember, mathematics only models the universe, they don't define it. And the mathematics themselves can be proven to be correct, even if the application to the model can't be proved). Anyone with enough time and brain power can learn the mathematics, run the experiments, and verify for themselves that yes, the mathematics do indeed match the universe (within some error of measurement).

The sky-man theory doesn't have that property. Short of inventing a time machine and going back 6,000 or whatever years, there is no way anyone living today can verify for themselves that the sky-man literally created the earth in a single day out of nothingness. No amount of logic or reasoning will ever bring you to that conclusion from things that are directly observable today. Or at the very least, there will be some point in your arguments that will amount to a leap of faith that can't be justified other than by simply believing in what you believe.

There's also another point that makes the sky-man theory less scientific (though not necessarily making it less believable). The dense point theory can be DISproven. You might not ever be able to say with 100% certainty "yes this happened", but if you find a hole in general relativity or M-theory or whatever, you CAN say with 100% certainty "no this didn't happen" (or at least if it did, our mathematics are describing it wrongly).

You can never prove that the sky-man didn't exist. In fact its 100% realistic to claim that all scientific knowledge we have these days (GR, evolution, etc) were designed by the sky-man and that all of our "evidence" was actually put in place by the evil-underground-man in a bid to confuse us poor humans and draw us away from the pure belief in the sky-man. There is simply no counter-argument to that. Any counter-argument can ALWAYS be covered up by either the will of the sky-man or the underground-man, depending on whether it supports or disagrees with what you want to believe. I can't say you're wrong (that's the whole point I'm making), but I'm going to have a hard time accepting that sort of "logic" without first believing in it myself (in which case you have no reason to "prove" it to me since I'm already a believer!)

Re:The true believer

[mr_mischief]

No.

It's easy in many cases to disprove a negative. You only need one positive example.

What you can't do is disprove something that can't be proven. To say "there is no god" means you'd have to be able to prove there was one if there was.

Re:The true believer

[PHPNerd]

I'll play your game. :) The real world has always existed with religion, whether formal or informal. The oldest piece of human creation that we have is a clay household god. We as humans (or at least as "human society") have never known a world without religion in some fashion. So this hypothetical world would have to have existed without religion from its start. But in a hypothetical world without religion, if you came up to me and told me this apparent nonsense, I would probably like to know more about this "man who lives in the sky", for it would truly be a novel idea, maybe even having some merit to help explain why bad things happen to good people, what happens when you die, and other existential problems that this hypothetical world without religion had so far left unanswered because it can't be empirically tested.

Re:The true believer

[PMBjornerud]

But since it's written down in a special black book, that makes it totally sane and mainstream.

No. It's sane and mainstream because it is a part of the culture.

It is a part of the culture because it made the culture "fitter".

Not evolution per say, but culture changes slowly and a powerful religion certainly gave advantages (in warfare and others) mere centuries ago.

Of course religion still is a part of culture.

Re:The true believer

[Kuruk]

The answer to what happened to start the events that lead to now will be worked on until answered, then tested to satisfy intelligent minds.

If science leads to a testable proof of god then we will need to understand what made the god. We will still strive to build a theory to how God was created.

God does not answer anything only lead to more questions.

The whole God theory is manifestly broken and not a worthwhile even considering yet as an explanation.

Re:The true believer

[RingPeace]

I never seem to get mod points any more but I sall mod this +6 spot on.

Re:The true believer

[dylan_-]

Gee, I guess the priests who ordered the burning of Giordano Bruno didn't get the memo.

Since priests didn't order the burning of Giordano Bruno, the point is moot.

Re:The true believer

[DarthVain]

It certainly does not "fill the void of what science does not know". I am pretty sure it is to give people comfort, community, and a feeling of belonging to something greater than they have in their petty downtrodden lives, where the great majority live without wealth, position, education or the real hope of acquiring any of those things.

Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean "god musta dun it!". There will likely always be gaps in scientific knowlege I think, but that is simply the nature of the process in which we learn things.

Re:The true believer

[colinrichardday]

Then what about this:

He was burned at the stake by authorities in 1600 after the Roman Inquisition found him guilty of heresy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

So the Inquisition didn't order his death?

Re:The true believer

[mpeskett]

The problem comes when the 2 year old with their fingers in their ears has any kind of responsibility or power. Then you need to shout them down with reason, if only so that everyone else has a chance to hear how wrong they are.

Re:The true believer

[dylan_-]

He was burned at the stake by authorities in 1600 after the Roman Inquisition found him guilty of heresy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

That's true.

So the Inquisition didn't order his death?

No, they didn't. In fact, they specifically requested that he not be put to death. Their request was denied.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[sonnejw0]

I am a scientist and philosopher (degrees in both Religion and Neurobiology), and this is a valid question. Where did the law of gravity come from? Yes, the Big Bang and pockets of density that turn into galaxies would spontaneously form based on the laws of gravity and entropy, but why do those laws exist to begin with?

That is a question to which an answer will never be found. Never. I'm not being pessimistic, it's simply that to discover the answer, one has to be able to manipulate the system from outside of it. The known universe is 8.79829142 x10^26 meters in diameter. We're about 1.5 x10^0 meters.

M-theory

[LoyalOpposition]

In the forthcoming book, published on 9 September, Hawking says that M-theory, a form of string theory, will achieve this goal: "M-theory is the unified theory Einstein was hoping to find," he theorises.

You just have to have faith.

~Loyal

Re:M-theory

[colinrichardday]

So what are the experimental tests of string theory?

Taking God's Name in Vain

[Framboise]

Name the cause of everything "physics" or "god" is just an
arbitrary naming, so the discussion is futile.

Re:Taking God's Name in Vain

[Anonymous Coward]

Try telling a bunch of Christians we're going to just start calling it Allah. It's all the same, right?

God, god, god....

[courteaudotbiz]

When I have an empirical proof that god exists, I will believe. For the moment, I have empirical proof that gravity exists, and Hawking simply extrapolated the laws of physics to the extreme, then came up with the big bang theory, and the theory still holds today.

No theist theory holds. It's all there to explain what we can't understand. And when we get to understand, we say "well, you know, God may have played a role anyway"...

But try to convince 90% of the human race that what I say is true. I may have a hard time.

Re:God, god, god....

[Anonymous Coward]

When I have an empirical proof that god exists, I will believe.

Ironically, if you get empirical proof that God exists you will not be required to believe... Herein lies the problem.

Re:God, god, god....

[xtracto]

Actually it was Georges Lemaître who proposed the Big Bang Theory.

And for the amusement of the current discussion, he was a catholic priest

Re:God, god, god....

[Black Parrot]

Actually it was Georges Lemaître who proposed the Big Bang Theory.

And for the amusement of the current discussion, he was a catholic priest

Therefore it was God, not gravity?

What is your point?

Re:God, god, god....

[Attila Dimedici]

Hawking simply extrapolated the laws of physics to the extreme, then came up with the big bang theory

Stephen Hawking was not alive when the Big Bang theory was first proposed. so he never "came up with the big bang theory".

Re:God, god, god....

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

Tell me what pi is.

Obviously if you try to do that, you'll never finish. It's infinite. You can never soak the entirety into your mind, no matter how long you study, no matter how long you live.

Now, just because you can't touch the essence of pi with your finger tips, or ever fully explain pi, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I have to use it in my trig homework almost everyday, you bet your bottom dollar it exists.

But the above doesn't tell you at all how to see the existence of God or use Him in your daily life. So do something radical, and try this. Everyday, at least once a day, find a time where you are alone(or surrounded by people, but it might be easier for you if you're not in company), and say out loud, "Oh Lord Jesus". Obviously, if you're right, if He doesn't exist, nothing will happen. But if I'm right, you will suddenly feel at peace. Sheepish and silly, I'm sure, but I did at first too. Once a day. It won't hurt anything, it takes two seconds. Oh Lord Jesus.

Re:God, god, god....

[FallinWithStyle]

When I have an empirical proof that god exists, I will believe.

Ironically, if you get empirical proof that God exists you will not be required to believe... Herein lies the problem.

I see the catch-22, but that's certainly not a reason to believe... So then where, exactly, is the problem? You seem to be implying that it is in his lack of faith.

Re:God, god, god....

[jimicus]

When I have an empirical proof that god exists, I will believe. For the moment, I have empirical proof that gravity exists, and Hawking simply extrapolated the laws of physics to the extreme, then came up with the big bang theory, and the theory still holds today.

No theist theory holds. It's all there to explain what we can't understand. And when we get to understand, we say "well, you know, God may have played a role anyway"...

But try to convince 90% of the human race that what I say is true. I may have a hard time.

This is going to sound fantastically patronising, but I'm going to say it anyway.

Some people (naming no names, but I will say that I've met a few) seem to find the very idea that there may be things they don't understand quite scary. So much so, in fact, that if you ever uncover (be it accidentally or intentionally) even the suggestion that they may have misunderstood something, they'll have a wholly animal reaction - fight or flight.

It's remarkably difficult to hold an intelligent conversation with such people because as soon as you say anything that goes against what they've already decided, their response will be to either ignore you or go on the offensive. I would hazard a guess that your 90% (though I don't believe the numbers are as high as that, I'm certain there are quite a few) are - to a greater or lesser extent - such people.

Re:God, god, god....

[courteaudotbiz]

No, but I think he is the one who linked it with gravity and the relativity theory using maths...

Re:God, god, god....

[CxDoo]

Pi having infinite number of digits is not the kind of infinity we can not grasp. Draw a circle; ratio of circumference to diameter is pi. You can stare at it and contemplate all day long, having it in front of your eyes in its entirety.

Infinity that we can not grasp is, for example, infinitely long truly random sequence.

Re:God, god, god....

[noidentity]

When I have an empirical proof that god exists, I will believe. For the moment, I have empirical proof that gravity exists

AND there is plenty of evidence that the idea of a God serves psychological needs, and is thus very likely a mental tool. I've heard that in golf you should follow the swing all the way through, even after you've already hit the ball. The reason is that this helps you do the part of the swing before you hit the ball properly.

Re:God, god, god....

[shadowofwind]

When I have an empirical proof that god exists, I will believe. For the moment, I have empirical proof that gravity exists, and Hawking simply extrapolated the laws of physics to the extreme, then came up with the big bang theory, and the theory still holds today.

Some things, while real, are much more difficult to prove empirically than other things.

I have no problem at all with the idea that something like gravity is eternal and inevitable as a principle, even if its manifestation is always local or temporary. In fact I can't imagine how it could not be that way. I don't believe in a Creator, because I have no awareness, understanding, or evidence of the existence of such, and I would not kiss the creator's ass in any case. But there are other things that I do believe about life that would be very, very hard to demonstrate in a rigorous, universally repeatable manner.

By way of analogy....Electrical engineers, particularly in decades past, tend to model nearly everything as being linear. Sort of by definition, a linear model often captures important first-order effects, and linear equations are really easy to work with. Non-linear methods are a lot more difficult, but will capture a lot that linear equations won't. At some point beyond that you're pretty much fucked, as far as mathematical modeling. But it doesn't mean that only the things that are easy to model or work with are real and important to our lives. Gravity, to use another metaphor, is a very weak force compared to the other ones, but it has important effects because it cumulatively acts in the same direction. Other intangible influences may be not only too weak to detect easily, but unlike gravity may also have results that are inconsistent or orthogonal to the kinds of lab experiments we are currently capable of. It doesn't mean that those things are unreal though, or that nobody can have any awareness or understanding of them. It seems that many atheists, if they can't find a way to understand something in a simple and concrete manner, just declare that it doesn't exist and don't try to deal with it at all. Its as if they have difficulty dealing with ambiguity.

Re:God, god, god....

[professionalfurryele]

Pi is the sum from n=0 to infinity of (-1)^n/(2n+1). There you go, the whole thing in one line. I even have a representation of this formula in my head.

With that said I'm not a mathematical realist, pi does not exist. It is not a material thing. There are encodings of pi which do exist in the sense that those representation are formed from material. The concept of pi does not exist, there are representations of pi made from material, and the material exists. Any other statement of existence is equivocation.

As for you suggestion people say "Oh Lord Jesus", I advise you to say "I hate God and everything he stands for", every day. I suggest you do this because it is a magic invocation that will draw cheerleaders to you. If I'm wrong about this phrases magical powers then nothing will happen but if I'm not there will be cheerleaders, and black jack! It wont hurt anything and it only takes two seconds. Of course you might find the phrase offensive since it suggests undermining a cherished belief of yours, but if that is the case perhaps you might like to consider that those you are conversing with are not interested in becoming slaves to a zombie who wants you to eat his flesh.

Emotional appeals are not substitutes for rational arguments, nor does bribery you cant deliver on provide a desirable moral imperative.

Re:God, god, god....

[shadowofwind]

It seems that many atheists, if they can't find a way to understand something in a simple and concrete manner, just declare that it doesn't exist and don't try to deal with it at all. Its as if they have difficulty dealing with ambiguity.

I guess I would say the same thing goes double for most religious people though. They can't deal with ambiguity in relation to 'God', so they make a whole bunch of fantastic shit up, write it down in fancy lettering, and call it The Truth. The simplification-by-negation that militant atheists prefer is cleaner at least.

Re:God, god, god....

[FrootLoops]

"I have empirical proof that gravity exists"

I don't believe so, since you'd have to know precisely what "gravity" means, and that's a very involved (and currently unclear) definition. My point is, if you don't know what you're saying about something so apparently simple as "gravity", how can you be certain "no theist theory holds"? Fundamentally, you could even ask why your (or anyone's) reasoning is valid. You're basing your life on a series of fundamental principles (eg. if a and b then a) that seem just as fundamentally baseless to me as the less logical ones you probably dislike (eg. God loves me, so he might give me what I want if I pray hard).

I love logic and do fundamentally believe in it out of a requirement for practicality. It also really bothers me that even logic is quite baseless when you think about it. It sure makes one less sure about one's reasoning to think that the most rigorous, formal, algorithmic, and/or correct ideas humans have come up with might well be fundamentally flawed. For me, this observation just illustrates the importance of incredibly solid reasoning, all the time (since I do accept basic formal logic, for instance, and some vague set theory that mostly aligns with standard ZFC, as far as I'm aware). Grand statements should rightly be met with skepticism (including this one).

Re:God, god, god....

[MoeDrippins]

> Tell me what pi is.

The ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter.

> Obviously if you try to do that, you'll never finish. It's infinite

No, its crude representation using one of our standard numbering systems is infinite. In my "base pi" numeric system, it's exactly represented as "10".

Re:God, god, god....

[SmurfButcher Bob]

Untrue. Many times, God itself has utterly obliterated thousands of non-believers, en-masse - with pillars of fire, turning them to salt, whatever - clearly for some period of time, those people had empirical proof, as did those who witnessed the occasions.

Moses had no faith, and was not a believer. Period.

Re:God, god, god....

[the_womble]

Wrong. Many, and all intelligent/intellectual, religious believers claim to have some empirical, logical, or other proof of God's existence.

The proofs may not be suitable for public demonstration ("pray sincerely and you will experience God"), or may be debatable (I do not find the various variations on the ontological argument convincing, others do), or may be otherwise arguable.

Re:God, god, god....

[HeckRuler]

"erp, I never thought of that." And in a puff of logic god ceased to exist

Re:God, god, god....

[Rich0]

You could easily argue that the 10% are among them as well? After all, they seem reluctant to believe in a being whose very existence defies comprehension or understanding.

Logic and rationality are merely mechanisms of converting one set of known-true statements into a larger set of known-true statements. The problem is that everybody starts out with a different set of axioms, and from a logical standpoint they just describe different realities. It is actually impossible to fully determine what set of axioms define the reality we live in. Or, at least, it is impossible for any two observers to agree on them.

Re:God, god, god....

[colinrichardday]

One can believe a statement because one has evidence in favor of it. Belief does not have to be blind.

Re:God, god, god....

[SrJsignal]

I don't think you understand what a "theory" is. It's not proven, just like the "theist theory" you claim doesn't hold. You can't prove that God doesn't exist, just like you (or Dr. Hawking) can't prove that a Big Bang occured (or didn't occur). I might theorize that God created the earth to look like it's 100,000 (or pick a number) years old. You can't disprove my theory, just like I can't prove it.
Theories are like butts, everyone has them and they all stink.
...Now sure, some theories can be proven through testing and scientific rigor, but the origins of the universe (or species) sure as hell ain't one of them.

Re:God, god, god....

[BlindRobin]

Not true, given empirical proof the rationalist is obliged to accept that proof. The problem is that specific deities are all imaginary, are not testable , and have no credible evidence for their existence. The burden of proof is on those that propose extraordinary claims not those that accept that for which there is evidence and simply accept that those things that are as yet unknown or unexplained simply require further inquiry whether there is an achievable solution or not. To simply insert a 'god' into the argument is useless in that is just a sort hand for "I don't know, don't care and couldn't be bothered because I am either lazy, fearful or stupid".

Re:God, god, god....

[Barrinmw]

When someone actually understands quantum mechanics then we can talk about there being no God. But as it stands "...nobody understands quantum mechanics"

Re:God, god, god....

[NiteShaed]

Ironically, if you get empirical proof that God exists you will not be required to believe... Herein lies the problem.

Why is this so important though? Why, exactly, does having faith in something that's not only unprovable, but staggeringly unlikely, have value? Does God somehow "eat" belief? Is it a form of sustenance? Seems pretty unlikely, since he seemed to do alright for the millions and millions of years before humanity made the scene (lets just leave the whole YEC thing aside for the moment). What's the point then? How is it better to have people scream their unwavering belief in you, while punishing those who don't, than to just say "Yep, here I am, and here are my rules. Ignore them at your own peril" during an in-person appearance on World News Tonight?

Re:God, god, god....

[jabithew]

Indeed. It occurred to me recently that something has to either not make sense or directly contradict observed reality to count as faith. Saying "I believe the sky is blue" is not an act of faith, but saying "I believe in life after death" is. This is because we can all see the sky is blue*, but equally most of us can see that the dead stay pretty dead.

*I live in London, granted, but we have our days.

Re:God, god, god....

[oh_my_080980980]

Hawking did not come up with the Big Bang Theory. Georges Lemaître proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory. Fred Hoyle is credited with coining the term Big Bang during a 1949 radio broadcast.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Re:God, god, god....

[Attila Dimedici]

Stephen Hawking played little or no role in the development of the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory (although it was not called that until much later) was first developed by George LeMaitre in 1927 on the basis of general relativity. The theory was pretty much confirmed in 1964 by the discovery of background radiation of the amount that the theory predicted throughout the universe. Since then most advances in the theory have involved reconciling more recent observations to the theory.

Re:God, god, god....

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

I tried it. The only effect was a twinge from my conscience. Sadly, there were also no cheerleaders. Something tells me that you haven't tried my suggestion, but I still suggest it. That's all.

Re:God, god, god....

[Bitmanhome]

I don't think you can have a numeric base that isn't an integer. The base indicates the number of symbols that the system uses. What would 10-1 be in your system?

Re:God, god, god....

[Bitmanhome]

Sorry, I'm wrong. Hive mind has the answer. And 10-1 would be 3.

Re:God, god, god....

[Thing 1]

You could easily argue that the 10% are among them as well? After all, they seem reluctant to believe in a being whose very existence defies comprehension or understanding.

Agreed. I consider myself in that 10%; I also consider myself to be a product of the Protector. The Protector did not create the universe; did not create this galaxy; did not create this solar system; and did not create this earth. It did, however, have a hand in creating me, just like I (who created none of the aforementioned) had a hand in creating the most recent generation of cells in my body. Those cells can point to me and say "God", or be more specific and say "Protector, as long as we're not cancerous", and "Creator of latest generation, but two other male/female individuals created Protector, so Protector is not Creator of all existence."

I absolutely believe in a Protector. We (and other organisms; I'm not sure if it's "higher only", or "any organism with a brain that performs quantum calculations") power the Protector, while we're sleeping, and it protects us. I do not believe in a Creator (apart from the idea that the Protector created me), since I'm not the first generation of humans on this planet and I have some anecdotal evidence that Protector existed before I did.

I'm working on devising experiments to prove/disprove the existence and utility of the Protector. I'm fairly certain the Protector does not rely on blind faith; it relies on quantum mechanics. So, experiments that expose the Protector's inner workings won't cause the Protector to disappear in a puff of smoke like Douglas Adams did.

I'm really looking forward to finding a way, if I might use a car analogy, to add some turbochargers to Protector's performance.

Re:God, god, god....

[HeronBlademaster]

I wasn't aware observing hypocrisy among our atheist population was sufficient to constitute trolling...

Re:God, god, god....

[Raenex]

say out loud, "Oh Lord Jesus". Obviously, if you're right, if He doesn't exist, nothing will happen. But if I'm right, you will suddenly feel at peace.

Alternative explanations:

• placebo effect
• mantra
• self-fulfilling prophecy

No Jesus needed.

Re:God, god, god....

[VocationalZero]

Technically, you are not required to believe either way... God either exists or doesn't, and one's belief in him would have no effect on His existence, unless it does, in which case, what?

Your assertion also relies on people en masse believing empirical evidence. I'll believe that when when I see it!

Re:God, god, god....

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

Is that the case? Believe me, I've seen and studied all of these explanations before.
But, alright. Let's say it's attributed to one of the three above. In that case, we should be able to achieve the same result by calling out any other name of similar status in our mind. Correct so far?
But before that, let's pick a control word, to round off our test. I have a watch on my desk, so I choose the word "watch". You can pick whatever you like. Next, I'll choose another deity's name... Allah should do. I'd have picked Baal, but that would have been too old-fashioned. You can take whatever you like.

Finally, I'll begin. I'll call on each word or name three times each. Then I'll call on the Lord's name. If you like, you can try as well. I encourage you to test your theory.

But I've already told you what the result is, because I have tested. Don't think I haven't seen these explanations. Don't think I haven't studied in college and been told that the concept of God is nonsensical, ludicrous. I know it is. But in spite of that logic, there is a feeling, there is a sensation of life, clear and peaceful, when you call on that name. I'm not saying that science, or logic, or sensible thought is bad or stupid. I wish people would use it more, to be honest, I've come across so many people who would rather be right no matter the truth. I just don't care about what is bad or stupid. I have a sense of life, and I follow it. I'm not following blindly, even. I know every argument against God. I've seen and heard it all(well, I'm sure someone somewhere can hit me with a new one, but...), but it all fails to tell me why calling gives me that sense.

If you want to say I'm wrong, then you need to test it. The fact is that testing a theory is the essence of science. If that weren't true, then mice would still be born from cheese, and meat would give birth to maggots - the planet would be flat. What an insane world it would be, don't you think? I challenge the concept, present my theory, and prove it through experimentation. I'll ask that you do the same.

Re:God, god, god....

[bill_mcgonigle]

It's been a while, but isn't high school trigonometry using radians effectively using base-pi?

Re:God, god, god....

[Zixaphir]

God, you're an ass. In your base pi numeric system, then, show me an example where the variables are clearly defined of the circumference of a circle and of its diameter.

Re:God, god, god....

[Raenex]

In that case, we should be able to achieve the same result by calling out any other name of similar status in our mind. Correct so far?

No, you're missing one important aspect: Preconceived notions. For an individual raised in an environment where Jesus is heralded as a savior, calling out his name can raise these feelings by association. Perform the same experiment with somebody in a Muslim country, and they will probably find the reverse of your results. In the case of mantra, the same thing happens, but no Jesus is invoked.

Re:God, god, god....

[tr897]

If your numeric system is "base pi", shouldn't that be "1" then?

Re:God, god, god....

[ChiefNX]

Yup, 10 would be pi squared.

Re:God, god, god....

[RingPeace]

I think you may be confusing belief with faith, I have faith that the meaning of belief is what I believe it to be.

Re:God, god, god....

[Asgerix]

No. "1" is always 1 in any number system, independent of the base. "10" is always equal to the base. In this case, pi squared would be "100", pi cubed would be "1000" and so on.

Compare with base 10, in which "10" is 10, "100" is 10 squared and "1000" is 10 cubed.

Re:God, god, god....

[infinite9]

Must have struck a nerve. :-)

Re:God, god, god....

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

Good point. I'm completely ignorant of your stance towards Jesus, as you haven't actually disagreed with me on Him being Lord. With that said, it should actually be easier to determine whether the Lord's name has a real, non-placebo effect if you don't hold it in high regard(because it would be as another control word to you). Which would make this test perfect for a lot of people who would see and read this. Again, I think you should test it(you may have, you left that unsaid as well).

Re:God, god, god....

[Raenex]

Which would make this test perfect for a lot of people who would see and read this.

If you're going to appeal to science, then you need to be more skeptical in the design of your test. It's not proving the truth behind the biblical Jesus Christ. At best it shows that some people show an emotional response to a loaded term. If an atheist raised in a Christian nation had such an emotional response, you couldn't discount their upbringing.

Your feelings can be misleading, and are not some arbiter of truth. Do you know what brings me peace? The sound of rain. Does this prove the existence of a god of rain? I also find the song "Bridge Over Troubled Water" soothing. Should I worship Simon & Garfunkel? When I was in school and first heard audio recordings of Hitler's speeches, I was enthralled and felt a desire to follow his lead, and this even knowing how evil he was.

Again, I think you should test it(you may have, you left that unsaid as well).

I did it, once, just for the sake of it. No, it had no effect on me. Do you want me now to repeat that once a day? That's indoctrination. Do you think anybody that shows a positive response should then believe in biblical truth? That's uncritical thinking.

Re:God, god, god....

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

Last reply - this is turning into an argument.

If you're going to appeal to science, then you need to be more skeptical in the design of your test

Very true.

I did it, once, just for the sake of it. No, it had no effect on me.

There's the inconsistency of your argument. You weren't at all skeptical of your result.

In fact, 'inconsistency' is what make your whole argument groundless. While rain also tends to make me feel rested and peaceful, I hate the sound of it when I realize I'll be walking through it. By that token - Bridge Over Troubled Water probably bothers you at times. Maybe when you have a headache, or just aren't in the mood. Hitler's speeches - do they seem glorious as when you heard them so long ago? But the Lord's name has yet to fail me, and certainly not as spectacularly as the rain has.

Again, I'm not here to argue and disprove you. This debate has been going on far longer than you and I have been alive, and won't end any time soon. That's not my goal. I just want you to taste and see. When someone tells you that $new_dish is good, can you say they're wrong after putting the fork in your mouth and spitting it out? All I'm asking is that you try it. Once a day, drop your concepts and call. That's all.

Re:God, god, god....

[Raenex]

this is turning into an argument.

It always has been. I don't mean that in a negative sense, as long as both parties are arguing honestly.

But the Lord's name has yet to fail me, and certainly not as spectacularly as the rain has.

And yet it already failed me. Not just this one time either, but back when I had a belief in Christianity. I never, not once, felt something like a connection through prayer. Now, I didn't utter some magical incantation out loud, and I didn't practice said incantation daily, but are you suggesting that God would ignore my prayers when not using the highly specific form you suggest?

All I'm asking is that you try it. Once a day, drop your concepts and call. That's all.

It's just indoctrination. Humans are all too susceptible for it (for all kinds of beliefs), and I'm not going to subject myself to it.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[IMustBeNuts]

Wow... so we're now going to have to redefine EVERYTHING!!!!

OMG is now Oh My Gravity!

Religious texts now begin with 'And gravity said, "Let there be light!".

But sadly, my middle aged body will continue to be a victim of gravity!

:-P

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[5865]

Oh, summarize and bring the argument here please. I can't even be bothered to follow the link to RTFA. What makes you think I'd wade through a book so that you can be right?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Anonymous Coward]

I like turtles.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[debiansid]

You're missing the point too. The law of gravity is not created. It is not physical. A good book to read is "The God Delusion". Take a look.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Humans evolve. Humans create self replicating robots. Humans go away. Some robots say they were built. Other robots rebut 'But who built the builders?' No one, they were not built.

Or to put it another way, what if a self-aware cartoon character asks 'Who drew the drawers?' No one, they were not drawn.

Point is, what applies for one level doesn't necessarily apply for the one above it.

Who's on first?

[werewolf1031]

"If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we should know the mind of God."

I always thought it was a metaphor, as in to "know the mind of God" as he puts it means we'd finally understand everything about the universe, not that we'd know what a literal God is thinking.

Either some people took Mr. Hawking's statement too literally, or I misunderstood...

Re:Who's on first?

[Alarindris]

I think it's perfectly appropriate. Look up pantheism or panentheism.

Re:Who's on first?

[Peter Trepan]

I think it's like Einstein's "God does not play dice," or everyone else's "Thank God it's Friday." It's just a turn of speech, and doesn't imply belief in God. Furthermore, when someone like E.O. Wilson professes belief in a god, everyone assumes he means Jehovah -- but "God" is a slippery word, even when you're using it in earnest.

Re:Who's on first?

[thijsh]

Maybe a little bit of both? I think it's probable that Stephen Hawking meant that some notion of a God would be the entire universe and all it's information and laws (actually i've read somewhere recently that the only scientific way for a God to exist and be all-knowing would be if God was in fact the entire universe since that was the only way to encode all the information in the universe. But I digress). But Stephen Hawking is a smart guy and he knows the resistance scientists sometimes get from religious groups, so he probably worded it ambiguous on purpose so the bible-thumpers can pat themselves on the back and say: 'See, even a scientist like Stephen Hawking is looking for God'. This is a tactic a lot of atheist scientists have employed throughout the ages (for self-preservation, or just not to be ridiculed and shunned), many of whom are still 'claimed' by atheists and religious groups as a result until this day.

I must note that it could also have been the other way around (that he worded it ambiguous to please other scientists and instead meant it literally), but that already was unlikely and given this quote from The Grand Design extremely unprobable.

Re:Who's on first?

[Xest]

Same here, I think reading that sentence as an endorsement of the theory that a god exists is merely wishful thinking on the behalf of religious folks.

I interpreted it exactly the same way that you did, as a metaphor.

Re:Who's on first?

[Talla]

I always thought it was a metaphor

If course it was, this is just a clarification to stop religious extremists from being able to pretend that he supports their god. What I find really interesting in the article is that he supports M-theory. It may be old news, but I wasn't aware of it.

Re:Who's on first?

[doshell]

What, you expect the same people who take works of fiction written thousands of years ago literally to read Hawking's words in a metaphorical light?

Re:Who's on first?

[mr_mischief]

I think Hawking was meaning that the god to which he was referring is himself a metaphor, not just that knowing his mind was a metaphor. If one doesn't believe in a creator god, then seeing the universe coming into being as being an act of a creator would be a metaphor, the creator would be a metaphor, and the mind of the creator would be a metaphor.

Re:Who's on first?

[tgd]

It is a metaphor -- just like the use of God in the founding documents of the US.

But some people don't seem to understand that.

Re:Who's on first?

[oldmac31310]

That's exactly what I thought. I think it was really unfortunate he ever mentioned god. It perpetuates this silly and irrelevant debate over whether there is a divine creator or not and simply gets in the way of gaining new knowledge and making new discoveries.

Re:Who's on first?

[Idiomatick]

"god doesn't play dice" is often used to 'prove' that Einstein was religious. Which is worrisome... since he was very much non-religious.

So I'd say you aren't alone.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[kiddygrinder]

it's pretty much an irrelevant question, if god exists then obviously he designed the system to be "turtles all the way down" ie: even if we discover "where gravity came from" it won't prove or disprove god, it will just raise more questions. actually rereading your question a couple of times i think we're on the same page. god isn't a question of evidence or opinions, it's a question of faith.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but getting the shell off is hard. Sometimes I just want a simple meal.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[5865]

I think it's important that all of you who are planning to participate in this glorious thread of atheist rage to first consider the possibility that there really is a God but he's a dick.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[drakaan]

Actually, it's exactly the same thing to say that gravity was always there. I've never understood why hardcore atheists believe that scientific explanations preclude God as a valid concept.

Knowing that there are atoms doesn't mean that there aren't electrons, protons, neutrons, etc. Same goes for quarks and electrons (and on ad infinitum, from a conceptual standpoint). God is a concept, regardless of whether certain groups believe there is a physical being associated with said concept. The logical response to "Is there a God?" is "Yes", but there's no concrete answer to what God is, or to how the concept of God relates to the creation of the universe.

I'm agnostic (after a brief catholic upbringing and 30-odd years of making my own mind up about things), not strictly atheist, and my general understanding is that of God as an idea. As far as I know, there's no way to prove or disprove said concept, hence my agnosticism.

I think Steve would disagree with my understanding, which is why he came up with a different answer. Easily accomplished when it's a philosophical subject, I suppose.

The real problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Arrogance. Do we really think we understand everything? Every generation from the beginning of time thought they were the enlightened generation. No, it is actually our generation! People from a thousand years from now are going to look back in awe how we figured it all out! Please.

Re:The real problem.

[Voulnet]

What if a certain faith believed that thousands of faiths before it, and billions of faithfuls before it, were also enlightened? Good enough for you? It's called Islam. It acknowledges many of the original faiths before they were altered by their people, because God didn't send just one prophet, that wouldn't be fair.

Re:The real problem.

[mcvos]

Arrogance. Do we really think we understand everything?

Who is this "we"? I understand nothing of this stuff. As far as I can tell, only Hawking really understands it.

Re:The real problem.

[HeckRuler]

Well, if we've seen any farther then others, then it's probably because we've stood on the shoulders of giants.
That's one of the neat things about science and the grand whole of human knowledge, it gets better with time. Ideally, yeah, each generation is more enlightened and has a better understanding of how all this stuff works then the generation before it.
But relax, there's still plenty of stuff we still don't know. Possibly an infinite amount, but I'm not sure about that.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[slapout]

"God can have no part to play in the scientific search for truth and understanding of the fundamental structure of the Universe."

I thought the point of science was to discover the truth. If God exists, shouldn't that be a part of science?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[dkleinsc]

It should be pointed out that establishing exactly what happened to cause the Big Bang is damned near impossible, because there's just no direct observations that can be made. There's a lot of agreement of what happened at T+0.000000000001 seconds after the Big Bang, and observations that help prove it, but before that point, you're pretty much SOL.

Which means that there's no way for the study of astrophysics to stop people from thinking the universe was sneezed out of the Great Green Arkleseizure.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Nadaka]

Jesus, you are 1.5 meters in diameter? I lived in Mississippi and saw fatties every day, but 1.5 meters is still pretty damn wide.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Pojut]

Watch Cannibal Holocaust for a how-to.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Still room for the old logical fallacy there. If God created gravity, then who created God? Most theists then state that God was always there, but then it's easier to simply say that gravity was always there.

It's easier to ignore the whole debate and watch TV. This doesn't mean that's the correct decision.

If it's a choice between watching TV and debating with internet trolls, TV is totally the right decision.

Re:Is that all?

[savi]

You're saying that investigating the laws of the universe to figure out how/why the universe as we know it came to be is outside the realm of good physics?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Hinhule]

As an agnostic I naively thought I wouldn't have to deal with the debate.
Would save a lot of time in which I could concentrate on what actually makes me happy.
I was quite content in not knowing if there is "a god" or whatever until I die.

Turns out all camps are offended I don't pick a side.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

I sincerely hope that was a sardonic statement. If that's the condition of people in general today, we're going to have a sticky few decades ahead of us.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Anonymous Coward]

He's publicly stated a belief in an invisible sky wizard, improper use of "who" and "whom" is the least of bit of evidence pointing to a lack of intelligence.

Here's an honest question, I ask of you as a fellow atheist:

Why do so many atheists feel the need to be smug assholes? What the fuck does it matter to you if he believes in 'an invisible sky wizard'? Why can't you just let people believe what they will, why must you impose your beliefs on other people?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[boulabiar]

and why you are able to believe in the existence of gravity and not the one of God ? If you ask who created God, you've already broken a mathematical law. There are 2 different groups : Creatures, and Creator. If someone created God, then he's no more a creator. Define groups you work on then ask real questions. IMHO I find God easier and more logic to believe in, than believing in Probability or Gravity outside their scientific place. BTW, God can't be like human or other things, you still can't know how much dimensions the world has. If dimensions are more than the 3D+T (Maybe 11?) Then God has at least the same dimensions. (if time is a dimension, then God is 4D and he can modify the time, without having time take an effect on God) People believing in 3D gods or human-like gods need now to change their minds...

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Josh04]

Pfft, you have no supernatural and he has some, and it's his lack of imagination?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[omnichad]

Why's this a troll? Occam's razor is not law around here.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Josh04]

All the theists think you're a heretic and all the atheists think you're Christian : /

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's ninja turtles all the way down!

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[mcvos]

I was actually under the impression that the law of gravity, like time ans presumably other laws of physics, were inextricably part of this universe, which would mean they came into being at the time of the Big Bang. Does Hawking now say that's not true? Or have I always been wrong in my understanding?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Josh04]

Queue torrent of bullshit about wars and history. Atheists are just theists with a post-modern stick up their arse.

Re:Is that all?

[CFBMoo1]

"Can you get back to the energy problem please? Neither god nor gravity will save us from that."

God part is a debate best left to those who like to argue about religion. As for gravity, well how about hydro power? Water flows down the path of least resistance you know and if it can't find one it tends to make its own like the Grand Canyon.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Voulnet]

Because it's their internal insecurity, unfortunately.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[mr_mischief]

Occam only meant that we can't invoke a more complicated explanation than necessary within science. Since science can neither prove nor disprove something with no empirical evidence, the whole question is just completely outside the realm of science.

One could simply leave it unanswered, but I think it takes as much faith to reject something that science can't disprove as it does to accept something that science can't prove.

The idea that atheism takes faith is true. Agnostics don't need faith. Theists and atheists both do. One could even say they were agnostic and leaning towards no god or gods and no souls, but to be honest they'd have to admit they can't prove those don't exist.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[elfprince13]

Actually, it's 4 elephants first, and then a single very large turtle.

oh, how convenient...

[steak]

a theory about god that doesn't require looking through a telescope. get back to work!

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Black Parrot]

Still room for the old logical fallacy there. If God created gravity, then who created God? Most theists then state that God was always there, but then it's easier to simply say that gravity was always there.

Cut out the middle man!

Or, don't multiply entities needlessly.

Creationists claim that everything needs a cause, including the universe, then posit a god as the necessary cause and immediately proclaim that that god is immune to the "everything needs a cause" claim.

Also, "God" has no explanatory value. He can do anything, and what he decides to do is completely unpredictable. If a scientist predicted a particle or force that can do anything and is utterly unpredictable, he'd be either ignored or laughed at.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[thijsh]

NOTE: remember the first and only rule about cannibal holocaust... #1 *never* recommend anyone watching cannibal holocaust!

Please Close Your Mouth

[eldavojohn]

Is that all the best of the best in physics has to argue about? Gravity vs god? Thats like arguing over air vs oxygen.

How many books have you written that have changed my life?

You seem to think that a scientist need only pick the area of his expertise. Physics isn't some computer game where you spec yourself out to be proficient in what you want to be. Hawking is incredibly gifted in cosmology and theoretical physics. To ask him to turn his attention on building a more efficient turbine or green energy could be compared to forcing John Williams to play only the electric guitar from now on.

Can you get back to the energy problem please? Neither god nor gravity will save us from that.

I wouldn't be so sure about that statement (with respect to gravity, forget god). I believe there are hydroelectric plants right now that harvest energy in interesting ways with the help of gravity. If there's a gravity particle, perhaps it could be exploited?

Intelligence is not some resource that we have an amount of. Stop pretending like men who have done far more than you are mis-allocating it. He's already been condemned to a wheelchair, what kind of sick person further condemns him to something he doesn't want to work on?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Attila Dimedici]

A very basic rule of philosphy is that anything that had a beginning had a cause. Basic Christian theology is that God did not have a beginning. If indeed current theories say that gravity existed before the universe then gravity would be a potentially valid cause for the universe. However, everything I have seen says that gravity is a product of elements of the universe. The "law of gravity" cannot be an explanation for the creation of the universe because the "law of gravity" is merely an explanation of how a phenomenom that humans have observed behaves.
Everything I have seen suggests that the math of all current physics theories generate nonsense results under conditions of singularity, which all currently accepted theories say is the starting point for the Big Bang.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Smidge204]

I've never understood why hardcore atheists believe that scientific explanations preclude God as a valid concept.

Because "God did it" adds nothing to our understanding and adds an extra, seemingly unnecessary link in the chain of reasoning. It's a platitude, not an explanation. On top of that, "God did it" has never, in the entire history of mankind, been the correct answer where such answers became knowable:

Why does the sun move across the sky? God did it... no wait, the earth is rotating so it only seems the sun moves across the sky. Why do people get sick? God did it... no wait, it turns out there are things called germs and pathogens that affect our bodies and make us sick. Where does thunder and lightning come from? How is wine formed from grape juice? What causes the seasons to change? There used to be a "God did it" explanation for all of these.

So why should we accept "God did it" as the reason the universe exists?
=Smidge=

Re:Is that all?

[captainpanic]

Are you suggesting that very intelligent people are not allowed to talk gibberish when they near the age of 70?

Re: If they are wrong

[TaoPhoenix]

Pascal sent a letter. He wants his Wager back.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[CODiNE]

Atheist or not, SOMETHING had to have always existed. Otherwise it's turtles all the way down.

I saw a Mormon laughing at a Christian for believing that God always existed. He said that their belief of a God pyramid going back forever made more sense.

Scientifically, philosophically and theologically "the beginning" is just something we can't figure out. Perhaps our brains are too small.

Re:Is that all?

[BeardedChimp]

Yes, because in this entire book that is all he mentions. Must be a very short book. Its not like he has published any other books or papers, nope it's just this one paragraph.

Since you seem so entitled to tell others what to do with their time; could you please stop trolling slashdot and get on with dealing with ipv4 exhaustion. Neither god nor gravity will save us from that.

Re:Hawkings

[Vanders]

Gravity is not the theory that the universe will spontaneously create watches.

He may be breaking the law

[G3ckoG33k]

He may be breaking the laws of physics, in Louisiana

Re:He may be breaking the law

[iinlane]

To break the laws of physics you need to know them really well. He does.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Kjella]

I think you'd do better if we had some grasp of a "steady state" where Big Bangs would happen through some quantum improbability out of some nothingness. Kinda not unlike how a nuke can go from some seemingly stable matter to a Small Bang.

However, everything we've managed to figure out about the universe so far seems to be that it's going in one direction until every star burns out and there's no more energy potentials to perform work. For all intents and purposes, the world will end. It's a little harder to imagine something will end without a beginning rather than something that is forever.

Re:Conservation of Matter

[Unipuma]

Whoops, you're about 100 years behind the time. It was Einstein in 1905 that made the connection between energy and mass, in the theory of relativity.

Re:Hawkings

[Voulnet]

Multiply by trillions and trillions in magnitude, into this gigantic universe, and see the irony of atheists not accepting your little idea but accepting that the Universe was created this way.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[biovoid]

Because if we believed in something that appeared ludicrous to you, you would be equally smug. Such as, oh.. that life on earth would be better withouth religion perhaps? Or did you want something less concrete and more airy-fairy?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Spad]

Their argument is that it's just so obvious that there's a god, or gods and you have to take their non-existence on faith alone; you can't prove they don't exist, so therefore it must be more likely that they do. It's basically the Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction argument; we can't find any evidence of their existence, so they must be really well hidden.

The problem with that argument being that it's not that "I believe that there isn't a god or gods", but "I don't believe that there is a god or gods".

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[kenrblan]

In philosophy, the situation you describe is known as Pascal's wager. Find more here and here.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Dr. Manhattan]

Humans suck at extrapolating outside of their experience. Essentially everything we've discovered about the universe since we left the African savanna has been a big surprise. F=ma? Big surprise (constrast with Aristotle's laws of motion). Heliocentrism? Evolution? Relativity? QM? All big surprises.

I am extremely dubious about our ability to even speculate about something so far removed from human experience as the birth of universes. That applies to physicists and theologians, though it seems to me that physicists at least try to test their hypotheses as best they can.

I'm pretty sure that, whatever the answer turns out to be, it won't look much like anything that anybody today expects. I won't call myself 'agnostic' because I believe it's at least in principle possible to reach some conclusions, eventually. I guess you'd call me "non-gnostic, for now".

Re: Ironic

[Black Parrot]

It's rather ironic that a leading thinker in 3 dimensional space has such a 2 dimensional mind set.

Sigh.... I'm sure this seemed clever when you typed it, but you should really read over it again just to make sure its not a nonsensical collection of words that doesn't really mean anything.

Not a collection, a 1 dimensional sequence of words. (Cf. subject line, eh?)

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[TaoPhoenix]

The Greeks had Prior Myths there.

Zeus was rather grouchy.

Other physical laws anybody?

[wienerschnizzel]

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

Is this really Hawking speaking? Has he finally lost his mind? That would be really sad and I hope it's just a case of bad journalism.

1) what about the 1st law of thermodynamics that says that energy/matter cannot be created [from nothing]. How can a physicist say something like in the above quote and NOT discuss the law of conservation of energy?!

2) What 'such law as gravity' is he talking about? The one that Newton (who is mentioned in the article) described? That one is incomplete at best! Einsteins general theory of relativity? That one requires space to exist (hence the 'from nothing' part is wrong). Any of the proposed quantum gravity theories? Unproven speculations!

Re:Other physical laws anybody?

[Chris Burke]

Is this really Hawking speaking? Has he finally lost his mind?

Yes. It's not that this is a single quote taken out of context from an entire book. He surely never mentions Conservation of Energy or entropy in this book. The statement is obviously not the conclusion of a lengthy argument, but rather the entirety of the argument and conclusion contained together in one sentence. Ergo your observations are undeniably correct and Hawking has no idea what he's talking about.

Re:Other physical laws anybody?

[colinrichardday]

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

Wouldn't that merely require gravity, as opposed to a law?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[ThreeE]

Calling atheism a faith is like calling bald a hair color.

The nature of God

[davidwr]

As the great 20th century philosopher Adams pointed out, if you could prove God existed he would disappear into a puff of logic.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[c0lo]

Jesus, you are 1.5 meters in diameter?

No, I'm not. Signed: Jesus

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[vadim_t]

I'm not offended, but I think agnosticism is more work.

It seems to me that to say you're agnostic you must look at the mountains of arguments from both sides, ponder on it for a while, then decide "I don't think it's possible to tell which side is right".

On the other hand atheism is easy: When god descends from heaven and says hi, then I will believe. Meanwhile I'll stick to the default of not believing in things until it's proven otherwise.

Devil's advocate:

[blind biker]

Hawking says the Big Bang is simply a logical consequence of the laws of physics. But a theist could argue that these very laws were created by God.

I personally am not religious. But I do hope I'm a logical thinker. It seems, to me, that hawking's argument could still be disputed, because the creation of everything (includes the laws of physics, both the ones we know and the ones of possible parallel universes) is inherently philosophical.

I remember discussing with my ex GF about the existence of heaven and hell (or afterlife in general): I am pretty sure that such place doesn't exist, because it's simply ludicrous from a symmetry point of view. I am also pretty sure that a soul doesn't exist, because I am aware of the fact that everybody is a physical being and his/her actions are a result of deterministic processes. But being pretty sure wasn't enough to convince her, and I didn't try (too hard). I don't think Hawking's argument is going to change the mind of religious folks, either, and in fact, even I don't find it quite convincing.

That said, Hawking has been and always will be one of my heroes and role models. One of the most brilliant examples of what humankind can achieve.

Re:Devil's advocate:

[mark-t]

As theist, I'm not inclined to conclude that the laws of physics were created by God as much as they are generalizations that *WE* have made, philosophically reflecting on our own perceptions about our environment. In particular, laws of physics differ from other philosophical reflections in that they appear to give us a very reliable measure of predictive power within what we recognize as the universe. They do not allow us any significant insight into the mind of God, but they do give us insight into our surroundings.

Now that said, by studying only a single artistic work, one may be able to gain some insight into the mind of the artist, but it's inevitably going to be a pretty narrow perception.

Re:Devil's advocate:

[magsol]

I may be modded off-topic for this, but I am genuinely curious as to your explanations for why an afterlife doesn't (or shouldn't?) exist, as well as how you qualify actions as purely deterministic. Not saying I agree or disagree (yet); I'm just very curious as to how you reached those conclusions.

Re:Devil's advocate:

[Jamu]

I am also pretty sure that a soul doesn't exist, because I am aware of the fact that everybody is a physical being and his/her actions are a result of deterministic processes

If they are physical they'll be subject to quantum mechanical processes, which are, in part, non-deterministic.

Re:Devil's advocate:

[blind biker]

Thank you Sir, for a thoughtful answer! I had quantum-mechanical phenomena in mind, as well. They probably destroy absolute determinism. But even so, there is no "soul" directing our actions and thoughts.

I'm, however, curious what you think about the existence of soul, now that you mentioned quantum mechanics in the context of my original post.

Moses

[G3ckoG33k]

"Well who created the all-mighty then?" That was an easy question. Moses created "the almight" about 1000 BC. He invented the single god, aka "all-mighty", inspired by the single god of a pharao a few centuries earlier (who btw was Nefertitis husband). Before that the hebrews were polytheistic like most other in Egypt. The big question is how Pharaoh had receieved the idea of a single god. Possibly he in turn was inspired by the zoroastrians, a monotheistic religion which had been created several centuries before him. It is not stranger than that.

Re:Moses

[ChetOS.net]

Surely you could cite at least one source for some of this?

Re:Moses

[Sir_Lewk]

I'll go ahead and cite Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash as my source for saying that religion is nothing more than a social/mental virus.

Sure it's fiction, but I'd wager it is just as good as any sources you can dig up to the contrary.

(oh, and for your information: there are a shitton of peer-reviewed papers and books about the origins of different religions. Go to any local university and ask a librarian for some help finding some.)

Re: Moses

[Black Parrot]

Moses created "the almight" about 1000 BC. He invented the single god, aka "all-mighty", inspired by the single god of a pharao a few centuries earlier (who btw was Nefertitis husband). Before that the hebrews were polytheistic like most other in Egypt.

More likely, IMO, that the Jews picked up monotheism from the Persians. The prophets' continual whinge was "the people are whoring after false gods! the royalty is whoring after false gods! the prophets of false gods are whoring after false gods". It seems pretty obvious that they had a polytheism problem fairly late in the game.

The big question is how Pharaoh had receieved the idea of a single god. Possibly he in turn was inspired by the zoroastrians, a monotheistic religion which had been created several centuries before him. It is not stranger than that.

The date of Zoroaster is not well established; Akhenaten may have proceeded him.

I'm not sure how strictly monotheistic Akhenaten actually was. He certainly promoted his favorite god above the others, but I think the priesthoods of other gods still existed under his reign.

I suppose you could also argue that Zoroasterism is not monotheistic either, what with the dualism thing.

Re:Moses

[operagost]

I'm guessing that your "evidence" for the origin of Judeo-Christianity is the same as that used by the holocaust deniers: blatant disregard for historical evidence. We believe that the holocaust existed because we have written and photographic evidence. Likewise, we believe Augustus Caesar existed because we have Josephus and Tacitus, and we believe in YHWH because we have scripture. The rest comes down to literary criticism.

Re:Moses

[Sir_Lewk]

Fucking classic. This is pure gold.

Re:Moses

[MightyMartian]

Yahweh certainly predated any of that, being, apparently, a member of the Canaanite pantheon. As to Moses, well, there's not a smidgen of evidence that such a man ever existed. The whole Moses-Exodus epic seems likely to have been made up.

Re:Moses

[gtall]

Pharaoh thinks to himself: Errrmmmm....there's no damn reason for me to actually be at the head of Egypt. If all the proles got pissed off at one time, I could find myself swinging at the end of a gibbet. Hmm...what do to? The proles like believing in gods and forces and stuff. Hey, there, Flunky #1, I wish to issue a new edict: It has been revealed to me that I am a Great God, the Big One, the Mother of All Gods, the Rootenin, Tooteninest God East, West, North, and South of the Pecos (think Yosemite Sam). Now go out and publish that throughout the realm. Oh, and kill any mo-fo who has a problem with it.

La ti da, where's my first, second, and third wives, I feel particularly God-Like today....

Re:Moses

[ThePackager]

Actually it was around 1200 BCE, Moses may actually be a composite of several people and it seems that it was Abraham that started the 'God is one' ball rolling. The practical reality of monotheism is useful more in how a people preserve the idea through the generations. Score the Jews pretty highly on that point, considering we are here today; not a dead civilization. When struggling between God and Physics - she wins. She just creates new physics. Game Over.

Re:Moses

[WrongMonkey]

If you're interested in the idea of religion as a social/mental virus, you should read The Origin of Consciousness and Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes. I'm 99% sure that Stephenson "borrowed" those ideas from it.

Re:Moses

[sorak]

Or maybe it just allowed him more control over his creation. Multiple gods leads to conflict, and it would make it harder to denounce someone else as a heretic when another Israelite tries the same thing. Maybe the other guy met some other god that you don't know about.

Re:Moses

[oldmac31310]

Go to any local university. What? And leave the basement? You're kidding, right?

Re:Moses

[Sir_Lewk]

Awesome, thanks for the tip. :)

Re:Moses

[TheoMurpse]

I'm a little befuddled. Here's the gist of your post:

Snow Crash is fiction
It's just as good as non-fiction for showing religion is bunk
Religion is bunk! Non-fiction says so!

Re:Moses

[youngone]

The Pharaoh in question was Akhenaten, also known as Amenhotep IV. He introduced monotheism to the Egyptians, and made the god Aten the supreme god. It was a sort of Sun worship from what I can see. He was exised from history by the rulers who followed him, and only rediscovered later. (19th Century I think). So the answer to the question "Who created God"? is always "We did."

Re:Moses

[Sir_Lewk]

Sorry, you got that a tad incorrect. Here is the gist of my post:

Religion is bunk.
Anything you bring to the table to "prove" otherwise is going to be fiction.
Since we're apparently here to discuss fiction, not science, I might as well bring some of my own fiction. At least this way there will be some good writing present.

See, I'm not trying to use Fiction, or Non-fiction to prove that religion is bunk. Everybody here either 1) already knows that, or 2) refuses to know it. I'd be wasting my time.

Re:Moses

[operagost]

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but just to clarify, there are more extant MS of the books of the Bible than any other text in antiquity. They also agree 99% of the time, and those errors are nearly all misspellings or repeated words which do not change the meaning. You can't say that for any other text.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you not need matter in order to have gravity?

Hawking goes silent

[paiute]

"If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we should know the mind of God."

And what if Hawking figured out the complete theory just after he lost the capacity for communication with the rest of the world. Would God notice?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19550880/GUT-The-Grand-Unified-Theory-A-oneact-play-with-seven-blackouts

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[mr_mischief]

Science is a method. Really, the central part of science is the scientific method. You hypothesize, you design an experiment with as good of controls as you can, you test, and you adjust your hypothesis according to the results.

Please explain to me your experimental setup to either prove or disprove of a god, two gods, a thousand gods, that were are all a part of a god, that we humans are all gods, or that everything with life is some form of god.

If you want to talk about branches of philosophy, since philosophy is about trying to winnow the truth, then science is an objective and empirical branch of philosophy. Subjective religious experiences, unconfirmed reports of ancient scribes, and a general sense of a higher being are not objectively and empirically testable conditions.

Believe what you want. Science can't prove it for you, but it can't disprove it for those who disagree with you. Some things require faith, and if you're a follower of something that requires faith then the organized portion of your religion likely frowns on your quest for scientific proof of your beliefs.

It's entirely fair for someone to say a creator is not necessary to an explanation for as long as we ever don't actually develop some way to detect a creator. Evidence of a creator may never be found within our frame of reference in the universe even if a creator exists that does meddle in everyday affairs. Science may never answer the question, and it certainly hasn't yet.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[jimicus]

Reading between the lines, I think a far bigger problem most atheists have isn't so much the "God did it" explanation as the institution of religion that's built up around it.

My theory can beat-up your theory

[bl8n8r]

which is what this fundamentally comes down to. You can't dis-prove one theory with another theory because they are both just that; theories. It's up to you which theory you choose to put your faith in.

Re:My theory can beat-up your theory

[ThePackager]

Not theory to say when struggling between God and Physics - she wins. She just creates new physics. Game Over.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Anonymous Coward]

So which one of the several million religion options should we choose? They're all pretty much mutually exclusive, and they all sentence everyone who isn't part of their particular sub-sect to eternal post-mortem punishment of one sort or another. Are you a Catholic? The Mormons, Jews, Baptists, Evangelicals, and so on all say you're a heritic who is going to burn. Are you a Baptist? Nobody else likes you either. Who's right? Which one do you choose? Pascal's wager, if you actually include _all_ of the numbers, says it's better to be an atheist.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Kalidor]

Maybe it's too early in the morning, but I couldn't help it:

Ian Malcolm:"God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man destroys God. Man creates dinosaurs."

Ellie Sattler:"Dinosaurs...eat man. Woman inherits the Earth."

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[RevRagnarok]

The proper quote is calling not collecting stamps as a hobby....

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[professionalfurryele]

Just because you cant or don't know doesn't mean you cant have an opinion. Knowledge isn't the same thing as belief. It isn't that people are offended that you haven't picked a side, it's that you pretend there is a third option between believing and not believing.

I Don't Know What You Mean

[Greyfox]

It all looks like a big computer simulation to model the best way to create Plutonium from Hydrogen to me.

Re:Ironic

[Trent Hawkins]

It's rather ironic that a leading thinker in 3 dimensional space has such a 2 dimensional mind set.

Last I checked he was thinking in eleven dimensional space, it just looks like two for someone with a one track mind.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[plastbox]

What irritates me is that people always have to talk about what happened before The Big Bang. All matter was created in The Big Bang. Time is an artifact/property (me lacking a better description) of a universe consisting of matter. Ergo, time itself did not exist until the very first tiny bits of matter came into being. This seems significant to the discussion, yet it's hardly ever brought up. Please explain..?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Mongoose Disciple]

I sincerely hope that was a sardonic statement. If that's the condition of people in general today, we're going to have a sticky few decades ahead of us.

I don't think there's anything unreasonable about what he said. If you're having an argument or discussion with someone and you believe a book that you read would convince them that you're correct, the least you can do is give them the gist of what the book is about and why you think it's relevant. If they want to know more or are interested, then they can read the book -- but it's kind of asinine to say, "Oh, just read book X and you'll realize there has to be a God."

If you disagree with me, go ahead and read Don Quixote (again, if necessary) and you'll see I'm right.

Here be dragons

[Fractal Dice]

Until we can point an exact and computable equation for the entire past, present and future of existence, there will always be unexplored parts of the map. You can fill that void with any assumption you want - from dragons to flying spaghetti monsters, a big fat zero to $God. If you assume that this placeholder is omnipotent and mysterious, that removes all the messy frustration about why it's hiding out in the ignorance section.

Where you run into problems is that these seemingly harmless placeholders become memes. As you add lore around your placeholder of choice, there is competition between memes. Some survive. Some die. Some mutate. Evolution now kicks in. The placeholders become resistant to being replaced with other placeholders. As people start filling in the map, knowledge itself becomes a threat to the meme and it begins to complete for mindspace in which to live.

Now this harmless placeholder is, for all practical purposes, a real living thing scratching at your mind from the void beyond knowledge like some quantum virtual particle leaping out of a black hole.

Re:Here be dragons

[TheGratefulNet]

like some quantum virtual particle leaping out of a black hole.

please don't anthropomorphize inanimate objects. they don't like that.

Re:Here be dragons

[HeckRuler]

That, fine sir, is a compact, precise, and insightful description of our current prediciment. Well done.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[blind biker]

Theists would say that God is the unmovable mover - some kind of fulcrum point that transcends past and future, and everything else flows from that fulcrum. Something like that. I could think of it as the ultimate frame of reference.

Don't conclude from the above that I am a theist. Just what I've heard some theologists talking about, plus the way I interpreted them.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[doshell]

Since we are talking about unprovable matters, I could also postulate there is a god that will send you to hell for being a nice person. This god is as likely to exist as yours. In fact, as long as there is more than one religion in the world, there are potentially many gods, who, once you die, will send you straight to hell for not believing in them. Surely, by being a practitioner of religion X, you are staking your eternal future too?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[MWojcik]

Just like Christians stake their eternal future on the presumption that if God exists, it's the God from the bible (or rather their interpretation of it). They live their whole lives doing what their interpretation of the bible supports, and rejecting the concept that there could be anyone or anything different. If they are wrong, and there turns out to be a judgement day ruled by different deity they will spend eternity burning in other version of hell.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[professionalfurryele]

You know presenting the premises for Kalam as though they are universally accepted (or even widely accepted) philosophical principles makes you look extremely disingenuous.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[stealth_finger]

You can't make something from nothing...except for god. Nothing can have always existed...except for god. Or something like that, right?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Mongoose Disciple]

They live their whole lives doing what they want, and rejecting the concept that there could be anyone or anything greater than themselves.

Alternately: Everyone does what they want. Some people choose to rationalize their choices based on a fairy tale.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[RicktheBrick]

If anything was always there than it must have existed for an infinite amount of time. How can it be now if an infinite amount of time has already passed by? I would think that there must be a beginning to everything. Otherwise there must be an infinite amount of energy in the universe because the universe will have to stop its expansion and reverse itself to start over again. Than again how can we say that the universe has already expanded and contracted an infinite number of times? If one could make a time machine than one would be able to travel into the past for an infinite amount of time. I am giving myself a headache just by trying to figure it out.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Jawnn]

Sure it does. Atheists stake their eternal future on the presumption that God does not exist. They live their whole lives doing what they want...

False. That atheists have no "moral code" simply because the reject some arbitrary collection of do's and don'ts is a common but incorrect assumption. Sure, there are plenty of amoral atheists, but then again, there are plenty of outright scoundrels who will bleat long and loud about their "Christian values". On the other hand, some of the most "moral" people I know are atheists. They take full responsibility for their actions (no "salvation" just for uttering some magic words) and weigh those actions against a thoughtful and continuously evaluated personal code. In other words, they choose to do the "right" thing because it is right, not because someone else said it was right and threatened them with torture if they disobeyed.

If they are wrong, and there turns out to be a judgement day they will spend eternity burning in hell..

You do know that not every religion has the Judeo-Christian concepts of heaven, hell, and "judgement", don't you?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[deoxyribonucleose]

Queue torrent of bullshit about wars and history. Atheists are just theists with a post-modern stick up their arse.

For another correction, that would be 'Cue'. Is that the stick lodged in my colon? What a fascinating theory!

Re:Is that all?

[mr_mischief]

Stating that a supernatural being outside the physical limitations of the universe and of time either does or does not exist based on the physical limitations of the universe and of time and of our still quite limited ability to measure and explain those limitations is poor physics.

I mean, whose definition of God, gods, demigods, angels, demons, spirits, souls, or whatever do we even use to start looking? How do we test?

Some philosophy is from different branches of philosophy than science. You don't discuss metaphysics and theology from physics. Physics is empirical and objective. Once you violate empiricism and objectivity, you've violated science.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Sir_Lewk]

Lets see: scientist implies gravity exists because gravity exists. you imply gravity exists because god exists (because he exists).

So what you are saying then is you worship what is for all intents and purposes gravity? Cool story bro...

But in all seriousness, if this supposed god is "all mighty", then why limit his actions to the creation of gravity? Seems to me you've got yourself something of a "god of the gaps" thing going on.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[blind biker]

Sure it does. Atheists stake their eternal future on the presumption that God does not exist. They live their whole lives doing what they want, and rejecting the concept that there could be anyone or anything greater than themselves. If they are wrong, and there turns out to be a judgement day they will spend eternity burning in hell. That takes a great deal of faith (or ignorance take your pick).

Sorry for butting in on your conversation: why is it that you think believing in God must presuppose believing in afterlife (let alone such ridiculous one such as hell+heaven)? I am interested in your personal opinion, as well as why do you think other people make this seemingly un-breakable link.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Mongoose Disciple]

No doubt. I don't think Zeus will think much of their blasphemy.

Could be worse

[Mathinker]

> Turns out all camps are offended I don't pick a side.

Even worse if you believe in strong agnosticism, as I do. Neither side on the religion flamewar can wrap its head around that belief, especially since belief in strong agnosticism makes arguing over the (abstract) question idiotic. See also: Non-overlapping magisteria.

Re:Could be worse

[Vectormatic]

i might just be proving your point here, but from reading the wiki page, it sounds like a bit of an excuse, i.e. "i think we cant know so there, no point in talking further, where is the remote?", thus relinquishing any responsibility for thinking further about it.

which is one of the things i hate about religion, the fact that humans (sometimes) use it as an excuse to not take responsibility, simply by saying "this is gods will"

in essence it sounds to me like believing in the "god" of overpowering stupidity..

(honestly, i dont mean to offend, this is just the impression i get from reading that wiki page, and if that is your belief, i am fine with that, dont change on my account)

Re:Could be worse

[Mathinker]

> believing in the "god" of overpowering stupidity.

I guess we mathematicians must be really overpoweringly stupid, then, considering that a lot of interesting mathematics is proving that there are things which cannot be proven, or other things which cannot be calculated.

Or perhaps I just don't believe in the "god" which bestows the ability on humans to know everything? :-)

Re:Could be worse

[jahudabudy]

Out of curiosity, if I asked you what color shirt I am wearing right now, would you think you were "relinquishing responsibility for thinking further about it" to say "I don't know and can never know". Seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable response. And you can't cry false equivalency - if God does not exist, deciding whether he does or not is exactly as important as the color shirt I am wearing right now. That is, not at all.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[ElectricTurtle]

I have even better resources for Pascal's wager here and here. It's too bad I doubt sheph will think about his own wager.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[ByOhTek]

More like calling bald a hair style.

At first glance, it doesn't make sense, but if you think about it, it really does.

You are sure that one thing is right over all others, when none of them can be proved or disproved. That's faith.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Beezlebub33]

Why does the all-mighty get to be an uncaused cause, but not the universe? If I say, universe == uncaused cause then there is no cause for the universe, by definition.

Without some other basis for the statement, there is no reason to think that X gets to be uncaused but Y does not.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[agbinfo]

There's simply not enough time to believe in the Christian god, the IPU, Zeus, and all the other gods out there.
Assuming there was a god, if you don't believe in the right god, and the 'right' god is a vengeful god, you'll have wasted your life and you'll go to hell anyways.
But there's worst. What if there is a god and that god goes through the trouble of making sure you can't find any trace of it. Maybe this is just a test to search for people that are just too credulous and send *them* to hell.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[ByOhTek]

No, it takes no faith whatsoever to be an agnostics (neither rejecting nor accepting).

It takes faith to pick an option, when none can be certain. That includes the 'none of the above' option of atheism.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[ByOhTek]

And I just pluralized agnostic... durrr...

So basically what he's saying is...

[jbarr]

"In the beginning, there was nothing. Then it exploded."

Re:So basically what he's saying is...

[crimperman]

Brilliant! That has a real touch of Adams about it.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Sir_Lewk]

Go to your local library and start reading books out of the science and logical/critical thinking section.

If you don't do this, then you are just as much a part of the problem you assert there is in the world as anyone else.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Teckla]

Atheists stake their eternal future on the presumption that God does not exist. They live their whole lives doing what they want, and rejecting the concept that there could be anyone or anything greater than themselves. If they are wrong, and there turns out to be a judgement day they will spend eternity burning in hell. That takes a great deal of faith (or ignorance take your pick).

And many theists assume that, even if there is a God, that it's important to him that you believe in him during this life. (Why would that be so important to God anyway?!)

And many theists assume that, if you don't believe in God before you die, that God will be so upset that he'll send you to hell for eternity. (Why do so many theists think God is a psychopath?)

And even if you do believe in God, what are the chances you've chosen the right one to believe in?

Christianity? What if the Muslims are right?

Islam? What if the Jews are right?

Judaism? What if the Hindus are right?

Hinduism? What if the Buddhists are right?

What if all the major religions are wrong?

And on and on it goes...

It seems overwhelmingly self evident to me that people inherit their religious beliefs from their parents and the society around them. They don't wait until they're adults, capable of making these kinds of Big Decisions with a rational mind. They don't research all the alternatives and make an informed decision. They're basically brainwashed from birth.

If God really is a psychopath; i.e., if God really is going to send you to hell for eternity because you didn't believe or did believe, but believed in the wrong God, then the vast, vast majority of humanity is screwed, and is going to hell, because even if you do believe in the right God, chances are your faith and adherence to your religion is watered down enough to piss him off to send you to hell anyway...

I would argue that to have true faith and confidence in God would mean having faith and confidence that he's competent and his plan doesn't suck so much that the vast majority of human souls will spend eternity in hell. You should have faith that God is not a complete psychopath just waiting to make the vast majority of his creation suffer torment for all eternity.

And, please: if you're religious, and disagree, or are even offended, please don't mod me down; instead provide some rational counterarguments to what I've said.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[stephenhawking]

It's turtles all the way down!

Someone, it appears, actually read "A Brief History of Time."

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[spiffmastercow]

Here's an honest question, I ask of you as a fellow atheist: Why do so many atheists feel the need to be smug assholes? What the fuck does it matter to you if he believes in 'an invisible sky wizard'? Why can't you just let people believe what they will, why must you impose your beliefs on other people?

Because even in the absence of religious belief, people still *think* religiously. For all practical purposes I'm an atheist, thought I'd have to label myself as "technically agnostic" since I can't show that there is not a god. Putting that aside, though, God can be a good metaphor for when speaking of cosmic beauty, which I think is the context in which Hawking was speaking.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Covalent]

Gee...I never thought of that. Now, just tell me which God I should worship so as to avoid my eternal suffering and I'll get right on that. Pascal's Wager is hundreds of years old and makes even less sense now than it did then. Not believing is just as safe a wager as believing in the "wrong" God.

I didn't think I'd see the day...

[srussia]

Stephen Hawking begging the question.

Re:I didn't think I'd see the day...

[bill_mcgonigle]

No kidding - the gravity argument doesn't even make sense. I'll admit, there's a good chance this is popular-press error, but there was some pretty shoddy logic behind his 'ET' press release a few months ago as well.

It's worth noting he retired a year ago. Perhaps he just isn't well (relatively speaking, of course, he's proven himself heroic figure already).

he's lost it

[mldi]

OK, Hawking has officially lost it. He's past his prime. Also according to the laws of physics, you can't create something from nothing. Is he trying to claim that energy from gravity just spontaneously turned itself into all sorts of matter? Where did gravity come from? Where did energy come from?

Really Hawking, you could just say "I have no frakin clue" and people would still think you're a genius. You don't need to try to claim such asinine things. I'm not arguing there's a divine being of some kind that created it all, but c'mon, his argument by contrast is just as insane.

Re:he's lost it

[ledow]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

Come back when you've absorbed that and understand that. Applying your Newtonian Physics class, that basically doesn't go past the 1800's, to modern quantum physics, string theory, brane-theory, etc. is like saying that you understand how to design and fly a 747 because you once made a paper plane.

Re:he's lost it

[ak3ldama]

Actually, he may be able to fly a 747. Sounds like a comparable analogy. He can try to fly it, and you can try to find the graviton. From your link:

This result suggests that if a massless spin-2 particle is discovered, it must be the graviton, so that the only experimental verification needed for the graviton may simply be the discovery of a massless spin-2 particle.

Re:he's lost it

[mldi]

And you're claiming to know how to fly a future spacecraft that hasn't been designed yet, whose fuel source hasn't been discovered yet, and whose flying instructions have only been theorized about.

I also fail to see how the laws of the conservation of mass and energy don't apply to "modern physics", as you call it (string theory, reeeeally????).

Re:he's lost it

[techdavis]

Perhaps you forget the Law of Conservation of Mass? You cannot create something from nothing, as there is no mass to nothing. Actually, believing that nothing becomes something sounds like some hokey religion. Hmm.... takes a lot of faith to believe that nonsense!

Re:he's lost it

[RivenAleem]

brane-theory

Mmmm branes

Re:he's lost it

[Culture20]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton Come back when you've absorbed that and understand that. Applying your Newtonian Physics class, that basically doesn't go past the 1800's, to modern quantum physics, string theory, brane-theory, etc. is like saying that you understand how to design and fly a 747 because you once made a paper plane.

When nothing exists... Nothing Exists. Not even theoretical gravitons. A more intelligent answer from Hawking would be the Big Crunch/Bang cycle, but there's no way to prove or disprove it, and more importantly, it's old hat. He's got to stay relevant even if it means he says ridiculous things like "gravity (warping of space) exists, even when there is no matter, energy, or space" or that "The Law of Gravity" is some sort of Supreme Law that works even with nothing, and not just an explanation of observed behavior.

Re:he's lost it

[mr exploiter]

He still has more credibility than a random slashdot poster.

Re:he's lost it

[Quirkz]

No, ledow is right. Hawking's not talking crazy talk. The stuff you're objecting to is more than adequately covered by a few undergraduate courses in physics. A whole universe can literally appear out of nothing, according to our decades-old understanding of the Big Bang.

Re:he's lost it

[iinlane]

according to the laws of physics

Which laws? Which physics?

Re:he's lost it

[curtix7]

Yeah but he will be dead some day, and 100 - 100 million years from now (whatever the time frame may be) when they prove that something can come from nothing, he will be the guy that said it first with conviction. At least that's how it will likely be remembered, when we are all dead and scientific history gets trimmed and reorganized into a more manageable memory.

Re:he's lost it

[mldi]

Oh, so since he's "more credible than a random ./ poster", we're to take his every word as if he IS the flying spaghetti monster? No thanks.

Re:he's lost it

[mldi]

A whole universe can literally appear out of nothing

No. Anything worth studying still deems something to be responsible, in this case it's gravity/dimensions/membranes, but those responsible still gotta come from somewhere. It's not "nothing", even if this bogus theory based on a long string (no pun intended) of hypotheticals is correct.

Besides, the stuff I'm objecting to is neither complete nor proven. You want to subscribe to something that includes 11 dimensions? Be my guest. I mean, really now... theorizing these hypothetical membranes colliding into each other (oh, btw, where did these dimensions/membranes even come from??) is just as insane as any religious nutter.

Adequately covering hypotheticals in a few physics classes is required because those are some running theories in the field. It does not, however, make them FACT, make them PROVEN, or even make them MATHEMATICALLY SOUND (supposedly this magical 11th dimension was supposed to eliminate the anomalies, so I'm waiting until they make up a 12th dimension to cover their asses again). It's utterly ridiculous.

Re:he's lost it

[Quirkz]

No. Anything worth studying still deems something to be responsible, in this case it's gravity/dimensions/membranes, but those responsible still gotta come from somewhere. It's not "nothing", even if this bogus theory based on a long string (no pun intended) of hypotheticals is correct.

Yes, as I've heard it, it really did. If you haven't read up on "inflation" -- the hyperexpansion part right after the big bang -- that may be a good place to start. If I recall part of the theory is that the matter energy is created as a balance to compensate for the tremendous gravitational potential involved in the expanding universe (I may not have that quite right, but that's how I remember it).

There's a lot of other good information that happens at that stage. Lots of discussion of the creation of matter and antimatter, and weird asymmetries that may explain why the universe appears to be made primarily of matter without any antimatter around.

We already know that matter/antimatter pairs of particles can and do pop out of nothing and back into nothing, due to quantum effects. Hawking's been talking about that for decades, without too many objections that I've noticed.

None of that is related at all to string theory, by the way. I actually share your distaste for the idea of 11 or 12 dimensions as a way to explain that stuff, but I can't do that math and won't make any personal conclusion about whether it's right or wrong at this stage.

Re:he's lost it

[neonsignal]

To be fair to Hawking (and contrary to the Guardian summary), he made a similar argument in A Brief History of Time. As I remember it, he concluded that it was unnecessary to postulate a creative big bang moment, because the 'beginning' of time was not a single point, and the whole of time could be described by modern physics.

Now his language in that last chapter of A Brief History was provocative (in its use of the term 'God'). But too many religious people have seen the 'big bang' as a creative moment that could not be understood using science, and so a 'proof' for God. This is a simplistic religious perspective and deserves to be challenged.

Hawkings ideas are neither a proof for or against God, but provide an explanation why the philosophical idea of a 'watchmaker God' is unnecessary. Indeed, I would argue that there can be no empirical proof of a transcendent being, because this would imply that the being has empirical properties (which by definition are not transcendent).

You write "Is he trying to claim that energy from gravity just spontaneously turned itself into all sorts of matter?", but your question itself does not make sense in Hawking's model of the universe. In his model, the universe is a self-contained space-time object with no sharp beginning, so the very idea of 'spontaneous' energy to matter conversion has no meaning. 'Spontaneous' implies a special point in time, and Hawking is pointing out that there is no special point.

Re:he's lost it

[mldi]

Thank you, good sir (maam?), for that wonderful post. That was the most sane thing I've read on this entire thread, and explains so simply what TFA so gloriously ignored.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Beezlebub33]

I think the first step would be to define the Gods and describe their features. And then the second step is you can test those for features in double-blind tests. Somehow they cant' seem to get past step 1.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Mongoose Disciple]

consider the possibility that there really is a God but he's a dick.

Yeah, I always thought Decartes' proof to the contrary was dubious, too.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[professionalfurryele]

Interesting title for a book. Revealing a massive ignorance of both Christian theology and atheism.

Faith is generally held by any Christian with a functioning cerebral cortex as "Trust in a reliable god" making an atheist having faith utterly self contradictory. Calling Lee Strobel a philosopher is an insult to every vaguely competent Christian theologian and Philosopher in history.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Smallpond]

Why bring up something related to the article at this late date? You're just interrupting the flow of ... erm, ideas ... above.

Anyway, Hawking's statement: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing" seems to be missing a few intermediate steps to me. Maybe it is explained better in the book.

But let's suppose he's looking backwards and saying that the existing laws and observations require the Big Bang to have occurred. I still don't think there is much that can be said about whether anything, even space or time, existed "before" the Big Bang. "Came into existence" implies a before, but if the Big Bang was the beginning of existence then there is no paradox. The existing universe has these laws and these laws require this starting point.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[mrops]

This is a interesting question I have thought of quite often and I believe I have a reasonable answer.

"Time" is a by product of creation of our universe.

Keeping this in mind, there is no "need" for anyone creating god. Without universe there is no time (or at the very least time as we perceive), yet there is god (for those who believe in god, and I do). Question of creation only arises when asked in reference to "time".

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Mathinker]

> So why should we accept "God did it" as the reason the universe exists?

I think the answer to that question is context-dependent. If we're talking about scientific research, "God did it" isn't an interesting explanation. In other contexts, it might be.

As a (unfortunately non-car) analogy, think about the question "why did my wife smile when she looked at me just now?". The answer "she loves me" wouldn't be appropriate in a journal article in a scientific journal about correlating human brain activity with human actions, but it might very well be an appropriate answer in other contexts.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[ThreeE]

Ridiculous. It's true, no one can prove that there are no gods. But we can say that there is as much evidence for gods as there is for the tooth fairy. In fact, there is more for the tooth fairy.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[gsgriffin]

and yet others rationalize their choices based on their experience with something greater than themselves....something that nobody else can deny....my experience.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Fauxbo]

One could even say they were agnostic and leaning towards no god or gods and no souls, but to be honest they'd have to admit they can't prove those don't exist.

With that logic you'd have to believe in absolutely everything. Ghosts, Vampires, Aliens, FSM, Unicorns, goblins, drangons, orcs, elves (short and tall), Fraggles, Transformers, ninja turtles, Voltron, Zerg, absolutely anything that anyone could dream of.

Because you can't prove anything doesn't exist, all you can prove is you haven't seen them yet.

Atheism is a faith, it's a faith in things we can prove to exist, God and the above don't fall into this category.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Cyberax]

"Actually, it's exactly the same thing to say that gravity was always there."

No.

"I've never understood why hardcore atheists believe that scientific explanations preclude God as a valid concept."

Definition of 'God' usually requires it to be conscious. And a lot of religions believe in personal God. These concepts do not bring in anything new or worthwhile.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[flitty]

All Hail Gravity

Now, let us pray.
Thank you gravity, for keeping food on our plates.
Thank you for all of your gifts you have given us, sent -AHEM- pulled from the heavens. This we say, in GM/(R+h)^2, amen

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Ephemeriis]

Christians stake their eternal future on the presumptions that their God does exist. They live their whole lives doing what the Bible dictates they should, and rejecting the concept that there could be any other reasons or explanations. If they are wrong, and it turns out that the Buddhists are right they will spend eternity being reborn and suffering. That takes a great deal of faith (or ignorance take your pick).

gravity, from and upon what?

[ak3ldama]

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. How would the law of gravity work, to create anything, when there is nothing originally for gravity to pull toward? You cannot, as "nothing" would have no mass. It takes two to tango. Creating something from nothing takes a lot of faith.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[zarzu]

you might as well, it certainly won't change its chance of being answered.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[BergZ]

I’m curious about this book "I Don't Have Faith Enough to be an Atheist":
Looking at the description of the book on Amazon is quite interesting. According to the sycophantic reviews from other Christian religious authors this book must provide bullet proof arguments for the existence of God.
If it’s anything like “A Purpose Driven Life”: I’m not going to pick it up. For anyone who hasn’t read APDL; Don’t bother, it’s a real stinker. I was given a copy a few weeks ago with the assurance that it contains “bullet proof” arguments of God’s existence... It doesn’t.
The main argument of APDL goes: You exist because God created you, and he created you so that you would serve him therefore God exists and because God exists he must the Judeo-Christian God and his son must be Christ.
The argument is bereft of any content worthy of serious intellectual consideration. Oh, but they did take the time to try to hock some cheezy tie-in 'wares like "APDL Journal" and "APDL Cards" all available for a small "donation".

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Cyberax]

"I am a scientist and philosopher (degrees in both Religion and Neurobiology), and this is a valid question. Where did the law of gravity come from? Yes, the Big Bang and pockets of density that turn into galaxies would spontaneously form based on the laws of gravity and entropy, but why do those laws exist to begin with?"

For example, we can exist in the Multiverse, with a lot of Universes. Each one with arbitrary laws.

"That is a question to which an answer will never be found. Never. I'm not being pessimistic, it's simply that to discover the answer, one has to be able to manipulate the system from outside of it. The known universe is 8.79829142 x10^26 meters in diameter. We're about 1.5 x10^0 meters."

And top quark is about 10^-24 meters in width. Yet we can detect and make experiments on it.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[O('_')O_Bush]

Something else in another dimension unrelated to ours. If you go off some other theories, there are many Gods, only one of our Universe. They were created formed somewhere or somehow else and either create or control a universe of their own using their extreme power and intelligence.

But that's all philosophy after all. No evidence, just an outlet for that logical trap.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Mr. Slippery]

There are 2 different groups : Creatures, and Creator. If someone created God, then he's no more a creator.

Nonsense. There's no logical reason why those sets don't intersect. If we create an AI, and that AI creates a poem or a piece of music, that AI is both creator and created. If we create an AI, and we posit that we were created by some deity, then we are both creator and created.

I can certainly imagine a case in which Uber-God creates God, and God creates our Universe. And Uber-Uber-God created Uber-God, and Uber-Uber-Uber-God created Uber-Uber-God; it's (Uber)^n-Gods all the way down, for n >= 0, and each is both creator and created.

And 0 is just a convention for our Universe, with nothing special about it; God creates Under-God, who creates Under-Under-God, et cetera. In this picture, maybe we'll eventually evolve into Under-God, and create our own little Cosmos. This dovetails nicely with the idea that we're living in a computer simulation; when we create our own synthetic universe in cyberspace, we become Under-God. Meanwhile, God, the guy who programmed the simulation in which we live, is actually living in a simulation programmed by Uber-God, and so on up the line...

It's a lot simpler to posit that rather than (Uber)^n-Gods, we have some physical process, some cyclical process or multiverse. There is, for example, the idea that our Universe is a black hole in some other universe, and each black hole in our Universe forms a new Universe; it's black holes all the way down. I don't know nearly enough physics to assess this idea, but it illustrates the class of theories I'm talking about.

Define groups you work on then ask real questions.

Sorry, but you don't get to put the idea "God" in a box and say, "By definition, you can't ask 'real questions' about anything in this box!"

Are we immortal

[kernelcache]

Until we can persist ourselves indefinitely regardless of environment or action then we are flawed. This all boils down to answering the fundamental question of whether or not we fully understand ourselves and acknowledge that we don't know everything. If you don't know everything then you cannot comprehend everything and therefore you will never be able to fully explain. The experiments we do on this planet and in space provide us with a trivial understanding of our world, let alone the universe, let alone the formation of the universe. Gravity could be simply explained by saying that two objects are being pushed together rather than their mass attracting them towards one another...boom that represents gravity in a nutshell; it could have nothing to do with the mass of the objects, but rather that they merely exist. Once we "discover" that the mass doesn't dictate the overall graviational force and find out that our little solar system is completely different than other solar systems in how if functions...well then I suspect that there will be many scientists scratching their heads and finding themselves back at square one. Oh well, ice cream is still good and as long as we have sunrises and sunsets and gravity then we should be ok.

Re:Are we immortal

[colinrichardday]

whether or not we fully understand ourselves and acknowledge that we don't know everything.

What makes you believe that we will ever fully understand ourselves? Or that such an understanding would be necessary to acknowledge that we don't know everything?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Twinbee]

I don't know why this isn't mentioned more often, but there is something simpler than both of these cases.

How about that WE created the universe. We already exist, and the idea that we have an eternal soul is no more far-fetched than believing an eternal god exists. In fact it's less absurd, as we have proof of our own existence, at least in corporeal form.

At the least, I'm still amazed there aren't more people who are 'not sure' about a big entity (god or whatever), but think that we each have some kind of eternal 'soul'. I certainly fall into that camp.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Anonymous Coward]

How convenient. When you lose, change the game.

  Point is, this god business doesn't necessarily apply to any level at all. It's your fairy tale, not mine.

Another line in the sand

[jav1231]

There's been a concerted effort in academia to pit science against religion. Probably because many in religion have pitted themselves against science. As man's knowledge of science grew it began to tug at many ideas man had about God. So religious figures resisted and the tension began. But the same thing happened to many scientists. Not content with understanding more about he world and the universe alone, many set out to prove God didn't exist. Of course, there are a myriad of scientists and theists in between. But like so many things political, both sides often attempt to force us and each other to the other side. Atheistic scientists will often vilify and seek to discredit scientists who believe in God and theists will often vilify those who would try to accept certain scientific theories. That Hawking has sought to just into this fray is disappointing. Ultimately, science studies what is around us. It need not prove or disprove God unless there is a need for it in the person's mind. Perhaps he's angry with God over his lot in life. Certainly he could have achieved much more had he been able-bodied. Or could he? Maybe his lot in life is why he was able to focus his energy. Or...maybe there is no God. But there could be.

Re:Another line in the sand

[Black Parrot]

There's been a concerted effort in academia to pit science against religion.

Are you offereing this as fact or opinion?

Re:Another line in the sand

[the eric conspiracy]

There is no need to disprove God. In fact it is logically futile to try to disprove the existence of anything.

The proving needs to be done by those who claim existence. If you have a hypothesis that states xyz exists, it is up to you to provide the evidence for that hypothesis.

Re:Another line in the sand

[jav1231]

Yes. :p

Re:Another line in the sand

[jav1231]

Then a lot of people are going through a lot of trouble for nothing.

Re:Another line in the sand

[the eric conspiracy]

It is amazing how few people have a sound understanding of logic.

You can say "all swans are white" based on the fact you haven't found a black swan. But you haven't proven that there aren't any black swans because you haven't examined ALL the swans to have ever existed. And when somebody finds that there are black swans in Australia, oh well for your theory.

It's the same thing only worse when you say that you are going to prove there is no 'God'. In the first case God is a supernatural being so you can't define repeatable circumstances under which he must be observed if he exists. Secondly you would have to conduct your study throughout all space and time, something not possible in a reasonable period of time.

So proving the non-existence of God is futile.

Then there is the issue that there is no experiment that can be defined where God can be shown to exist. Everything is based on 'faith' or some sort of hypothesis like 'Life is to complex to have evolved from processes defined by natural law'. Well of course none of that is admissible as evidence in the court of logic.

So the fact is that the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved.

This is where I have my biggest problem with the idea of God. Because if I were to accept the idea of God I'd have to give up on my idea that naturalistic philosophy is tool that can be used to describe the universe. Since over the course of my life I've found that this works quite well I am not at all prepared to do that. There are other smaller issues too - like invoking God has never been helpful in coming to a final explanation of the things I've observed.

So it gets down to what I put in my tag line. It's a quote from Laplace - when he was asked by Napoleon why his book on celestial mechanics did not mention God, his answer was "I have no need for that hypothesis". In French of course.

It pretty much sums up my view too.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[O('_')O_Bush]

That problem isn't exactly a triumph of any logic to arrive at. It's been thought over and attempted to be solved for hundreds of years now.

Don't dismiss it as laziness, when you are too lazy to provide an answer of your own.

String theory?

[BlueCoder]

Sounds me to like Hawking has accepted string theory and gone from big bang to big bump...

But it doesn't change anything. In a cause and effect mentality you always have to end up with infinite causes if your being logical.

Furthermore giving god as a "cause" logically results the same way... well what or who created "God"... in a cause and effect reality there can be no first cause.

Separately... One of my pet peeves with "scientific" creationists is that they love the big bang when the truth is that once you understand and believe in God you have to accept that he could have created the whole of the universe at any particular moment; a logical universe that looks like it has existed much longer.

Re:String theory?

[hierofalcon]

He certainly could have made a universe that appeared old in a recent time frame. However, I think if you study the Bible closely, He would not have done so. Such an act would seem to go against His nature.

He isn't out to deceive His creation into thinking something that isn't true. He has created the universe as it is and laid out a path of how to restore a relationship with Him in the Bible. The age of the universe, as the scientific community understands it, is not contradicted by the very limited amount of space the Bible gives the subject.

Restoring a proper relationship to Him is the part that people need to worry about. In the very long run, that's all that matters. Getting hung up on the proper interpretation of a few chapters and scattered verses and then condemning the rest because a light reading of that small subset doesn't match what the current scientific community says is a mistake.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[mcgrew]

From TFS: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing"

How can you have gravity when there is no mass?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[ByOhTek]

Once people gave similar arguments against the idea of tectonic plates. I wouldn't hold so much faith in it, if I were you.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[corbettw]

tl;dr

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Sir_Lewk]

It seems to me that to say you're agnostic you must...

With the proper application of apathy, you don't even need to do that much. In fact, I think I'll go fry myself up a delicious bacon/egg and cheese sandwich right now instead of pondering a damn thing. Who gives a shit? I'm not a physicist, biologist, theologian, or policy maker, why should I waste my time on any of this?

Oh right, because it's fun to argue on the internet... oh well :)

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[MozeeToby]

Make it a statement with he or him, if you would use 'he', 'who' is correct; if you would use 'him', 'whom' is correct.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[jolyonr]

Indeed, I live my life by the motto "What would Zeus Do?"

Pretty much anything he wants, it turns out.

God or gods...

[jandersen]

... then we should know the mind of God

This is of course just meant to be a grand sounding quotation; nothing wrong with that.

However, is it really resonable to talk about "God" in the Biblical sense (although, even in the Bible it doesn't seem to be quite the same "God" all the way through)? That concept of God quickly runs into the old Russell paradox, for one thing. And if God and belief in God is about truth more than enything else, our thoughts about it must at least make logical sense.

It seems more appropriate to think of God as the Universe, if one must; it may even make sense to talk about God as sentient, who knows.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Hatta]

As a (unfortunately non-car) analogy, think about the question "why did my wife smile when she looked at me just now?". The answer "she loves me" wouldn't be appropriate in a journal article in a scientific journal about correlating human brain activity with human actions, but it might very well be an appropriate answer in other contexts.

Are you arguing that "God" like "love" is an entirely subjective phenomenon that occurs only in the human brain? As an atheist, I'd tend to agree with that.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[EnsilZah]

Well that's the whole point.
"Who created the creator?" comes as a retort to religious people saying "Something can't come out of nothing" and then saying that it must have been created by a god since for some reason god is exempt from this rule but any other explanation wouldn't be.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[geminidomino]

Here you go.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[HappyHead]

Atheist Communists started plenty of fights over religion.

Derp? That wasn't the question. the question was "When was the last time a war was started because of atheist beliefs? Here's a hint: Never. Wars are fought over "you have resource X and we want it", or "our god doesn't like your god, and he told us to kill you". You're not going to find atheists starting wars over their lack of god anywhere outside of Southpark reruns.

The fact that atheism is relatively new doesn't change the fact that it's just another religion.

Sorry, wrong again. Atheism pre-dates your religion - people didn't believe in god(s) long before they made up yours. And it's not a religion any more than not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[corbettw]

Why do so many atheists feel the need to be smug assholes? What the fuck does it matter to you if he believes in 'an invisible sky wizard'? Why can't you just let people believe what they will, why must you impose your beliefs on other people?

It has nothing to do with me being an atheist, I'm just an asshole.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[DanielHC]

That's not what "agnostic" means... It has nothing to do with believing or not in God.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[guruevi]

You do not know not every Judeo-Christian religion has the (same) concepts of heaven, hell and 'judgment' don't you? Afaik none of the Holy Books (Bible, Koran) speaks about going to the Catholic heaven (all people end up there eventually) or depicts a fiery hell (tormented in fire until you're pure enough to go to heaven) as a literal place.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[operagost]

His M theory must relay on that: somehow, energy must be affected by gravity. This would allow disordered energy to coalesce into matter "by itself", then reach a critical point to force a "big bang".

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Rosy At Random]

Absolutely. Would mod up if I had any points.

I read "A Brief History Of Time"

[frenchbedroom]

I read "A Brief History Of Time" and Hawkings' views are nothing new to me.

Hawking had previously appeared to accept the role of God in the creation of the universe

That's not what I understood from reading the book. Sure, there's this sentence about knowing the mind of God, but you have to read it in the context of the book. In it, he pounds on the idea of a Creator until it's quark-thin (and even thinner than that) and the rest is just physics. Anyway, "what was there before time" is not a question for a physicist, it would be like asking him the square root of a pork chop. It's a question for philosophers.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[AkiraRoberts]

Just a minor quibble, but if it turns out the Buddhists are right, Christirans won't spend eternity being reborn and suffering - they only spend as long as it takes to figure out that the Buddhists were right and to get with the program. Unlike Christianity, Buddhism isn't one of those you get one chance, don't fuck it up kind of religions. (And yes, all of the above is just a huge fucking oversimplification - I am aware of that, but the point stands).

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Sponge Bath]

...belief in an invisible sky wizard

Who is invisible? I can't see whom?
[sky entity puts on robe and wizard's hat]
Dude! That's not god!

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Josh04]

I have limited bandwidth and thus have to queue my torrents, you insensitive clod!

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[frenchbedroom]

c-c-c-combo breaker !

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[geminidomino]

Pretty much all the Greek gods (and most of the goddesses, too) were dicks. Apollo could even be said to be a bred-in-bone douchebag.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[kenp2002]

The law of gravity is physical in the sense of a force acting upon matter and energy. Part of the big bang theories out there in fact postulates that the strong, weak nuclear forces, gravity, electromagnetic, etc were all bound together maintaining the inital singularity (if that term is even accurate) then one or more of them broke off that unified force and subsequently set the big-bang off. If that was the case then we have a whole new layer of physics to contend with, the fact that forces themselves have the potential to break down or decay. In simple terms: The very laws of physics may change over time. (Heavy isn't it?) So gravity itself (as a force) could at some point break down into some additional, more basic forces, convert to a particle based force, who the hell knows! For all of human history we've never really looked at the concept that reality itself (And that laws that form it) may be subject to change themselves over time.

But, tangent aside, as a physical "thingiee"... sure but nor more or less physical as "pressure", "heat", or to a lesser extent entropy.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[imamac]

You may be unlikely to pick this one up too, but "Mere Christianity" is a very good book for the intellectual.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[gardyloo]

Or any of the other tens of accounts of the story which came first. Or other popularizations of it. Or Pratchett.

To prove God's existence

[briniel]

Just find Cain. The oldest test in the book.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[QuantumBeep]

It's necessary to boil the turtle for a bit first.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[ByOhTek]

Oh, really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic

Seems to mean exactly that.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[ByOhTek]

Nor is there evidence against it. So, picking any option other than "I don't know" requires faith.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[XxtraLarGe]

Since we are talking about unprovable matters, I could also postulate there is a god that will send you to hell for being a nice person. This god is as likely to exist as yours.

Being a "good" person doesn't give you an exemption from going to Hell under Christian theology, so most for most Christians the "god" you're talking about is the one we worship.

Steps

[b4upoo]

I suspect that the thoughts and beliefs of Hawking are being misunderstood. All one need to if one follows this path of reasoning is to ask just what created gravity. Obviously God would be a likely candidate. It should go without mentioning that human minds will never be able to "see" the mind of God. As the old Buddhist master told his student, "Bring me the ocean in a paper bag.". Even at our collective best we will never have the mental powers to come close to understanding that which surrounds us much less our Creator.

Re: Steps

[the eric conspiracy]

That's silly. You have no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a "Creator", or some immortal invisible being with a mind named "God".

If you feel a need for something to have created gravity or the universe, it logically follows to ask the same thing of "God". In other words who or what created "God"?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[QuantumBeep]

As Douglas Adams defined his own atheism, you could think of it as a specific belief that there is no god.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[JD770]

Depends on your definition of "God".

Religions are man-made, though purportedly divinely inspired. Regardless, they still come with plenty of man's inherent biases. Religions cause folks to imaqine "God" as the old wrinkly dude with the flowing robes, aura of light and a magical staff (or whatever).

I've always thought that most "Bibles" (or whatever writings a given religion is based on is called) were written looooong ago when peoples understanding of the world & universe were quite limited. Perhaps parables & metaphors were the best way to impart some semblance of understanding, order and morals to mud-hut dwelling, hunter-gatherer, very simple people. Our typical understanding of "God" come from those same "Bibles"

In all the time since, not even the most well established religions has defined "God" adequately enough to settle any related arguments. Neither can Hawking nor even the most enlightened slashdotter, regardless of how low their user ID is.

Perhaps "God" is merely an inadequate label that can be used to describe the [entity/substance/energy/??] that caused the creation of what we call gravity and everything else. Perhaps gravity is part and parcel of "God". Who knows? I sure don't know, but I don't feel all that bad about it since Hawking doesn't know either... And he's a tad bit smarter than I am.

It certainly won't be decided either way in a /. thread. If the atheists are correct, then the christians are laughably gullible rubes. If the christians are right, the athiests are doomed for eternity. Neither side can prove squat and your physical being has to die to find out (depending on the flavor of faith).

But, my ain't it fun to argue ad-nauseum about it in /. ?

How not Why

[Comboman]

Why does the sun move across the sky? God did it... no wait, the earth is rotating so it only seems the sun moves across the sky.

"The earth is rotating" is the answer to the question "How does the sun move across the sky?" "Why does the sun move across the sky?" is a philosophical question, and there is still plenty of room for God in those answers.

Re:How not Why

[pjabardo]

As Dan Dennet would say, a deepity!

Re:How not Why

[Quirkz]

And sometimes you can ask "why" when there is no real because. Some questions don't have answers, and it may be a mistake to try to insert one that doesn't belong.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[gssgss]

If they are wrong, and there turns out to be a judgement day they will spend eternity burning in hell.

I think there is good in following some basic principles and values. These are universal and do not belong in exclusive to any religion. (Do you think You shall not kill is Christian-only?) As long as religion is viewed as a way to improve oneself with these values and benefit society I have nothing against it. But when you use it to alienate and scare others... well, it is sad. Do you read the Bible as a history book? Congratulations ,you are an integrist.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[TheGratefulNet]

yes yes yes, you can always insert 'magic' in between discrete events.

not sure how that really helps, though. adding stories to science doesn't really help anything that I can see.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Mongoose Disciple]

With that logic you'd have to believe in absolutely everything. Ghosts, Vampires, Aliens, FSM, Unicorns, goblins, drangons, orcs, elves (short and tall), Fraggles, Transformers, ninja turtles, Voltron, Zerg, absolutely anything that anyone could dream of.

For some reason this makes me imagine a person in deadly peril shouting, "Save me, hydralisk!"

Re:Ironic

[geminidomino]

Well, you're half right. It does make sense, in that it's syntactically valid.

It's only "clever" if you also think a 5-year-old's elephant jokes are also clever.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[__aamnbm3774]

For that matter, the GP should re-read it 18 times.
Because you really don't "get it" until you reach the 18th time.
Go ahead, prove me wrong.

And afterwards you should read the entire bible backwards 15 times.

Otherwise it'll be a sticky few decades ahead of us.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[jdavidb]

Well, I'll bite. I'm convinced it's the God of the Bible because the most plausible explanation for me for data from the first century is that Jesus truly rose from the dead. I'm also convinced historical data from Egypt backs up the Old Testament assertions about connections between Israel's pre-history (Joseph and Moses) and Egypt, including the powerful miracles Jehovah/YHWH is said to have worked on behalf of Israel during those times.

I could be wrong. In which case perhaps I don't have an eternal future. I haven't seen a lot of evidence for the truth of other religions. Anyway, in the meantime, I'm sure enjoying this life and this world which I believe God created.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[QuantumBeep]

They live their whole lives doing what they want, and rejecting the concept that there could be anyone or anything greater than themselves

Not really, Mr. choose-something-uglier-and-attack-that-instead. They only reject the idea of an almighty God. But I think you knew that already.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Ephemeriis]

Just a minor quibble, but if it turns out the Buddhists are right, Christirans won't spend eternity being reborn and suffering - they only spend as long as it takes to figure out that the Buddhists were right and to get with the program. Unlike Christianity, Buddhism isn't one of those you get one chance, don't fuck it up kind of religions.

Ignoring the fact that I was basically just being a sarcastic asshole...

The assumption was that the Christians would continue being Christians, and insisting that their holy book was the right holy book. In which case they would never figure out that the Buddhists were right, and would in fact spend all of eternity in that cycle.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[blueg3]

As with Pascal's Wager, your theoretical god is not "as likely to exist" as a different god. It's unknown (and many would say unknowable) how likely either of them are. So, you're right in that both gods are in the same boat -- nobody knows how likely it is that either exists. It's incorrect to go from that to "they're equally likely to exist".

A more absurd version of the same thing has been claimed against the Large Hadron Collider -- because it either might or might not destroy the Earth and we have no information about which it is (not true, but I digress), then those two outcomes are equally probable... meaning the LHC has a 50% chance to destroy the Earth.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Smidge204]

The answer "she loves me" wouldn't be appropriate in a journal article in a scientific journal about correlating human brain activity with human actions, but it might very well be an appropriate answer in other contexts.

It could also be the case that when she looked at you, she remembered how much fun she had cheating on you last week and felt smug about keeping it a secret.

In other words, you can't justify your explanation because it requires you to know something you can't know. (ie the mind/nature/intent of your wife/God).

At least your analogy has two advantages over the "God did it" hypothesis: First, it actually does offer an explanation even if you can't justify it. It makes a lot of assumptions but if we accept those then the conclusion can follow logically. "God did it" offers no such possible connection... it's merely a bald assertion.

Second, there is sufficient cause to believe your wife actually exists in the first place, which is actually another layer to the problem.
=Smidge=

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[QuantumBeep]

They Will Be Eaten First.

...a little help please

[Fysiks Wurks]

A> Hey why are you sitting on the ceiling?
B> I’ve lost the faith.
A> In God?
B> No, gravityI just can not accept it’s existence - it fails upon recursive logic. So how do you stay so grounded?
A> I believe in turtles.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[nschubach]

Can you prove it? Because I think many scientists are asking that question. Does gravity exist in minute forms where matter does not?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[QuantumBeep]

That's the big half of it. The hidden half is, when you have a personal code that didn't come out of a book, it tends to mature (and sometimes change drastically) with time and experience. You don't often see a person of (blind) faith have a crisis of conscience.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Compaqt]

You're all wrong.

It's a Beowulf cluster of ninja turtles.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[chomsky68]

faith != religion. take that as a starting point.

Re: But what created the law of gravity?

[Black Parrot]

Why's this a troll? Occam's razor is not law around here.

But gravity is...

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[j00r0m4nc3r]

Either way, you're doing what you want. This is how the human brain works. In fact, this is how every single living organism works. You have a single base motive : to find "happiness". For some people, this happiness is derived from following their religion. For others, this happiness is derived from other things. Either way, you never do anything that your brain believes won't lead to happiness. Every single action you take in your life is your brain attempting to achieve happiness. Your conscious mind, if it even exists, can only try to interpret these actions.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[DontBlameCanada]

A better question is who thought they had the authority to PASS the Law of Gravity? Was it a simple majority vote? 2/3's?

OMG, maybe it was a decree! I thought we were an autonomous universe - I've been fooling myself! We're living in a dictatorship. A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working class lifeforms have to toil bound to the gravity well of a larger mass, while the elite blithely float and flit from place to place and time to time!

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[morari]

I'm more inclined to believe that if Judgment Day ever comes around, it'll be all of the so-called Christians burning in Hell... not me. They're the ones who have spent centuries killing, torturing, and raping others in the name of their god. The worse thing I've done is simply denied said god's existence. If god is so petty that he would condemn me, while forgiving his genocidal followers, then I wouldn't want to serve him anyway.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[DanielHC]

Sure, it means you can't *know* whether there is God or not. And, as I said before, this has nothing to do with *believing*.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[operagost]

It's a shame the modders chose to ignore the trolling interspersed throughout your post.

They take full responsibility for their actions (no "salvation" just for uttering some magic words)

Scripture says that you have to be truly sorry for your wrongs and denounce them (these are the concepts we traditionally call "sins" and "repentance") to be saved. Is there a prohibition against lying in your moral code?

and weigh those actions against a thoughtful and continuously evaluated personal code. In other words, they choose to do the "right" thing because it is right, not because someone else said it was right and threatened them with torture if they disobeyed.

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[N0Man74]

If God, which we cannot prove exists, simply exists, without need of a creator, when why cannot one assume the Universe, which we know exists, just be, without need of a creator?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[camperdave]

Sometimes I just want a simple meal.

Well, there's always this.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[mr_mischief]

There is no faith in things that are proven. Doubt is an element of faith.

And no, you don't have to believe in anything. Saying something can't be disproved doesn't mean you have to believe it exists. It just means that you can't prove it doesn't exist.

Why would you need to definitively prove Fraggles don't exist? Is someone invoking Fraggles as an explanation for some effect you're seeing in your research?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[blueg3]

Actually, the New Testament (and earlier Jewish works) refer to Gehenna, which appears in modern Bibles as "Hell" and was a metaphor for the punishment of the wicked. Gehenna was named after a valley near Jerusalem that was used to dispose of refuse (and sometimes people) and was, actually, essentially always on fire.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Black Parrot]

I've never understood why hardcore atheists believe that scientific explanations preclude God as a valid concept.

Strictly speaking it doesn't. You just don't need God as an explanation when you have real explanations. And for those things you still can't explain, invoking God doesn't help anyway - an unknowable power with unlimited capability and inscrutable will is compatible with any and every observation you make, and therefore has no explanatory value.

Also, people who cling to belief in God tend to cling also to myths that are demonstrably *not* valid concepts, so God tends to get thrown out with the garbage he's sitting in.

If theists had any sense they'd ditch Genesis faster than atheists do.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[chichilalescu]

yes, but is it a she turtle or a he turtle?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[N0Man74]

You know... I made a similar comment above, before seeing your post.

I also don't understand this double standard either.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[AkiraRoberts]

And I was being a pedantic one, sorry.

And also thinking that, shit, give someone a few million years to mull it over and maybe, assuming the Buddhists are right, the Christians might be able to say "well holy shit, I don't think this here Jesus guy is working for us, what with all the constantly being reborn and suffering and all." That might be optimistic.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[IICV]

As other people have pointed out, that's Pascal's Wager.

However, if you actually think about it, the logic used in Pascal's Wager inevitably leads to the idea that you have to kill as many children as you can.

Consider:

• Children are innocent and will go to heaven, receiving an eternal reward - or, at the very least, will not go to hell (and if you can find someone who actually believes that children go to hell by default, then they're basically a lost cause).
• Children may, in the future, perform some actions that will cause them to spend an eternity in hell.
• Pascal's Anti-Wager: if you kill a child now, they will receive an infinite reward (or a null outcome). If you let them live, there is a small chance that they will eventually receive an infinite punishment.
• A small chance of an infinite punishment outweighs all other considerations, as the expected result is still infinite punishment
• Therefore, it is your duty to kill as many children as you can, in order to either guarantee them entry into heaven or to guarantee that they do not go to hell.

And hey, if you do that, you'll become a martyr! Just imagine all the children you'll usher into heaven, even if you're going to hell.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Vectormatic]

you made me think, if you assume the christian god is the correct one (i dont, atheist and such), then believing in any particular version of christianity might even be more dangerous then being a muslim. If the christian god exists, and for instance, catholicism is the correct interpretation, then a protestant (reformed, whatever), person, will not only have not heeded the right set of rules of the god he believes in, he will have done things in his gods name, which go directly against gods will (which, for the uk/irish region, might include killing/fighting catholics)

If i was a god (and many people seem to assume god is some sort of allmighty benevolent but very strict human-like thinking mind, sort of a king of old), i would be more upset with people claiming to follow me, and in my (explicit) name, cary out misdeeds/crimes, some even against my own correct followers, then the guys who are just following the wrong god to begin with...

anyway, the problem i see with the pascal wager is that it neglects the potential cost of following a religion, it does not take into account any experiences you might lose, or effort you will spend in vain, worshipping a non existant god, a devout muslim will never taste pork, or taste a good whiskey, thus making his life on earth less complete, with a chance to find out that is all you ever get, if there is no afterlife. In essence, if there is no afterlife, this earthly life is all we humans have, devoting that to a non-existant god in that case (possibly) devalues literally all that we have, even if on an absolute scale earthly life earthly life + afterlife

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[rubycodez]

depends on whether it's Friday night or not

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Joce640k]

There's far more religious people in prison than Atheists.

Also far less crime in countries with high rates of Atheism.

And murder rates seem directly correlated with Christian belief, not inversely as you might expect.

Christians are also much more likely to divorce than Atheists

So on the whole ... if there is a heaven, and entrance is based on good behavior and actions, there's probably going to be more atheists there then Christians.

Hawking has a weak argument

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, before those that agree out of hand Hawking's arguments because he's a smart physicist and "he's Hawking, he must be right", let me just say that you need to read the counter arguments before you make a decision. When you do, you'll find that this "Spontaneous creation" argument is weak at best.

I recommend you read books like "Reasonable Faith" by William Lane Craig and "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist" by Norman Geisler - they address this issue thoroughly and logically with very sound arguments. If you think "something can come from nothing", reading those books will give you food for thought. Personally, I've found the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Teleological Argument two sound arguments against what Hawking is theorizing (there are others). Those two books I've mentioned go into detail into that, among lots of other things.

And before its asked again, the question "if God exists, than what created God?" is about as weak as Hawking's assertions (and again, is answered by those two books among others).

Re:Hawking has a weak argument

[jameskojiro]

What if we live in a "Simulated Universe" running on higher dimensional / domain computer hardware?

Who built the computer, it didn't assemble itself....or did it....

What if your universe was started in something akin to a higher dimensional LHAC?

You cannot 100% dismiss the possibility of a creator of our universe.

But you can almost certainly discount the existence of a white flowing robe guy who is a morality inspector.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[digitig]

And how do you know he hasn't? There are some pretty subtle arguments for the existence of God, such as Plantinga's version of the ontological argument using modal logic. I don't accept it, but the problem isn't a lack of understanding of science or critical thinking. (For what it's worth, I don't accept the argument because I don't believe the version of modal logic he uses correctly describes the universe, but that's a metaphysical position -- there's no possible observation that could decide between the modal logics I accept, in which the existence of God appears not to be provable, and the one Plantinga uses in which the existence of God appears to be provable).

If you think that because some religious people have stupid reasons for being religious they must all have stupid reasons for being religious then perhaps you should spend a few minutes with a critical thinking primer too.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because if we believed in something that appeared ludicrous to you, you would be equally smug. Such as, oh.. that life on earth would be better withouth religion perhaps? Or did you want something less concrete and more airy-fairy?

I don't care WHAT you believe. That's your business, it doesn't affect me. I only care when you feel like being an asshole about it, because that DOES affect me.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[pregister]

I liked this book. I'm not big on religion but a previous boss, who enjoyed debating philosophy and occasionally his religious beliefs, gave me a copy. It was an interesting read.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[jellomizer]

How about God is Gravity... Thus both were always there...

However in terms of science I really hate this argument about where does science end and God starts. And the pointless debate about God and Science.

God is a super natural / paranormal being meaning it potential existence is outside our measurable realm which means God is not Science and should be outside of any stupid debate about it.

Science should never stop science with the claim God did it, that is stupid and counter productive. Just as religion shouldn't stop just because there is conflict from the first couple chapters in the bible which was probably meant to be a way to start off the story. Oddly Enough Genesis isn't the core of the major religions. It is just a starting point to start the story.

This debates where Science say God doesn't exist will not convert many people and just get them mad and yell at politicians and you get your fundings cut.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[groslyunderpaid]

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Mongoose Disciple]

Serious questions:

Were you raised Christian?

If so, doesn't it at all make you second guess yourself to think that the religion you think is most plausible just happens to be one your parents indoctrinated you into?

Bonus question:

Do you suppose a random ancient Greek person felt any differently about the surety of their faith? After all, their gods were involved in the fall of Troy -- that's just a matter of history.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[ByOhTek]

Oh, I see I missed it.

Yes. It doesn't have to do with believing.

But tell me, if you believe something, without knowing for certaint, isn't that faith (2b)?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Vectormatic]

i am not sure about buddhism, but hinduism also knows the concept of starting over again on a lower step (like going from human to a dog) if you screw up a life, so if in this life you are a christian, and as such do wrong things, you will simply end up as a lower lifeform, and if you do that right, you go up a step, without having to be the same christian guy again.

Being a christian in a hindu reality merely means having to back a few steps on your path to enlightenment, it doesnt mean being stuck in an endless loop of being wrong, so in that respect a hindu reality is more friendly to christians then a christian reality to hindus

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[QuantumBeep]

It's a light covering over most people's greatest desire - as that damned snake said, "Ye shall be as gods". For most people, the most important aspect of that is immortality.

"what a maroon" -- B. Bunny

[rubycodez]

talk about the fallacy of affirming the consequent on the largest scale possible in this Universe....

Re:The Golden Mean

[operagost]

Robert Pirsig once observed that very few people run around screaming that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. Things we are deeply certain about generate very little in the way of zealotry.

This is a very good argument against anthropogenic climate change, then. Actually, the problem with both modern science and religion is the same: their nature is not fully apparent. It's not that there is necessarily doubt. I'm sure that AGW has its own true believers, and some of them are scientists who have seen the data so they're the best informed-- yet they're zealous about it. Also, the rising is not only expected, but mundane. It's the extraordinary aspects of belief that promote zealotry.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Thangodin]

Agreed. This is a version of what I call the Proof from Theological Proliferation, which, baldly stated, goes something like: "There are lots of books of theology, and you haven't read them all. Therefore, God." Or, "The proof is left as an exercise for the reader."

If there is a killer argument in the book, he should tell us what it is, rather than just brush off questions with a hand wave.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[neoshroom]

In order to understand recursion, one must first understand recursion.

no choice was made by hawking

[circletimessquare]

god IS the laws of physics

god is a metaphor, that some people need to take literally, because not everyone has the mind of stephen hawking, but they still need to understand the world, so mental shortcuts have to do

the whole hullabaloo over the existence of god is really silly, as soon as you realize that everyone has a different way of describing the same thing

Re:no choice was made by hawking

[cowscows]

I don't think that's a useful statement. Many people look to their version of God not just to explain things they don't understand, but also to help them make choices that don't lend themselves to scientific analysis. Life often puts us in positions where a purely rational look at the options isn't very helpful, and some people find religion to be helpful in deciding how best to respond.

I doubt that the knowledge of theoretical physics that Mr. Hawking has is particularly useful for the day to day lives of most people. Knowing more about what happens in a black hole is certainly interesting, but it doesn't help me with 99.9% of the decisions I face in an average day.

Re:no choice was made by hawking

[DorkRawk]

I really wish I had some mod points. This is spot on!

Re:no choice was made by hawking

[tenchikaibyaku]

The same thing? Somehow I doubt that Hawkings "God" had a son that supposedly came down to earth and all that.. (to take one example)

Re:no choice was made by hawking

[wienerschnizzel]

god IS the laws of physics

god is a metaphor, that some people need to take literally, because not everyone has the mind of stephen hawking, but they still need to understand the world, so mental shortcuts have to do

the whole hullabaloo over the existence of god is really silly, as soon as you realize that everyone has a different way of describing the same thing

Yeah, and laws of physics love you and want you to go to war with that country over there...

Re:no choice was made by hawking

[c6gunner]

god IS the laws of physics

No, the laws of physics are the laws of physics. Sticking an extra word on them doesn't change anything. You may as well go around saying "god is my couch". It's ridiculous.

god is a metaphor, that some people

A metaphor for WHAT, exactly?

the whole hullabaloo over the existence of god is really silly, as soon as you realize that everyone has a different way of describing the same thing

Really? So when the Taliban tells us that God doesn't want women showing their faces in public, they're talking about the same thing as when Stephen Hawking talks about the Big Bang?

Wanna run that one by me one more time?

Re:no choice was made by hawking

[BitZtream]

I for one am very happy to not have the mind of Hawking. I've very happy to be sane. I don't need to make up shit about things that I really don't understand.

Anyone who actually knows anything about astrophysics knows that in reality, we have no fucking clue how most of it works, gravity bring a great example.

Re:no choice was made by hawking

[IrquiM]

god IS the laws of physics

No, no! Hawking is god!

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Moridin42]

Or we could think about this rationally.. if the Christian god is real, the new testament says he's a pretty forgiving guy. So if he's the one waiting for me in the afterlife, I'll say "oops" and he'll say "I forgive you" and we'll go about our days.

The god from the torah and old testaments is way too much of a douchebag for me to cozy up to, so if he's the jealous mofo waiting for me, he's as likely to burn me for panting after Allison Munn as anything else. I like to not reward bad behavior, even when it is all-powerful bullies instead of everyday ones.

If we're talking Islam.. well.. I haven't got time to make in depth, or even more than cursory, investigations into every religion. If Muhammad won't go to the mountain, the mountain should go to him. Only.. he doesn't have an address, so that trip is on indefinite hold. Sorry.

Buddhists, have less to say about believe this is go to hell. Its more, regardless of belief, the intent of your actions impacts your circumstances after rebirth. Good and bad. Also, all life is suffering. So.. if they're right, what I believe won't matter. I'll be reborn somewhere anyway. And it'll involve suffering. Not exactly a compelling argument for me to believe now.

Shinto makes no real claim that poor choices are going to be punished in the afterlife, so not believing doesn't really negatively affect me.

I could go on, but.. yeah.. you get the idea. And atheism takes less faith than a religion. I don't believe in any god because there is no purely logical or evident reason for me to do so. I'll freely acknowledge that proving a negative is next to impossible. But the religious have the easier burden of proving a positive .. and fail.

Life, the Universe, and Everything - evolving God

[MikeFM]

My personal theory is that life, the Universe, and everything evolve towards God and at some point any possible Universe will converge to create God. And by definition God exists in all times and places so once it exists it will have always existed. Before that Omega God will be an infinite number of minor gods created in the process of evolving towards God.

It's as wacko as any other theory but it works for me.

God...

[KurtisKiesel]

God chooses physically creating Hawking rather then replacing himself with Hawking. Hey Hawking, when you start to approach a singularity with all the 'stuff' in the universe physics like we know them go out the window. I am sure that disproved God. I use to think Hawkings was very smart, then I realized he was just an Atheist always trying to disprove God. This is nothing new, maybe we will disprove this new press release from Mr Hawkings in 2 or three weeks, maybe we can't. But I still have never seen a 'God doesn't exist' article from this man.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[MysteriousPreacher]

Like many things in this subject it comes down to definitions. Theism is pretty consistent, in that most people accept it as being belief that a deity exists and is somehow active in this world or the supposed next. Atheism could have two basic meanings - depending on who you're talking to.

1) Denial that god(s) exist
This is rarely expressed as absolute certainty, and is a position I personally consider indefensible and problematic in that it shifts the burden of evidence. Also, no-one can say for definite that there are no gods, but one can with a reasonable level of certainty say that the gods described by the major religions are either highly improbable or hideously misunderstood by their followers and biographers. Personally I find it rare to find atheists who'll say with certainty that there are no gods, and most cases it's believers creating straw men that can easily be knocked over. If anyone suggests this to be the norm for atheists then I'd challenge them to show me evidence of well known atheists or atheistic groups that adopt such a line.

2) Non-belief in the existence of god(s)
This is the same as agnosticism. The existence of gods is a binary proposition. The best way to clarify this muddle is to ask the question: Do you believe that gods exist? The answers "no" and "I don't know" amount to the same thing. Personally I adopt this line for gods and all other supernatural frippery. An intellectually honest atheist should be willing to accept, given sufficient evidence, that gods could indeed exist.

It becomes slightly annoying when people self-identify as agnostics with the implication, or stated claim, that their reason for this is because they're not certain enough to adopt the position of atheism. Just as Christianity as a label can in some contexts be pretty vague, it's always worth asking someone to clearly state their beliefs. Atheism doesn't require certainty, and certainty only comes in to play when theists make very specific claims that can through naturalistic observation be refuted. Even then it can reach ridiculous levels - such as the argument that the devil planted fossils to confuse us, or the concept of Last Thursdayism. Therein lies madness like solipsism and conversations that'd belong among a bunch a stoned teenagers rather than serious philosophers and theologians.

Here we go...

[rickb928]

The scientific community is willing to accept a preexisting condition of gravity, but not a preexisting condition of God.

So here's the offer; If you can explain how gravity preexisted everything, I'm in. If, however, you want an explanation of a preexisting God, well, I have this book, written by him.

So we choose between the papers on something that can't be very well explained, or the autobiography of the One who made that something.

It's a matter of faith. If you believe Science has the answer, you apply the method and make the best of it. Ditto God.

I'm not finding fault with Science having faith in itself, but I do find fault with them declaring all other faiths not merely invalid or wrong, but beyond that harmful or specious. Contrary to popular opinion, the God of the Bible does not invalidate Science.

Still, it is worthwhile to contemplate Creation. I'm encouraged that Hawking presses the issue. Asking is important.

Re:Here we go...

[Yosho]

There is an observable phenomenon that is testable in a laboratory that we call "gravity." I don't know how it got there, but it's definitely there.

On the other hand, I have never seen anything resembling what fits the traditional Christian description of "God." There are other observable natural phenomena that I can't explain, but throughout history there have been countless other phenomena that were thought to be unexplainable but were later explained, so there's no reason to assume that some vengeful supernatural entity is behind the ones we still can't explain. Science does not have "the answer" -- it has a method for finding and testing answers.

And an old book means nothing. "Beowulf" and "The Odyssey" are old books, too, but I'm certainly not going to hold them up as works of historical fact. Why should I assume that this book you're referring to is anything other than a collection of bronze age fables?

Re:Here we go...

[rickb928]

Gravity attests to its existence by evidence of its effect, and we aren't quibbling about whether or not gravity is. But while it is well-known, do you have a good working definition of the force of gravity? Or are you merely restating its effects?

Nothing wrong with that, but do we have any scientific methods to actually 'see' the forces we are aware of? we can measure them, but to 'see' them? The four natural forces I am aware of, strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational, are actually only three apparently - the electroweak, electromagnetic, and gravitational. My knowledge of physics is constantly being revised as we identify and speculate on new, previously unknown things.

Sadly, God, the God of the Bible, already states that He cannot be seen by humans, His close presence is too much for us. So we won't be getting any physical evidence for you by His presence, though if He is in fact omnipotent, He could make Himself known to us directly. He doesn't seem to want to, and hasn't since Moses' time, and He hasn't given physical evidence of His existence since, well, now that you ask, since the last time someone was healed on Earth by miraculous means, and upon request. Which was probably a few minutes ago, most likely somewhere in Africa or South America, though that happens elsewhere.

Just a bit of research myself into 'proofs' of miraculous healings left me with the problem that even very credible reporters (Dr. Alexis Carrel, for instance) are most always ostracized and denigrated, and their previous accomplishments and reputation discarded. It's a neat trick, discredit the evidence by repudiating the reporter in spite of their previous reliability. Of course Carrel had other issues, but he did win a Nobel Prize. While you would think, as I did and still do, that miraculous healings would be big news, in fact they are universally challenged (as they should be) and dismissed without hesitation. Sadly, too many charlatans are out there faking healings. Since this is a matter of faith, it will be a point of contention between you and I. And this problem afflicts Science also.

But the Bible is not as old as the Bronze Age, as it is first based on the Torah, much of which is held to be written in Moses' time. The first five books refer to Creation, the first covenants, and establishment of Israel. Of old literature, early Greek or Mycenaean works are more or less contemporary to Moses.

I was taught that the Iliad and the Oddessy were both written by Homer. This has been in dispute for some time now. The dispute over authorship of the Bible is not even so simple, as it is also a dispute over authorship of the Torah. You'll have to argue with my Jewish friends over that one. They believe they have a history of their people in the Torah, and that's the end of it.

But this is all now faith. I'm stuck with no hard proofs to show you, I know. When we better understand gravity, we will have more to discuss.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[QuantumBeep]

Assuming there was a god, if you don't believe in the right god, and the 'right' god is a vengeful god, you'll have wasted your life and you'll go to hell anyways.

The bad news is, the universe is not guaranteed to be fair. We could all be going to some strange meaty hell or something.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[digitig]

I'm not sure what you mean by the law of gravity not being "physical", but I'm pretty sure it's not addressed in "The God Delusion". The God Delusion is very lightweight anyway. Those who agree with it get carried away by the polemic, but there's hardly any substance. If you want good arguments for atheism you need to read people like William Rowe. Most people don't, though, because they'd have to think -- something most atheists turn out to be as averse to as most religionists. Almost everybody on both sides prefers slogans and polemic.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Some of us prefer the idea of spending an eternity burning in terror and pain to spending an eternity worshipping some faceless entity that demands our unbridled faith and devotion. The way I see it, the heaven hell proposition is nothing more than a false dichotomy between eternal servitude and eternal suffering. Frankly, both choices suck, but if I have to spend eternity in misery, I'd rather still have the freedom to keep my own mind and decisions.

Glad that's settled

[istartedi]

Glad that's settled. Now the winners and losers can gratiously shake hands and get on with their lives. Yeah, right.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[vell0cet]

I think the real problem is that when one invokes God, it ends all exploration in that direction.

If we actually ask the question what "created" gravity, we can theorize and research what the origins of gravity may be. It could be that gravity WAS indeed always there.

To say that "God created it" and to accept that as a valid explanation is to end the potential knowledge to be gained in exploring the phenomenon. It is ALSO possible that in trying to find out what created/caused gravity (or any other topic) we may actually find evidence for God's existence... wouldn't that be something?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[digitig]

Yes it does, it just doesn't take any religious faith. There are metaphysical assumptions underlying all worldviews. Even scientific worldviews, although some popularisers of science try to pretend there aren't.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[CRCulver]

I was raised in a non-religious household. I came to Orthodox Christianity because of Richard Swinburne's defence of Christianity (a multi-volume series published by Oxford University Press). Swinburne in turn left the Church of England for the Orthodox Church after he found it the only Christian denomination that matched where his philosophical reasoning led him.

So it's quite common for people to believe in Christianity through being convinced of its claims, not only because of an accident of upbringing.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Junior J. Junior III]

This is a fine question. A very important one to try to know.

The thing is, if we can't know, then we should not simply make up an answer just so we can be satisfied with ourselves. We must demand a real answer.

If God be the answer, then what created God? How did God create gravity? And so on. Can we test these answers? Can we show how they might be proven false? Can we use the information provided by the answers for practical applications?

Saying that God did it is a cop out that doesn't really explain anything. It shuts a small child up, and quiets his curiosity, and gives those in power a lever to control him with. To my way of thinking, that is an inexcusable evil.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[G-forze]

Possibly, but not to have the law.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[QuantumBeep]

Why not? Maybe there's an almighty god out there, who has no idea where she came from.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Chalnoth]

Sorry, but logic doesn't work this way. A logical proof only guarantees that if the premises of the argument are true, then the conclusions must also be true. Because of this, it is fundamentally impossible for a logical proof to demonstrate anything about the nature of reality. You must have at least one input assumption no matter what. This is why all results in science are necessarily contingent upon observation/experiment. Ontological attempts at proving a god (or anything else) are guaranteed to fail before they even begin.

One problem with Plantinga's argument is that he assumes it is possible for an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent entity to exist, but this is exactly the kind of god we know cannot exist because of the problem of evil (never mind the logical self-inconsistency of omnipotence). Because of this, Plantinga's "maximal greatness" is a malformed statement that has no meaning, and the whole proof crashes in on itself.

As for Stephen Hawking's argument, I'd have to read the book, but in principle it is completely accurate that there is simply no reason to believe in one.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[digitig]

"Religious nutters" like Karl Popper, who argued that it was impossible to draw an objective distinction between the scientific and the metaphysical?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[CraftyJack]

Atheists stake their eternal future on the presumption that God does not exist. They live their whole lives doing what they want, and rejecting the concept that there could be anyone or anything greater than themselves.

Two things:
1. If religion means "not doing what I want" for you, then you need to re-evaluate.
2. This may shock you, but there are stages of moral development beyond the carrot and the stick. For many people - religious and non-religious alike - the existence or non-existence of God has very little bearing on their moral conduct.

it's random

[oliverthered]

define: random.

Not predictable.

predict, predicate, to come before.

random, nothing comes before it.

what comes after nothing? random.

what comes after random, well you can use it as an injection point into the axiom of choice. (given random, you then have a starting point in the uncountably infinite set starting from -infinity and going to +infinity)

What created random? it was created randomly, out of nothing, nothing came before it.

no that does not predicate free-will (in the conscious sense as the outcome would be random and not will-full /a 'choice' [whatever a choice is])

Re:it's random

[oliverthered]

the opposite of random is predictable / deterministic.

the interface is both (entanglement for instance)

the symmetry for that symmetry would be an a-symmetry. So the a-symmetry of the injection caused by random, is actually symmetrical to the symmetry if random - deterministic/predictable.

rinse wash repeat.

see you at 011i.*

Re:it's random

[oliverthered]

I should say that space is not nothing, it is space.

for instance.
If I take a mass and apply a force to it. giving it energy I create movement. This movement is in effect creating space between myself and the object.

energy and space are strongly related.

there's also something that's claimed not to have been 'measured' called dark energy.

Though when you can tell me what a measurement is I will believe you that measurements or whatever haven't happened.

Also, when you can tell me what matter is or time then I'll also consider not knowing what dark energy is in a different light.

Re:The Golden Mean

[Jedi Alec]

And then I have met many atheists who are zealots, or at least hobbyists, about it. Their disbelief is not a passive thing, but an active assertion, a passion, an argument they must make at every possible opportunity. It may not be "faith" in the religious sense, but it has an awful lot in common with "religion" in the pejorative sense.

Robert Pirsig once observed that very few people run around screaming that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. Things we are deeply certain about generate very little in the way of zealotry. It is only those things we doubt at some level that generate in us the overwhelming need to convince others. It's as true of religion as of irreligion.

Just as I find religious fundamentalists off-putting, I find atheist extremists off-putting as well, and I'm not overly concerned with the epithets people try to apply to them. Dogmatism by any other name will never be anything greater than sophomoric.

The moment religious folks stop mandating when I can and cannot get groceries because of their "holy" days and stop interfering with what my hypothetical children get to learn in school, I'll stop fighting them. Until such time, I will fight any and all legislation that boils down to "because my religion says it's good/bad" with all I have within me.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Half-pint HAL]

So why should we accept "God did it" as the reason the universe exists?

Most people here on /. are not saying that you should accept that.

A scientist should occupy himself with science. His motivation should come from the science itself, and it should not matter whether he believes in [a g|G]od or not. Let's all deal with science and leave people to fill in the gaps however they like, because we have no proof (yet) for these gaps.

Or, to put it another way, "live and let live".

HAL.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[doshell]

As with Pascal's Wager, your theoretical god is not "as likely to exist" as a different god. It's unknown (and many would say unknowable) how likely either of them are. So, you're right in that both gods are in the same boat -- nobody knows how likely it is that either exists. It's incorrect to go from that to "they're equally likely to exist".

I didn't mean "as likely as" in the statistical sense; I just meant that neither can be shown to exist (or to not exist, for that matter).

In any case, the fact that you cannot ascribe probabilities to the existence of every conceivable god does not alter my point: with some probability (possibly zero) you will go to hell; with some probability (possibly zero) you will go to heaven; and with some probability (possibly zero) you'll simply cease to exist in any physical or metaphysical sense. You just don't know what the probabilities are, so you cannot affirm a christian is better off than a muslim or a hinduist or a satanist or an atheist or whatever, as Pascal does with his wager. Pascal would only be correct if 1) all existing gods were benevolent and 2) each of them would never punish you for believing in other god than him.

(I realise you're not countering my argument; I'm just clearing things up for others.)

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[QuantumBeep]

We already know that causes can be completely obscured by a simple singularity. Just because the cause is impossible to discern doesn't mean it's not there.

What if God......?

[jameskojiro]

What if God is a higher dimensional life form with their dimensions equivalent of a Large Hadron Collider that they are tinkering around with?

What is on their time scale our universe can expand and dissipate within less than trillionth of their seconds?

This being would probably care less about that happens on some mud-ball in the corner of a lower dimensional universe they can barely perceive...

We cannot disprove this possibility, nor can we ignore the possibility it may be the truth, can we now?

Re:What if God......?

[HeckRuler]

nor can we ignore the possibility it may be the truth, can we now?

Yes we can. Since it doesn't affect us in the least, we can ignore that possibility quite safely. Just like you can ignore the possibility that god is the most delicious jelly doughnut in the world and crafted all of this around him just to appreciate his greatness. Possible, but improbable, and not worth worrying about.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Joce640k]

You mean like Jules in Pulp Fiction? One day a completely meaningless coincidence happens and you decide to base the rest of your life around that event, walking the earth like Kane?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[vell0cet]

The real problem with the concept of God in science is that you cannot prove that he doesn't exist.

Short of God coming down and telling everyone that he doesn't exist, what evidence could possibly disprove his existence?

(yes, the irony is on purpose. I'm not THAT stupid)

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[NicknamesAreStupid]

That law was repealed six billion years ago! Didn't you get the memo?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Chalnoth]

Nope. There are many solutions to the Einstein field equations that have no matter in them. Gravitational waves, for instance.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[BJ_Covert_Action]

I disagree. When it comes to arguing about theoretical fairy tales vs. evidenced science I think sitting out the arguments and watching some Futurama and Family Guy reruns is the best approach to the situation.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[digitig]

I think I'd prefer "What would Loki do". Still pretty much anything he wants to, but the stuff he wants to do looks like more fun.

I am so glad he cleared that up for us.

[NicknamesAreStupid]

The only question remaining -- why did it take 15 billion years to figure that out?

Re:I am so glad he cleared that up for us.

[John Q Dallas]

The only question remaining -- why did it take 15 billion years to figure that out?

God only knows!

Re:The Golden Mean

[Xorlium]

Well, someone has to do it: http://www.xkcd.com/774/

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Junior J. Junior III]

What is the origin of the law of gravity? This is a fine question to ask. A very fine question. An important question, which calls for a real answer.

If we are unable to come up with an answer, we should not simply make one up.

Saying "God created gravity" doesn't answer:

• How God created gravity
• How did God originate, or why God should be exempt from needing origination
• How can we test the answer to the above questions?
• How can the information provided by the answers to the above questions be applied?

Saying God did it is a cop-out answer. It explains nothing. It quiets the mind of a small child, and turns off his power to imagine and to inquire. It provides a hook through which those in power may attach levers in order control him to do irrational things with no justification.

It is, therefore, an inexcusable evil.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Rutefoot]

When I try to discuss this with religious people, they often argue that my 'moral code' is based off of Christian teachings and wouldn't exist otherwise.

What they fail to understand is that their moral codes were created for very sensible reasons that likely predates their religion by millenia. We are social creatures, this is how we evolved. Our ability to function within groups has always been so crucially important to our survival. So within those groups, rules naturally form to make sure that group functions as well as possible to help give it better chances of survival. In small groups "for the good of the community" reasons work fine and dandy, but when groups grow beyond Dunbar's Number then more extreme measures have to be taken (as people will lose connection with the 'community' in larger groups and no longer feel as obligated to contribute to it). And the desire to avoid eternal damnation works well for the most part.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[darien.train]

Pascal's wager is a poor one for many reasons. It's a classic false choice. All you're truly wagering against is the notion of a personal god who monitors and judges your every thought and action (which is a bet I'll take any day). Not whether a god or gods exist.

Many atheists will cede that they border on deist as in "If there is a god it's the equivalent of how we view ants, not some kind of overbearing father figure/mind reader/judge/asshole." What supreme being has the time or inclination to listen to what us dumb apes are thinking all the time? That sounds like a really short-sighted view of the possibilities of omnipotence.

Many atheists will also cede that there could be a higher power, just one that's also a part of the natural universe (aliens, AI machines, a singularity, etc.)

Just sayin!

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

You know, explaining any creation *always* involves a "turtles all the way down" argument. Ironically, the presupposition of an eternal all-mighty does not, in fact, constitute a turtles all the way down argument.

What created the earth ? Gravity of material from the last supernova in our vicinity.

What created that supernova ? A previous supernova.

What created that supernova ? The initial big-bang hydrogen cloud collapsing.

What created the big bang ? (String theory) a collision between 2 branes.

What created the branes ? (String theory) another big bang

What cause the string theory big bang then ? Technically there's no answer to this, however consensus is that some sort of big bang some more fundamental component of the universe.

What caused this more fundamental big bang then ? (guess where this is going ...)

And, quite frankly, in the end *something* must be eternal ... (like in the metaphorical turtles all the way down, there must be eternal things, due to something outside of the universe, like gravity for the turtles for example)

Versus the biblical :

God created earth. Who created God ?

No-one. God is eternal, he exists independent from what we call the universe.

Strictly speaking, the argument are not even really exclusionary.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Best explanation ever.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[lrdplatypus]

The assumption in your question is that all-mighty would have to be a contingent being, something that was created, as opposed to a necessary being, something that just has to be.

Whether matter or God something has to pre-exist the universe.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[master_p]

Not only that, but the act of creation implies the existence of a space time (to create something means to change state, and changing state means there are 'before' and 'after' states). So if God needed a space time to create this universe into, who created that space time?

it makes much more sense for the space time to be infinitely old. At least it doesn't need a creator.

Out of his element

[wcrowe]

I hate it when scientists delve into philosophy, just as much as I hate it when religious leaders delve into science.

Perhaps there is no room for Hawking's (or Newton's) perception of God, but that perception is flawed -- arising out of a Western, medieval concept which is actually quite pagan.

For all their intelligence, scientists often have a rather simple concept of God which barely matures beyond what they learned in Sunday school, or see on TV.

Similarly, religious leaders usually have no more than an elementary understanding of science.

Re:Out of his element

[srobert]

Science began as branch of philosophy. Newton was not referred to as a 'scientist' in his own time but as a 'philosopher'. His most famous work: The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (Principia Mathematica Philosophiae Naturalis)

Re:Out of his element

[wcrowe]

Welllll... It might be more correct to say that the term "philosophy" once included the sciences. What we call a biologist now, was once referred to as a "natural philosopher", for instance. The modern definition of philosophy has narrowed and is primarily concerned with ethics, beliefs and purpose.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[digitig]

It's worth looking at the Euthyphro dilemma. The religious are not immune to the problem of the source of morality.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[SleazyRidr]

Aren't there 5 elephants?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[ultranova]

In fact, as long as there is more than one religion in the world, there are potentially many gods, who, once you die, will send you straight to hell for not believing in them.

Minor nitpick: this potential is completely unaffected by the existence or nonexistence of religion. However, I find it very unlikely that any being could simultaneously be both egomaniacal enough to do such a thing, yet have sufficient self-control to not kill me for calling him3#,;2%NO CARRIER

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[JWW]

Its a connundrum. The universe absolutely follows the law of cause and effect, but at the beginning what was the cause. Hawking seems to say here that gravity is the cause. Well then, we need to find out what causes gravity, right.

It truly is turtles all the way down. The law of cause and effect must start somewhere meaning that somehow, either the existence of God (as cause for the universe), or some other thing (some out of the blue cause for the universe) must have just "been".

Of course that involves looking past the veil at the beginning of time, and we can't do that.....

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[DrXym]

Sure it does. Atheists stake their eternal future on the presumption that God does not exist. They live their whole lives doing what they want, and rejecting the concept that there could be anyone or anything greater than themselves. If they are wrong, and there turns out to be a judgement day they will spend eternity burning in hell. That takes a great deal of faith (or ignorance take your pick).

And Christians stake their eternal on the presumption that God is their abrahamic version of god etc etc. So for all they know they will be enjoying eternity with a trident up their backsides in the pit of Tartarus for not sacrificing goats to Zeus.

There is no more evidence for a Christian god than there is for any other, past, present or future. Which is to say none whatsoever.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well that's the whole point.
"Who created the creator?" comes as a retort to religious people saying "Something can't come out of nothing" and then saying that it must have been created by a god since for some reason god is exempt from this rule but any other explanation wouldn't be.

I think you're twisting the argument a bit. It's more like "Because there's no known way for something to come from nothing, only an almighty creator could create something from nothing".

Christians fully believe that God has always existed.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[flyingkillerrobots]

As a non-athiest, I just want to inform you that probably an equal percentage of my type also feel the need to be smug assholes. I'm a huge fan of agnostics as a result.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[gsgriffin]

Interesting philosophy. I didn't know plants experienced happiness or sadness.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[doshell]

You are either trolling me or missing my point. I'll assume the second hypothesis is true.

What christian theology says is irrelevant to my argument. Just conceive an alternate god whose decision process will send you to hell if the christian god would send you to heaven in the same conditions, and vice-versa. You cannot rule out the possibility that either of these gods exists, just as you cannot prove they do.

So, by behaving in accordance with what the christian god deems to be worthy of inhabiting heaven after you die, you are not ensuring anything about your afterlife. It may well turn out that the christian god does not exist but the alternate god does, and by leading such a life you earn yourself an eternity in hell.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[franki.macha]

Right, but if there's no evidence for something you should not treat all options as equal.
I don't know whether or not I have a tiny goat living in my nose, but without any evidence either way, I will assume it isn't true. ...Hopefully my doctor will be able to provide a definitive answer by Monday.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[QuantumBeep]

That's the "God is just another law of physics" concept. It's without evidence as far as I know.

It's fairly simple.

[Chardish]

And atheist scientists continue to try to use science to suggest the nonexistence of an omnipotent being. An omnipotent being, by definition, could render itself immune to all forms of detection, including detection by scientific/rational deduction. In the end, therefore, it's faith one way or the other: faith that there is no God, or faith that there is.

I would have thought Dr. Hawking would have been above succumbing to such a simple fallacy, but I guess not.

Re:It's fairly simple.

[HeckRuler]

Well, that's not really what's happening here. Just as we've found out that lightning is not some guy throwing them from the clouds at people he doesn't like because we've found out that clouds build up and electrical potential energy difference and it discharges across the path of least resistance. Now Dr. Hawking is saying that we (well, not me, but he himself at least) have have a better understanding of how the big bang started, and that it wasn't some bearded guy in a cloud flipping the on switch.

Re:It's fairly simple.

[John Hasler]

And atheist scientists continue to try to use science to suggest the nonexistence of an omnipotent being.

No. Scientists continue to use science to describe and understand the universe. The omnipotent being theory is just one of theories that they have examined and discarded as implausible.

An omnipotent being, by definition, could render itself immune to all forms of detection, including detection by scientific/rational deduction.

And, therefor, there is no point in attempting to prove its existence. Yet believers continue to do so.

In the end, therefore, it's faith one way or the other: faith that there is no God, or faith that there is.

Wrong. Lack of faith in the existence of God does not imply faith in the nonexistence of God: it does not imply the presence of any faith at all.

Re:It's fairly simple.

[TheChrisCarroll]

And atheist scientists continue to try to use science to suggest the nonexistence of an omnipotent being.

No. Scientists continue to use science to describe and understand the universe. The omnipotent being theory is just one of theories that they have examined and discarded as implausible.

Whilst your statement may be true, it is not a refutation. Scientists do continue to use science to describe and understand the universe, and atheist scientists continue to try to use science to suggest the nonexistence of an omnipotent being.

Oh, and could you point us to the technical papers where "the omnipotent being theory" is examined? Thanks.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[MozeeToby]

But if the proto-universe existed in a stable form before the Big Bang, there's no telling how long it was in that stable form. It could have taken billions of quadrillions of years for one of the forces to become decoupled from the others, the big bang would have erased any and all evidence of the time before it (with very few theoretical exceptions). So, while gravity could split into its hypothetical component parts tomorrow, the odds of that happening are probably so close to 0 as to be meaningless.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[QuantumBeep]

We can't even elect the government of our choice. Good luck making useful and correct decisions about God.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Manfred Maccx]

Because it make us all fuzzy inside? :) More seriously, probably because it's a mental perception of a proper social order. Probably something that we acquired through evolution so that we can develop and live properly through a group, large or small.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[NiteShaed]

Granted this is my own personal experience, and therefore doesn't necessarily reflect anyone else's, but:
I have never had anyone walk up to me randomly and say "Hey, I'm an atheist, and you should be too, can I have some of your time to tell you about why you're wrong and I'm right?"
I have, on multiple occasions, had people walk up to me in public places, or even knock on my door, to say "Hi, I'm with $RELIGION, and I'd like to share the good news about how $DEITY loves you, wants you to love him, and will punish you forever if he doesn't get what he wants".

Now, what was that about letting people believe what they will, and not imposing beliefs on others?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[QuantumBeep]

Saying you're agnostic is like painting a big target on your back for evangelists and zealots of all kinds. My recommendation: say you're an atheist, just so everyone will shut the christ up.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[mea37]

Yeah. It rather sounds like you've lost sight of the argument, though.

I've never heard a Christian defend his position by claiming that Christianity doesn't require faith; GP's comment was in response to an atheist who claims that atheism doesn't require faith.

Both you and GP are correct; claiming to be sure of either position requires faith.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[elfprince13]

Phrased another way, might I understand you to be asking "What is the sex of the turtle?"

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[mmajosh]

I have to count on this, but we can not make mercy exempt from this equation. As a strong practicing Christian I always pray to God a prayer of thanksgiving that I was born into the Christian environment that I was. The idea of a god, especially "The God", is almost an overwhelming thought to the human mind. Therefore if a feeble human mind can pity and have mercy on this, I truly hope that God does also. I can not wait to enter the throne room of God and ask Him why he couldn't of made himself unquestionably known, so that people could make a more rational decision......God Bless!

Ask a Minbari

[jameskojiro]

The Minbari are a very religious people. The Minbari religion does not have a central god figure, nor does it have a pantheon of gods, though on one confusing instance in an early episode Delenn did speak of "The gods." The Minbari have a belief that the universe itself is sentient, and that the universe has the ability to break itself into many pieces and invests itself in every form of life. Consequently, every being is a projection of a part of the universal soul. They believe that the universe uses the perspective of individual sentient beings in a process of self-examination and a search for meaning (similar to the real-life belief of pantheism), this could also be a reference to the quote "We are a way for the universe to know itself" from astronomer Carl Sagan.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Chalnoth]

Hahahahaha.

Evidence? That Jesus rose from the dead? Seriously? The only evidence of that is in the Bible itself, and even those accounts disagree on a number of crucial points! There is zero, repeat zero secular historical evidence of Jesus even being crucified, let alone rising from the dead. Hell, we don't even know where he was supposed to have been buried.

To add to this, the extra-biblical evidence for Jesus even existing in the first place is questionable at best. All of the evidence that does exist can be trivially interpreted as the historians of the day reporting on the beliefs/statements of the Christians of the day.

If you want to think that, "Hey, a bunch of people saw it, so it must be true!" counts as evidence, then you have to believe a lot of stupid crap.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[ZeRu]

I am religious (though probably not more than average - but enough to usually defend religion in threads like these) and I'm not offended by your post. I think you made some valid points. But even if all major religions are wrong, it still doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. It's just hard to explain His role. God doesn't have to be omnipotent, otherwise He could intervene to stop wars and other disasters (or perhaps He merely doesn't want, why give us free will if He is still going to control our fates?). Perhaps His purpose was only to send things into motion? Perhaps He is the only one who can create life. Science still can't explain from where soul is coming from and what happens with it after death. Neither it can explain reincarnation and there were documented cases of people "remembering" their previous lives.

Also, I wouldn't want to believe in a psychopath God who send all members of different religions to Hell. Such beliefs were common method of spreading religion in times when people were fearful, uneducated and ignorant. Today you're much more unlikely to make a person religious by threatening them with Hell and eternal sufferings.

And I believe that science and religion can coexist peacefully as long as each one is minding their own business - science is there to explain the material world, and religion should stick to spiritual stuff.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[elfprince13]

Not so far as I can tell.

Not as clever as it's made out to be...

[Dr. Manhattan]

There are definite problems with the logic used in "Mere Christianity". Which is why you're modded "funny" right now, I guess.

Re:Not as clever as it's made out to be...

[BergZ]

I'm done with C. S. Lewis anyway.
The first 4 books (in Narnian chronology) are fantastic tales, but by book 5 (The Voyage of the Dawn Treader) Lewis begins to get preachy. After he introduces "Eustace Clarence Scrubb" the series IMO just goes downhill from there.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[LittleBunny]

Standard answer: that question betrays a misunderstanding of what is claimed when one says that God exists in this context. When God is postulated as the origin of everything else in classical theistic philosophy, he's supposed to be a being that exists necessarily: i.e. it's not possible the God not exist. Asking 'Who created God" is like asking "Who made 2+2=4". In either case, the standard answer is that it's not a good question. If you say that we need to invoke God to explain the existence of contingent things (like the universe) but do not stipulate that God exists necessarily, then you are left with the problem of explaining God's existence. Now if Hawking's claim is that it is not necessary to postulate God to explain the rest of the universe, that does not imply that God does not exist. All it says is that if we want to explain why the universe exists, we don't need to make any claims about God. It's correct to say that this claim still leaves room for God's existence. There's nothing inconsistent about saying both that we don't need to invoke God to explain the law of gravity and that God exists. The interesting question is how we explain the law of gravity, if it's the law of gravity that explains the existence of the universe. From the linked article it seems that Hawking has decided to place his bet on an incomplete version of string theory to accomplish this:

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." In the forthcoming book, published on 9 September, Hawking says that M-theory, a form of string theory, will achieve this goal: "M-theory is the unified theory Einstein was hoping to find," he theorises.

The term of art for this sort of claim is the 'promissory note'. It's a version of the claim 'some day science will be able to explain [something it cannot currently explain]'. The Guardian article doesn't say anything about why Hawking has decided to repose confidence in this particular version of string theory, so we don't have the means to evaluate his decision. So: the story is that Hawking has decided to place a rather large bet on a version of string theory to, one day, explain the law of gravity and hence complete the explanation of why the universe exists. That idea doesn't have any particularly interesting consequences as regards God's existence or nonexistence. If Hawking is right, however, atheism will someday be able to justify itself scientifically without resorting to promissory notes. Sorry to be so non-inflammatory about this-- I teach this material for a living.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[chris mazuc]

"Creationists claim that everything needs a cause, including the universe, then posit a god as the necessary cause and immediately proclaim that that god is immune to the "everything needs a cause" claim."

Citation needed. I've never heard that proclamation. There are many theories out there to why a god exists and why we exist in relation to them. You just dismissed them in favor of an illogical one.

It usually isn't explicitly stated. Thomistic cosmological argument

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[supersloshy]

Since we are talking about unprovable matters, I could also postulate there is a god that will send you to hell for being a nice person. This god is as likely to exist as yours. In fact, as long as there is more than one religion in the world, there are potentially many gods, who, once you die, will send you straight to hell for not believing in them. Surely, by being a practitioner of religion X, you are staking your eternal future too?

I'd rather take a chance than take no chance at all. Better to live life being the nice person that God supposedly wants me to be than just do whatever I "think is right" for my whole life just to die, thus exiting from my meaningless existence into a possible nothingness...

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[MozeeToby]

If God really is a psychopath; i.e., if God really is going to send you to hell for eternity because you didn't believe or did believe

It's worse than that. Can you think of anything done on earth that deserves eternal, and infinite punishment? Think about it. Hitler was obviously a horrible person and his actions led to millions of deaths, but sending Hitler to hell would condemning him to the most painful experience imaginable (according to some theists) for trillions upon trillions of years.

And then throw in that at one time or another, various religions have stated that you deserve this punishment for everything from murder to premarital sex, from worshiping the wrong god to saying the 'name' of god, from having homosexual sex to simple gluttony. In my opinion, anyone that believes in a god that would punish someone in any way for all eternity believes in a god that is a sociopathic asshole.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[mmajosh]

Reading books on "logical-thinking" is completely relative, therefore it is irrelevant. It's the same as the common-sense or common-knowledge arguments...it's all relative to the one believing. Philosophy 101 brother :)

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[pjabardo]

So basically I am paying for shit I don't even know I did? I feel better already. I only have to wait until I'm born in a Hindu family and then I may have an opportunity to progress? Well, it is better than going straight to hell eternally.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[gestalt_n_pepper]

Well, that's silly. If an atheist is wrong, there's still infinite possibilities beyond the quaint "burn in hell, judgment day" thing. It could also be a Tibetan style Loka, intermediate hells and heavens ala Buddhism and Islam, nothing at all, cycling back through your life with no memory of having lived before, a different form of awareness without physicality, or an eternity watching TV game shows.

Reality, we should know by now, is full of surprises.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[dave420]

Not really. I'm not going to assume anything exists without evidence for it. Yes, I can entertain the idea of said thing existing, but it can never go any further than that without faith.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[QuantumBeep]

You've forgotten a possible expansion-collapse cycle.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[QuantumBeep]

I'm pretty sure most singularities contain... matter. But I could be wrong.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[digitig]

And even if you do believe in God, what are the chances you've chosen the right one to believe in?

That isn't actually a very strong argument against taking a position. Suppose I put twenty boxes in front of you and told you that one of them contained a good cheque for $1,000,000 and the others contained nothing. You can open any one, and keep the contents. What are the changes of picking the right one? Not great. What reason is there for choosing one box over another? Not much: maybe hunch, maybe try to interpret my facial expressions. One thing is sure, though: any strategy that involves opening a box is better than the strategy of not opening any of them because you can't decide.

Anyway, people at stages 5 and 6 of Fowler's model of faith development don't really make a choice between different faith traditions (so your argument about inheriting the religion of their parents doesn't apply to them, although they may inherit some ways of expressing that faith). In terms of the box game, these people recognise the nature of the game, don't put any faith in their ability to choose well, but simply enjoy the act of opening the box that they do.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Says whom?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Alsee]

Sheph stakes his eternal future on the presumption that Zeus does not exist. If he is wrong, he will spend eternity burning in Hades.

That takes a great deal of faith (or ignorance take your pick).

On second thought it's just plain ignorance. Calling it faith is just a euphemism.

-

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Arthur Grumbine]

With a name like jolyonr, I would have guessed you would imitate Thor... :-P

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[gestalt_n_pepper]

So where would an alien civilization of virtualized intelligences able to manipulate huge amounts of power fall on the deity scale? Where would such a civilization fall if it were 2 sigmas above the mean in the direction of getting there before us average civilizations? A civilization like that, perhaps a billion years advance, might fall into the diety camp. A civilization/entity that managed to survive the creation and destruction of universes might too.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Chalnoth]

Doesn't work that way. Expressing absolute certainty on some claim about the nature of reality, of course, requires faith (unless it's absolute certainty that a nonsensical claim cannot be true, of course, because no nonsensical claim can be true...it's nonsensical!).

But it requires no faith whatsoever to consider a creator god to be extremely unlikely, based on the complete lack of evidence, and the complexity of the proposed entity. One way to look at it is this: either we have a universe, or we have a universe + complex god. If we have no evidence whatsoever to distinguish between the two, the first (just a universe) is far more likely to be correct, because it proposes fewer hypothetical entities.

Of course, some apologists have attempted to claim that their god is actually simple, but they don't actually argue this, they simply define their god as simple and pretend that solves the problem. The second they start tacking on other god-like attributes besides simplicity, though, this simplicity is utterly destroyed (e.g. omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, or even the ability to think at all).

This view always leaves open the possibility that a god will someday be discovered, but it requires that strong evidence be presented.

Einstein's clever "out"

[Tablizer]

Einstein used a kind of trick of language to appear to accept the concept of "God". "God" is whatever force, thing, or being brought about the universe, whatever it turns out to be. Using that definition you can placate both atheists and most religions to some extent. God is the "x" in an unsolved equation.

Re:Einstein's clever "out"

[meerling]

There's also the fact that certain words and phrases have crept into modern language that some people assume the usage of denotes being a religious christian.
Things like: Oh my god, what in gods name are you doing, jesus christ, god bless you, and many many more.

Re:Einstein's clever "out"

[Tablizer]

"Goddammit!"

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[QuantumBeep]

One theory I've heard: Time and space are toroidal. It's not turtles all the way down, it's turtles in a big, horrible loop.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[SourGrapes]

Gravity is physical insofar as reductivist materialism (to which, in most cases, the philosophy of science adheres) requires that all physical effects must have physical causes, and that everything that meaningfully can be said to exist is therefore physical. The problem is that this leads to an infinite regress of causes: everything is physical, all physical effects must have physical causes, therefore the chain of causality necessarily extends back forever. Except that we know that it doesn't, we know there was a beginning in the Big Bang. If you don't adhere to reductivist materialism you have a way out, philosophically; you can say that not everything that exists is physical, and while most physical things have physical causes, some physical things have non-physical causes. The non-physical cause doesn't have to be God, but it could (logically) be. The problem is that materialist science takes as one of its axioms a priori that nothing non-physical exists. There's no proof of this, nor can there be. It's a base assumption. Not saying it's wrong, but it is unprovable.

The dangers of using the word "God"

[dhammond]

God can mean so many different things to different people, but whenever someone hears the word "God" they think it refers to the particular god that they believe in, or at least the most popular conception of god in their culture. In this case, most people are thinking of the Christian god. But I think Hawking's idea of god is modeled on that of Einstein, who emphasized that when he spoke of god he was not referring to a personal god, such as the Christian god.

In any case, regardless of the how the summary and TFA are framing it, the quote in the article says that Hawking simply thinks that God is not necessary to explain the big bang. That is not to say that God doesn't exist. That's a pretty simple and uncontroversial statement, or it should be.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[QuantumBeep]

Consider a spherical Jesus...

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Tablizer]

"Who created the creator?"

Himself. He's a recursive God. He created time, traveled back in time, and then created himself. So there! No need for stinkin' turtles.
   

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[VolciMaster]

NOTE: remember the first and only rule about cannibal holocaust... #1 *never* recommend anyone watching cannibal holocaust!

you've seen it, too?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[farble1670]

it takes a great deal of faith for you to believe in the christian god, when a majority of the world believes in non-christian gods. why aren't you worshipping all of them, just to hedge your bets when judgement day comes?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Paracelcus]

Mass = gravity +time -speed?

Where did the mass that created the gravity that triggered the time@speed X acceleration come from?

Acceleration = bang

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[mgvrolijk]

Because "God" gives us cosmic importance, and of course, there's the issue of an "afterlife". It's an appeal to emotions.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[digitig]

It's about as good for the intellectual as The God Delusion is. Strong on rhetoric, weak on actual argument. Mere Christianity does have the advantage of being somewhat shorter.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[panda]

Time is an illusion. It exists solely in your head because you believe it does. Even Aristotle knew this.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[AdeP]

If they are wrong, and there turns out to be a judgement day they will spend eternity burning in hell.

Richard Dawkins responded to this same thought quite eloquently: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg But further, do you even want to follow a being so evil that he first creates you, then demands if you don't do what he wants he will cause you to burn and be tortured forever? Sounds like an evil God to me. And yes I knew he would say his way is right, I just don't understand yet, but so might have Hitler. Although, as a former minister, I would say that "burning in hell" is figurative anyway. Its not literal. Its just meant to say that we could have returned to God, but through our actions we are unable to return (for heaven must be kept clean else it would stop being heaven), and the resulting self-pity and anguish is similar to fire and brimstone.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[h4rr4r]

Christians stake their eternal future on the presumption that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist. They live their whole lives doing what they want, and rejecting the concept that there could be anyone or anything greater than their God. If they are wrong, and there turns out to be a judgement day they will spend eternity boiling in sauce. That takes a great deal of faith (or ignorance take your pick).
--

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Alsee]

I am so superior that I use omnipotent beings as servants, and I condescendingly use their names as verbs.

I Q my torrents.

-

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[mmajosh]

Reading books on "logical-thinking" is completely relative, therefore it is irrelevant. It's the same as the common-sense or common-knowledge...it's all relative to the one believing.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[h4rr4r]

This is a fantastic argument against Christianity. Why would anyone want to worship what sounds like pure evil?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[doshell]

There is no such thing as "not taking a chance" in this matter. Either you do believe in gods (one or more of them) or you do not believe in any. In either case, you will either be rewarded, punished, or disappear into nothing. But none of your choices invalidates any of these possibilities (even if you're an atheist: there might be a god who is benevolent enough to send you to heaven even if you did not believe in him while alive).

The point is not which choice is best; the point is that there is not enough information to make a choice that is certainly better than the others. And this is what the original poster would have you disagreeing with.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[camperdave]

According to the bible, it's not that the vast majority of humanity is screwed. It's ALL humanity is screwed. There's not a single person is good enough, or worthy enough, to deserve a place in Heaven. Our pooch was screwed the moment Eve bit into the Apple. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". Hell is the Deny All at the end of the access control list.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[thijsh]

All the nausea inducing way...

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[digitig]

Occam only meant that we can't invoke a more complicated explanation than necessary within science.

And even then the application is usually subjective, as what one person considers more complex another considers simpler. I have (tongue-in-cheek) upset people arguing for a form of scientism by invoking Occam's razor to "prove" solipsism ("Zero objective realities is simpler than one objective reality"). Occam's razor is a methodological tool; it is not any sort of guide to what is or is not "true" (although some seem to have what looks to me like a religious belief that it is).

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[debiansid]

Umm, ok. My comment was not meant to be an informative piece; I was actually expecting my comment to be modded flamebait or funny if anything. I was attempting to show that for the sake of argument anyone can make up stuff and have it sound very interesting and knowledgeable but it probably did not come off very well.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Hubris

[TheLink]

No, it's virtual machines all the way...

Seriously, that's why trying to prove certain things may not be possible. Saying they are likely to be XYZ based on certain evidence is wiser, but insisting that you are even close to 100% sure is being silly. If it turns out we really are in something similar to a universe simulator/virtual machine there's no guarantee we can prove anything about stuff outside.

For example, say I create a universe simulator, set up a universe, make copies and mess about with some copies. Pause one, edit and restart it.

How old would that universe be? From the "inside" it might be billions of years or more. From outside it might have just started a moment ago.

From inside that universe, based on the rules, there could be no evidence or need for a creator. From the outside there could be one or many creators involved in designing it, etc. Or the concept of "one" vs "many" doesn't really translate that well.

Yes it could turn out that isn't a creator at all, and it just so happens it's like that. But it could even turn out to be stranger - because the rules outside aren't necessarily the same as the rules inside, heck thinking they must be takes an immense leap of faith in my opinion.

Looking at the evidence, I think the universe isn't quite so simple as many think (even the very smart ones). As such, I personally believe there is a God and he has a strange sense of humour. I may be wrong, but how can a intelligent, rational and knowledgeable mere human being can be so sure he/she is right about the universe?

It's certainly not a simple 3 body newtonian universe we're in. And thank God the graphics are better than Civ2 :).

Re:Hubris

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if it's not simple, there's no need to invent supernatural beings.

Re:Hubris

[fredklein]

For example, say I create a universe simulator, set up a universe...

A few months ago, I read a short SF story with something like that for a plot. Using some sort of techno-babble quantum computer, these scientists created an exact simulation of our universe. They can look into this simulation and see their simulated selves looking into another simulation that their simulated selves created. In that simulation, there they are, looking into another simulation.... One eventually realizes that it's an infinite recursion, IN BOTH DIRECTIONS, down AND up.
Then they freak because someone wants to turn off the simulator, which means all of simulations at every level will be turned off, including the level we consider 'reality'.

Re:Hubris

[TheLink]

> If we're in a VM then what's going on outside doesn't matter. It's not like we're ever going to make the jump to the "outside" world,

How can you be so sure of this conclusion?

Many people wipe/modify VMs based on what happens inside.

Re:Hubris

[DarthVain]

The matrix called, they want their script back.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Monkeedude1212]

In my personal beliefs, I believe in a God as a passive observer of what happens here, and that he puts more importance over how you live your life as opposed to what you believe. Like you said, to demand such silly things as the proper name would be insane. If I live an entirely "Christian" lifestyle without believing in God, does that mean I go to hell?

I think its best to approach it with some rational thought: The storeis in the Bible are really meant for lessons in wisdom rather than faith. At least, thats how I choose to interpret it.

In short, I'd say that I'm spiritual rather than Religious. I wouldn't want to be lumped in with the rest of the people who believe in a God.

And following this announcement...

[jd2112]

Hawking went on to prove that black was white, and was then trampled to death by a herd of zebras.

(Apologies to both Steven Hawking and Douglas Adams)

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[AdeP]

and most of them don't realize how badly the Creeds have twisted the very meaning and context of the prophet's words (as now recorded in their Bibles).

In fact, most of them don't even know what the Creeds are, or that they in fact perverted the words of supposed prophets.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[digitig]

A very basic rule of philosphy is that anything that had a beginning had a cause

No. It's a very old theory of philosophy (Aristotle, if I recall correctly), but it is not a rule of philosophy because there's been an argument amongst philosophers since then whether it's true or not. If it were actually a rule there would be no way for them to have that argument.

What created Law?

[gox]

Who created this law of things can only exist if it first have to go through the process of creation then?

Creation, in this context, doesn't have to involve design in any way, or any kind of "process" for that matter. Also, time-line is irrelevant -- one can even speak of time's creation. What we're basically discussing here is causality. So the gist of the matter is:

"Does existence need a cause?"

Let's assume that there was a big bang. My existence can be causally traced back to it. So, there is no "my existence", individually standing; it is a composite "situation", which is a result of the state of affairs at the bang. But can we speak of any existence which is not a result?

If the question was, "Is there a word that has a meaning by itself?", the answer would be almost obviously be "no".

So, "What caused the big bang?", IMO, is a very legitimate question. There cannot be a first cause -- otherwise the word "causality" would lose its meaning.

But it's not the dramatic reality about all this. What we are really admitting, I think, is that, existence itself is a composition of relations between objects (causality in action). I.e. "Existence is structure".

One thinks then, that reality is composed of objects (matter/energy) and relations (laws). However, our history of knowledge shows that, when you investigate "matter", using the techniques of the time, you always discover that it's "made up" of finer stuff. This stuff, can in turn be structures that are made up of even finer stuff. If not so, that means that it has nothing about it that is not in its set of relations (its properties).

So it's almost inevitable to arrive to the conclusion that what we call matter is a structure, composed of relations of things. Things which are nothing but their relations. At this point, I guess, we can't get rid if the "thing" linguistically, since we need it to define the relations.

In conclusion, it seems that there's nothing other than the laws of nature, that makes up the universe. In this context, causality is enforced by consistency and doesn't have to have a more specialized meaning.

Do we make any progress with this line of reasoning? You can still ask where the laws of nature come from? My metaphysical view tends to have an economical bias, not about the quantity of existence, but quantity of metaphysics involved. :-) So, I just accept that every possible world (any combination of laws) exists.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[vittal]

One thing is sure, though: any strategy that involves opening a box is better than the strategy of not opening any of them because you can't decide.

Not if there is a god who values the quiet life, and prefers atheists over theists. This is quite reasonable because theists tend to bother god about all sorts of things (my crops have failed, I've stubbed my toe, computer won't boot, etc).

This god will happily send all theists to hell and take all atheists to heaven on the reasonable assumption that atheists won't keep coming round to his/her house to borrow a cup of sugar.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[oliverthered]

enter random.

define: random. not predictable.

noting comes before it, so random comes out of [after] nothing.

I don't believe that there's anything else that fits the bill. And random certainly exists just as much as anything else in physics or mathematics.
It can be measured via induction.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[jdavidb]

Yes, I was raised a question. Yes, it makes me second guess myself. However, my mother ceased to be a Christian and ceased indoctrinating me in my teen years. Does that make me any more credible? Bonus question: I think for a lot of ancient people, like a lot of modern people, religion was a matter of patriotism and culture, rather than direct historical actions of God. I doubt many average Greeks conducted historical research into what really happened at Troy.

The interesting thing for me is the random Greeks who left classical mythology for belief in Jesus and the God of Judaism.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Mongoose Disciple]

Interesting philosophy. I didn't know plants experienced happiness or sadness.

Probably that's why he put happiness in quotes. It's shorthand for a much longer explanation.

Plants seek out things that help them live/prosper. They turn towards light, etc. This doesn't require conscience thought or a brain on their part; they've just evolved in a way such that this is true.

If you disagree, forming a counterargument is more useful than nitpicking the word choice.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[AdeP]

There is little evidence to disprove the tooth fairy, and there are lots of stories about such a creature.

Given your logic, I suppose we must admit that it could very well exist. Like all fictional creatures, its impossible to disprove.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[tom17]

Don't do that! Don't you fucking do that! Don't blow this shit off! What just happened was a fucking miracle!

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[bazorg]

or we can just worship gravity, gravdammit!

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[colinrichardday]

Laws of gravity, as opposed to gravity itself, are created. Aristotle created one, as did Newton, as did Einstein, as may others in the future. And if you call those descriptions of gravity rather than laws, then what do you mean by "law"?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[camperdave]

Gravity never says "let there be light". Gravity says "let there be heavy".

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Quirkz]

If you think that because some religious people have stupid reasons for being religious they must all have stupid reasons for being religious then perhaps you should spend a few minutes with a critical thinking primer too.

Out of curiosity, do you have or know of a good reason for being religious? You've cited one argument that you find interesting but lacking, which is closer than most people get to having a discussion better than "because my parents and my holy book says so" and I'd actually like to get to some good arguments. I don't really go out of my way looking for them, but I also never get any feedback from genuinely religious folks that's anything but pure faith and irrationality.

For the reference, my stance is based almost entirely on "lack of compelling evidence". I'm not militant about it, I just don't see the point in thinking I know something when I don't have a reason to think I know it.

Re:The Golden Mean

[RevRagnarok]

I disagree with the analogy. The most likely reason that not many people are going around saying "the sun will rise tomorrow" is because there are not many other people who are trying to do things like putting stickers on science books saying that, "tomorrow's rising sun is 'only a theory.'" Or blowing up themselves and sun-believers in the name of a non-sun. When that begins to happen, you will hear more from the Silent Sun Army.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Peeteriz]

Which God?
Only ONE of the major religions can be true, so by upholding christian beliefs you are staking your eternal future on a hope that you don't meet Shiva or Allah when you die.
One way or another, if God exists, then most of the high believers will suffer anyway because they chose the wrong God-idea to worship.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Raenex]

I'd rather take a chance than take no chance at all.

You're lucky I found you! You see, I was informed by God himself that if you only believe out of fear, then you cease to exist. He doesn't want cowardly sycophants populating His plane.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[oliverthered]

what do you mean by physical?

and why should being 'so called' physical have anything to do with anything?

Is energy, time, space, electro magnetism, the strong force, the weak force etc... physical. What about matter? is that physical?

If so please tell me the difference between them? e (so I'm told) equals MC^2. That would also mean that C (the speed of light or space time) also equal matter and energy.

So, tell me again. What do you mean by physical? Is the speed of light physical? cos I think that is equal to the root of energy over matter. or that energy over matter creates the speed of light.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[colinrichardday]

How's that turning-into-a-swan trick to sleep with gorgeous women working?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[spun]

If we can picture a thing that exists without being created, we have arrived at a picture of the universe without God. Why place the uncaused cause one step removed from our experience of the universe? And what does being physical or not have to do with anything? The idea that physical things need a cause, which can include non physical things that don't need a cause, is simply ludicrous.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[AdeP]

so if he's the jealous mofo waiting for me, he's as likely to burn me for panting after Allison Munn as anything else.

...and rightly so. She's a cute girl and all, but its Olivia Munn that is divine :)

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[ultranova]

a devout muslim will never taste pork, or taste a good whiskey

Neither will anyone else. Never has, never will. Perhaps you misspelled vodka?

Hey, this entire article is about an epic troll by Hawkings, so :)...

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[digitig]

I don't know why this isn't mentioned more often, but there is something simpler than both of these cases.

How about that WE created the universe. We already exist, and the idea that we have an eternal soul is no more far-fetched than believing an eternal god exists. In fact it's less absurd, as we have proof of our own existence, at least in corporeal form.

The idea that the universe exists by virtue of being observed is an old one, going back at least to Berkeley, and once you get rid of the idea of God then we are the most likely candidates for observers. A more modern presentation would be that the states of existing and not existing were superimposed until our observation collapsed those states. It's a bit esoteric, though.

At the least, I'm still amazed there aren't more people who are 'not sure' about a big entity (god or whatever), but think that we each have some kind of eternal 'soul'. I certainly fall into that camp.

That seems to be the position of many "new age" spiritualities, although they come with their own baggage.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[MrFurious5150]

+1 Rational

Cogito ergo sum

[oliverthered]

very old school form of commentary on spontaneous creation.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[StuartHankins]

+1 Insightful.

I'm an atheist, and don't tolerate anyone preaching to my kids. But when they got old enough to drive, I allowed them to explore religions. They're old enough now to stand on their own in that way, to not be bullied into a decision, which is important.

I had Baptist parents and friends, and I went to Catholic school as a child / Baptist school in middle school. I have attended various religious events and ceremonies throughout the years. I've seen Wiccan, American Indian, Catholic, Jewish, and other methods of worship.

I don't consider myself an ignorant atheist by far -- because it's a big decision I researched before I made my choice. I live my life as best I can, I do not believe I get a "second chance" and I do not believe that "sins" can be forgiven. While that works for me, I'm sure there are others who have comfort that they can do harm to others and be absolved afterward.

And, yes, I share your view that if "god" magically exists then that entity would be capable of not destroying swaths of people because they hadn't sacrificed at the proper altar, or called the entity by the preferred name, or pressured others into worshipping the "true" god. And if not, well, f that deity. I want no part of that kind of group.

Well who created the all-mighty then?

[smittyman]

Well i did, but tell my father or he'll delete him again.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[colinrichardday]

Children are innocent and will go to heaven, receiving an eternal reward - or, at the very least, will not go to hell (and if you can find someone who actually believes that children go to hell by default, then they're basically a lost cause).

Are the children baptized? Dante believed that unbaptized children ended up in limbo, which he viewed as part of Hell.

Antropomorphism

[Anonymous Coward]

My fundamentalist brother and I get into this tangle every once in a while. It goes something like this:

He: You can't deny that such complex systems as man and animals just spontaneously created themselves. If you are walking in the woods and find a watch on the ground, you don't suppose it just evolved there on its own, do you? Someone must have created it.

Me: Maybe it's just the nature of reality and physics that complexity evolves from simplicity, and this is the big bang expressing itself many billions of years later.

He: But who set off the big bang? It didn't erupt out of nothing. Something [God] must have preceded it.

Me: OK then, what preceded Your god?

He: Nothing. He has always been.

Me: So basically, we have the same answer. You just gave your preexisting conditions a brain and motivations, and I don't presume to.

It's called anthropomorphism... look it up.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[jolyonr]

Well, I live in the UK, and all the swans belong to the queen.

I might be desperate, but not THAT desperate.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[infinite9]

I find it interesting that people assume (maybe I'm making another assumption) that christianity claims that the earth is held up by turtles or atlas or elephants or something. The bible says that God hangs the earth on nothing, and claimed this while the rest of the world was envisioning animals or a giant lamp stand or something.

Re: If they are wrong

[the_womble]

Pascal's wagre is, from a Christian POV ludicrous. Faith requires belief, but it is more than that. The point of the theistic religions is to develop a relationship with God. Mere belief is insufficient, mere disbelief is not damning.

None of the mainstream churches teaches that non-believers will be damned (very few even of the fundies do), what matters is this: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A31-46&version=NIV

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Quirkz]

I think you may have at factually skewed idea about how atheism works.

The majority of atheists that I know have a moral code just as strong as the religious folks I know (which is to say they've all got principles, and they all do an okay job with those principles, but also fail them from time to time). Don't know any atheists who "go around just doing what they want" to any extent greater than religious folks, who, let's face it, mostly just go around doing what they want, too.

Lots of atheists also think there are plenty of things greater than themselves--generally concepts like "humanity" or "peace" or whatnot. Kind of depends on the person, of course, some will have higher ideals, some won't. At the very least an honest, rational atheist ought to concede that every other human being is equally great--something that some religions (or folks within those religions) certainly struggle with.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Raenex]

I was raised in a non-religious household. [..] So it's quite common for people to believe in Christianity through being convinced of its claims, not only because of an accident of upbringing.

I bet you were raised in a nation with a large Christian following, though. Just how many people will become Christian growing up in a Muslim country? How many Christians were there in every other culture before Christianity arose? Every culture, when separated from others, came up with their own religions. Does it sound like God really wanted one true message to be heard, and that it is Christianity? Or perhaps people were just making shit up.

Remember Einstein and Relativity.

[patjhal]

Most of these arguments take for granted a perspective of linear time. The idea that there exists an area outside of time and space changes everything. If something exists outside time and space then it always existed which means nothing to it because always is a time concept and before it is meaningless as is the idea of after.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[jdavidb]

Um, I was raised a Christian, not a question. Apparently I wasn't raised to proofread...

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[digitig]

No, the purpose of science is to discover certain types of truth, those that are amenable to scientific investigation. There are many things that are true but that do not fall within the remit of science. Unfortunately, we have no reliable way of determining what those many things are. For example, either "There is no objective reality" or "There is an objective reality" is true, but science gives us no way to decide between them (instead, it typically assumes the latter).

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Peeteriz]

In some sense you must say that "they're equally likely to exist" - we have completely identical knowledge/proof about all gods existence (no idea at all), and this means that *as far as we know*, none of the mutually exclusive God options can be reasonably given a priority.

If there is some logical reason to consider that Judeo-Christian God has a bigger likelihood of existing than the Flying Spaghetti Monster? We have no idea about both of them, so we can't compare.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[colinrichardday]

According to the sycophantic reviews from other Christian religious authors this book must provide bullet point arguments for the existence of God.

Fixed that for you

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[the_womble]

Not really. For example, if someone has direct experience of God (the foundation of religious belief), the only scientific explanation is that they are seriously delusional.

Of course, it may be that millions of otherwise sane people from a wide range of cultures and all periods of history share a common delusion, but it does not seem to be the simplest explanation.

Yes, to Occam's razor, but not in this case (Occam was a theologian!).

Re:Hawkings

[HeckRuler]

Well the problem with that argument is assuming that the universe has any order similar to the order and function of a watch. Shake up a box of gears and springs, and yep, you've got a mess of gears and springs. Shake up a universe of matter and, just as assuredly, you'll get a bunch of galaxies, suns, and planets. Just in different places.

This is one of those lame arguments about irreducible complexity, which argues against evolution, and not the cause of the big bang. And for that, a watch isn't the best example, because it doesn't have any sort of evolutionary forces being applied to it.
But what if it did? (awesome video and nifty alife study)

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[gsgriffin]

Oh, on the contrary. /. is exactly the place where nitpicking thrives and exists. It is what makes us "happy" here.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[gsgriffin]

If it were as simple as a single day's experience, I would completely agree with you. The difficulty I have is that it is an everyday experience. This makes no sense to anyone who is not experiencing it everyday. I totally understand others not understanding it.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Nadaka]

Aha! So that is how he walked on water! It was not a miracle, it was a more like a beach ball.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[ultranova]

The assumption was that the Christians would continue being Christians, and insisting that their holy book was the right holy book. In which case they would never figure out that the Buddhists were right, and would in fact spend all of eternity in that cycle.

This is an absurd assumption. Either the Christian in question doesn't remember that he used to be a Christian in his past life upon reincarnation, in which case there's no reason why his having once been a Christian would influence his changes of being one again, or he does, in which case he knows he's been reincarnated and will have to do one Hell of a mental cartwheel to still continue believing in Christian doctrine. And even if he did, one would think that, after a few hundred reincarnations, even the worst fundie would start wondering if their God is trying to tell them something.

Of course, this assumes that being a fundamentalist Christian isn't conductive to maintaining a moral standard that's karmically conductive to being reborn in circumstances that lead you to become a fundamentalist Christian again. Whether that's an insult or praise is left as an exercise for the reader.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[the_womble]

The reason God is exempt is that God is eternal, OUTSIDE time. Something outside time does not require a cause, because it has no beginning.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Quirkz]

As with Pascal's Wager, your theoretical god is not "as likely to exist" as a different god. It's unknown (and many would say unknowable) how likely either of them are. So, you're right in that both gods are in the same boat -- nobody knows how likely it is that either exists. It's incorrect to go from that to "they're equally likely to exist".

True. And yet neither one is more likely than the other, which could be another interpretation of what doshell was trying to say.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[blackraven14250]

Something created what exists, otherwise it would not exist. Things don't magically pop in and out of existence; there's something that does it.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[binary paladin]

I don't think that matters. These higher levels of the universe are beyond anything but speculation to us right now and may always be. If there is a god, who knows what it is or how it operates. I seriously doubt it's some old guy that snaps his fingers and, presto, universe!

Whether you call it gravity or God or whatever, here's what was said: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

Am I missing something? Because of SOMETHING (gravity), the universe (also something) can and will create itself (huh?) from nothing (because there are two somethings)?

While I find this level of physics interesting, with our current understanding we're always going to hit a sort of god particle or god force or god law or something that we don't really understand and throw in the mix to make everything work. So long as we don't really understand it (and as far as gravity is concerned, we don't) we're exercising faith. Frankly, it's hard for me to think outside something linear with a beginning and an end. I'm pretty sure that's not how existence operates but... don't blame me! I'm just a really advanced ape!

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[infinite9]

In other words, they choose to do the "right" thing because it is right, not because someone else said it was right and threatened them with torture if they disobeyed.

I'd like to point out something about christianity. It's not that you're threatened with torture for failing to do right things. God doesn't want anyone to go to Hell. People send themselves there by failing to reject the offer to be rescued. It's like you're floating in the ocean, then when the coast guard throws you a life preserver you refuse to grab onto it, expecting to be rescued some other way, then curse the coast guard for allowing you to drown.

Whether or not you escape from hell depends only on your willingness to accept the offer to pull you out. That's it. It doesn't matter how awful a person you were over your life. You're still in.

Some might say this is unjust because a serial killer could be allowed into heaven while a "moral" person might be condemned. But from my perspective, it's comforting to know that there's nothing I have done that is so bad that it couldn't be forgiven.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm convinced it's the God of the Bible because the most plausible explanation for me for data from the first century is that Jesus truly rose from the dead.

You were never "convinced" of anything. You were brainwashed into believing really idiotic nonsense by your parents before your brain was adequately developed meaning you have never once in your life even been capable of thinking honestly about the topic. This is the only reason you falsely claim to have the faith you do. This is obvious by how blatantly you're lying about such basic simple historical facts.

There does not exist one single legitimate shred of evidence that there ever was such a person, let alone any of the crazy magical nonsense. This is also supported by the fact that the very idea of a human Jesus living on Earth completely contradicts the beliefs of the early Christians. The whole birth death and resurrection *necessarily* happened only in a spiritual plane. Rewriting the myth to set it in the real world as the modern false Christians do destroyed the whole point of the story. There is no such data making you a liar as well as a fool.

I'm also convinced historical data from Egypt backs up the Old Testament assertions about connections between Israel's pre-history (Joseph and Moses) and Egypt, including the powerful miracles Jehovah/YHWH is said to have worked on behalf of Israel during those times.

There doesn't exist a single shred of historical data for any of your idiotic lies. The Hebrew tribe didn't even exist for over a thousand years after the pyramids were built, so the entire book of Exodus is known to be nothing but an attempt for some ignorant barbarians to associate themselves with the awesome culture of the Egyptians who were ancient even to the Hebrews at the time their fairy tale was written. Hell, that's why even though the pyramids were built in the bronze age, the anachronistic fairy tale talks about forging iron during the time demonstrating quite clearly that whoever made up that ridiculous fairy tale knew nothing about the pyramid builders and so little of the history of the world as to not even comprehend the idea that iron forging didn't exist and had to have been invented at some point.

I could be wrong.

No, you are quite clearly and quite obviously wrong. Five minutes of honest inquiry would prove that to you quite convincingly if you were capable of it. It's clear that you would much rather lie to yourself and everyone around rather than be honest with yourself and your god for even five minutes out of your entire life. There's no way you could have spouted such thoroughly refuted lies were you possessed of even the most rudimentary sense of decency, integrity, ethics or even any self-respect. People with these qualities would be embarrassed to engage in such blatantly ignorant and grossly dishonest behaviour, but you're a typical example of why Christians are held in such utter contempt by decent people.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[colinrichardday]

Knuth is a theist. Are you that much smarter than he is?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[tchi.keufte]

You don't have to adopt a religion to believe that there is a single (conscious or not) cause to everything (call it God, Tao, exception, paradox, singularity, triggerOfBigBang, whatever).
I personally think that God is one special idea that comes with conscience, and that it's not by chance : maybe conscience is linked to what matter really is, and what matter really is comes from the cause of everything. In short, conscience is part of the nature of the-cause-to-everything (call it like you want). In shorter, the cause of everything is conscious... because we all are conscious that there is a cause to everything.

I don't personally think this belief makes me a "religious" person. And I don't think it's very different from deciding that 2 parallels never cross.

One other "belief" of this kind is that a very intelligent water molecule (or a human) cannot understand that the brand of the opaque plastic bottle it's in, is Evian... it can understand it's inside a bottle (universe) and that the boundaries are weird (limits imposed by physical laws like speed of light, and the paradox that the universe expands "inside nothing"), but it cannot know what a brand is (it's very different from what he sees inside).

Maybe logic is a purely human (and not universal) way of understanding. It's sufficient for human (and rational) way of knowing. But I think human has also the ability to explore other ways of understanding. And I think rational and simple and intuitive things (like deciding that 2 parallels never cross, or that there is a conscious cause to everything) can coexist in a healthy human mind, like it is the case for many scientists, in their personal life.

Don't we ourselves, computer scientists, create artificial worlds where we trigger like a Big Bang for artificial lifeforms ? We are just mimicking what we already "know". Why is it so hard to admit it ?

I think it's not reasonable to be too reasonable.
Please search for "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences" in Wikipedia. This is the title of an article published in 1960 by the physicist Eugene Wigner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Mongoose Disciple]

Thing is, there's a chunk of your brain that's responsibile for feelings like that.

The collision between neuroscience (as it gets more and more refined) and religion is going to be ugly.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Raenex]

And I believe that science and religion can coexist peacefully as long as each one is minding their own business - science is there to explain the material world, and religion should stick to spiritual stuff.

There is no distinction if you believe "spiritual stuff" is based on matter following the laws of physics. In other words, it can be studied in a scientific manner.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[SpeZek]

I always found the "moral code" argument to be just... asinine.

Only someone truly ignorant could believe that drawing your morals from compassion and empathy is worse than from fear of judgement.

God's key size.

[RightSaidFred99]

Lol. You have a book written by Him, huh? I can only assume you have his public key and have cryptographically verified the authenticity of it, aye? Where did you find the hash, btw?

Does god use a 1024 bit RSA key, or is he more of a DSA guy?

Re:God's key size.

[NiteShaed]

I assume, of course, that the peer review process that most scientific papers undergo nowadays is also without flaws?

Who exactly ever claimed that peer-review is flawless? It is, however, more likely to catch errors and fraud than the alternative of simply taking a group of superstitious bronze-age people at their word, with no verification at all.

It's an old book that has been handed down for thousands of years, accepted as true by an entire race of people, and has not only been challenged, but defended to the death [letusreason.org] by many.

So why is the Bible the right one, as opposed to the Koran, or the vedas? Don't they also match the above criteria?

I know, you refuse the writings of long-lost authors, and the veracity of their words based on just the one book. Compare the sources of Biblical manuscripts with those of Homer or even Gallileo.

I have no idea what this means. If you're saying that believing in the existence of Homer is no more unlikely than believing in Jesus, then you're probably right, since Homer wasn't an actual person, but a personification of the works of multiple people. Galileo on the other hand, only goes back to the 1500s/1600s, a time where documentation was much more formal than it would have been around 2000 years ago when the Bible was assembled.

But I'm wasting my time to go further. We want modern proofs. Happenings that we don't understand we either subscribe to miracles or we dismiss as untrue.

Okay, lets go with that. Why aren't there any "modern proofs". Why is it that the flashy miracles, the walking on water, the bread and fishes, the angels of death, only happened at a point in human history when a) there was no reliable way to record them, and b) at a time in human history when superstition was the norm, and science was still a far-off notion? Why doesn't anyone rise from the dead anymore, why has "witchcraft" suddenly just stopped working, where are the supernatural creatures that used to visit people on a fairly regular basis? I'm going to hazard a guess that it's for the same reason that the Norse pantheon no longer visits Scandinavia, or that the gods of Olympus no longer wage war in Greece, or that leprechauns and pixies no longer populate the British isles and Trolls no longer menace travelers as they cross bridges in Europe. They're all the fantasies of people who hadn't yet learned that there's no such thing as magic.

Re:God's key size.

[rickb928]

Well, for starters, while some of the Bible might predate the Bronze Age, even peer reviewed research that is later found to be flawed is defended vigorously until it is exposed. The New Testament, in particular, was written by men who mostly went to their deaths defending their faith and their writings. They were convinced. I'm not ready to discard that, but it doesn't meet any scientific critera, I know.

But is the Bible the 'right one'? You do know that the Q'uran references many Old Testament characters and events, don't you? The vedas seem to have been written starting around 1500 B.C., nearly contemporary to Moses. An interesting time. Must have been the development of useful written language and implements that makes this a coincidence. I do not know if the vedas were similarly defended by martyrs, but belivers in the Q'uran have a way of killing their detractors. Christians seem to have largely given that up after an unfortunate series of episodes. Nowadays, Chrtistians are once again the martyrs, all over the world. It comes with the territory. They are not alone, I know.

I was taught in high school that 'Homer' wrote at least two good books. Well, that didn't hold up. But we don't have any record that those books were intended to be read as 'divinely inspired'. Actually, the Hebrew god and Christ I think are singular individuals in literature as in life. Comparing them to others is not useful.

But the issue of 'modern miracles' is a difficult one. After you go through the fakes and mistakes, there are few documented miracles. And within Christianity, there is considerable debate over whether they are even necessary. I believe I've witnessed one, but I haven't gone back to ask her how she is doing now, 5 years later. Until then, I'm not willing to recite it as 'provbable', but merely what I saw. The kids that went to Brazil 4 years ago, though, they saw much more, and I need to ask them if they have been back and what has endured. Nothing without proof.

One question I do have. Was Greek mythology intended as testimonials, or was it pure fiction even then? While many claim the Bible is a collection of myths and legends, the Torah is held to be a literal history. Since Greek gods were regularly depicted in architecture and elsewhere, I suspect they were considered to be real. If so, where are they now?

Re:God's key size.

[NiteShaed]

Well, for starters, while some of the Bible might predate the Bronze Age, even peer reviewed research that is later found to be flawed is defended vigorously until it is exposed..

There's a difference though, that being RESEARCH. The Bible wasn't based on research of any kind, it was written by people with virtually no understanding of the natural world who were making up stories to explain things that they didn't understand. Pork makes you sick? Guess god hates people who eat pork.

The New Testament, in particular, was written by men who mostly went to their deaths defending their faith and their writings. They were convinced. I'm not ready to discard that, but it doesn't meet any scientific critera, I know.

The fact that people were willing to die for their beliefs is completely irrelevant to whether they were actually right or not. Plenty of people from other religions than Christianity have been/are willing to die for their beliefs. They can't all be right.

But is the Bible the 'right one'? You do know that the Q'uran references many Old Testament characters and events, don't you?

Your point? Why is Christianity right, as opposed to Islam? They share certain similarities, but I don't think anyone would say they're the same thing.

The vedas seem to have been written starting around 1500 B.C., nearly contemporary to Moses. An interesting time. Must have been the development of useful written language and implements that makes this a coincidence. I do not know if the vedas were similarly defended by martyrs, but belivers in the Q'uran have a way of killing their detractors.

Okay, so why did god only give the truth to the people living in the middle east, and let all those poor Hindus get the "fake" religion. Does god not like India? Why did he like the people living around Israel so much to tell them and only them the truth?

Nowadays, Chrtistians are once again the martyrs, all over the world. It comes with the territory. They are not alone, I know.

Yeah, poor Christians. Imagine if only one day a Christian could become President of the United States, or Prime Minister of England, or Prime Minister of Canada, or President of France, or Germany. It's a shame that no major power will elect a Christian to lead them. Oh, wait, I got that backwards, the poor, downtrodden Christians have managed to field heads of state in *all* of those places, and in the United States it's virtually a requirement. Not bad for such a persecuted bunch.

I was taught in high school that 'Homer' wrote at least two good books. Well, that didn't hold up. But we don't have any record that those books were intended to be read as 'divinely inspired'. Actually, the Hebrew god and Christ I think are singular individuals in literature as in life. Comparing them to others is not useful.

You're the one who brought "him" up.

But the issue of 'modern miracles' is a difficult one. After you go through the fakes and mistakes, there are few documented miracles.

Or none.

And within Christianity, there is considerable debate over whether they are even necessary.

The point isn't whether they're necessary, it's that the Bible claims they used to happen, and yet they don't now. Kind of like how nobody ever has a camera handy when Bigfoot shows up.

One question I do have. Was Greek mythology intended as testimonials, or was it pure fiction even then?

The ancient Greeks were just as sure their religion was right as you are sure of yours today.

While many claim the Bible is a collection of myths and legends, the Torah is held to be a literal history.

Hoo-boy, I hope you're not using th

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[supersloshy]

The point is not which choice is best; the point is that there is not enough information to make a choice that is certainly better than the others. And this is what the original poster would have you disagreeing with.

Take a look at all of the other religions out there and see what they say. They all have their "dos" and "do-nots", but it's not just as simple as "do what [insert deity here] says or you go to hell". Christianity is unique in the aspect that we are loved by God and He wants us to love Him back by sharing His love with everyone else. God doesn't "command" people to do things, He asks us nicely. He generously gave us the gift of choice so we don't feel forced to follow Him. Many things that God asks of us may seem "oppressive" or "unrealistic" at first, but if you bother to dig deeper than the arguments the world has, you'll find liberation, freedom from the "laws" that God asks us to follow because we wouldn't want to do otherwise.

With that said, I can't possibly imagine how someone would ever want to turn down this invitation without at least critically analyzing everything from both points of view. I'm not stubbornly dogmatic; the Catholic church even says that questioning your beliefs is a good thing (*gasp*!) so that you can understand what God asks of us better instead of blindly following His teachings.

Of every other religion out there, this one makes the most sense to me, sounds the most reasonable, and asks of us things in a non-oppressive manner. I have never seen a religion like this before in my whole life, and this is why I am a Catholic; not of fear or because I'm stubborn/bigoted/crazy, but because the love God shows us is unlike anything I've ever seen and it amazes me that people willingly refuse to go any further than generic stereotyping when it comes to understanding God.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[digitig]

Sorry, but logic doesn't work this way. A logical proof only guarantees that if the premises of the argument are true, then the conclusions must also be true. Because of this, it is fundamentally impossible for a logical proof to demonstrate anything about the nature of reality.

Not quite right. That's true of classical logic, but modal logics contain some assumptions about reality (specifically concerning possibility and necessity), so within a modal logic it is possible to demonstrate something about the "reality" that the logic describes. The issue is whether that "reality" is the one in which we live -- my point of disagreement with Plantinga -- but that's undecidable by observation.

One problem with Plantinga's argument is that he assumes it is possible for an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent entity to exist, but this is exactly the kind of god we know cannot exist because of the problem of evil (never mind the logical self-inconsistency of omnipotence).

Actually we know of no such thing. As Adams pointed out in 1993, the arguments against God from the problem of evil only work if we add "utilitarian" to the characteristics of God. If God is a deontic or virtue ethicist then the existing arguments fail. And "omnipotence" is not necessarily self-inconsistent. Philosophers observed quite early on that putting "God can" in front of a meaningless statement does not yield a meaningful statement, so most of the supposed paradoxes are actually meaningless statements.

As for Stephen Hawking's argument, I'd have to read the book, but in principle it is completely accurate that there is simply no reason to believe in one.

There is no objective reason to believe in one, true.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[supersloshy]

I'd rather take a chance than take no chance at all.

You're lucky I found you! You see, I was informed by God himself that if you only believe out of fear, then you cease to exist. He doesn't want cowardly sycophants populating His plane.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1774738&cid=33452284

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Piata]

The God Delusion is a terrible book. I wish people would stop recommending it so highly as it's mostly Dawkins pushing his personal views with the same fury and single mindedness as your average religious zealot. Maybe you enjoy his butt hurt whining for 12+ chapters but I got bored of his one dimensional thinking pretty fast.

Instead I would much more highly recommend Guns, Germs and Steel as it doesn't even bother with the God question but succintely deals with it as a minor event that occurs in all societies when they reach a certain population density. Gods and Religions allow a ruling class to control the masses and extract more tribute, which is essential when societies grow to a large enough size. There's nothing more to it than that.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[m50d]

It's a question of correcting someone when they're clearly wrong - it's no better or worse than the grammar correction it was done in response to.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[digitig]

For those religions you get the mustard gas even if you don't open a box, so not opening a box is still the worst strategy.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Twinbee]

That seems to be the position of many "new age" spiritualities, although they come with their own baggage.

Exactly, the new agers would be the closest, although I certainly don't hold the extra arbitrary beliefs they do. Also apart from our 'souls', I don't really think anything supernatural is going on (unless you count the universe juggling trillions of atoms as being supernatural, which is pretty incredible when you think about it).

The idea that the universe exists by virtue of being observed

I wasn't so much thinking of existing by being observed so much as us actually creating it (or some subset of 'us' as perhaps they're not existing on Earth at this moment).

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[EnsilZah]

Well then why can't something else be outside time and have the same results?
Or would you also call that god?
Or does being outside time somehow necessitate agency and if so why?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[naoursla]

This isn't really a rational argument, but it is a different viewpoint.

The universe exists and it came from somewhere. There is a base case to the recursive question of "where did I come from" and that is God. In actuality, God is all there is. This is kind of "by definition". There is a root node to creation that I call God and since everything came out of that, everything is a part of God.

I believe that God doesn't have the same constraints of time and the speed of light that we seem to. Maybe he is sort of like a computer that doesn't have time, space, entropy or Turing computation constraints. In that case, literally, all things are possible in God.

Though the magic of this infinite computation, our universe is simulated -- although simulated might not be the right word in the context of this types of computation. The multiple universe theory of quantum mechanics suggests that maybe there isn't a single reality being simulated. Maybe there are multiple truths. And maybe these areas of different truths can interact as long as there are not constraints that prevent them from interacting.

The Christian catechism has a question that is something like "Why did God create the world?" to which the official answer is "For his own glory." I never liked that answer and prefer to interpret its meaning more as "To explore the phase space of what is possible." Imagine you are a solitary intelligence with no constraints. What are you going to do? Maybe you start playing with what is possible with systems of constraints. So you put constaints on part of yourself and see what happens.

One of the things that happens is us. Our job is to see what happens when we do stuff. But we are still made out of God-stuff and are only constrained by the rules that we created for ourself. With infinite memory, there is no reason to throw anything away so we can be remembered for eternity and with infinite computation there is no reason to just archive stuff so we can keep running in some other system after we stop running in this constraint system. Since we are God, maybe we get to choose how we want to continue operating after we leave this world. Maybe to maintain a sense of "you" in the after life, the system in which you run is patterened after your beliefs. Or maybe not.

Based on the assumption that we have free will, and that free will gives us choice about how to spend our after life, what about people who find existence so terrible that they don't want to exist? Is oblivion an option? What about people who reject God (although they are really rejecting themselves)? What happens there? Disbelief in God is different from rejection of God. I've know athiests who fall into both camps (i.e. "I don't believe in God, but if he did exist I wouldn't like him" vs "I don't believe in God so whatever.")

I do believe there is right and wrong. I can think about things in my past that I regret. Those are parts of myself that I don't like. In other words, I reject those parts of myself. Since I am God-stuff, I believe that God tends to "reject" the same sort of things that I reject. This goes back to the knowledge of good and evil described in the Old Testament book of Genesis. When I die and get to view my entire life through the persepective of a larger consciousness, I don't want to reject who I am (I believe the message of forgiveness in the New Testament is intended to prevert this rejection).

But none of this is a rational argument other than (I think) the base case definition as God. The idea that the base case is an unconstrained intelligence and everything that follows from that might as well be fiction, but it is a fiction that meshes well with the Christian programming I received as a child.

By the way, since the purpose of us is the explore the phase space of what is possible, by being an athiest, your are exploring an important area of that phase space. I would like to thank you for your contribution. Also since you are God-stuff, your choice to explore that area means you won't be seeing any evidence of God during your time here. From your perspective, people who believe in God are actually following a belief system based on fairy tales. But from their perspective, those belief systems are true.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[MightyYar]

If they are wrong, and there turns out to be a judgement day they will spend eternity burning in hell.

Let's say I'm an atheist, and you've just convinced me that I don't have my bases covered. Now I have to pick a moral code and religion to live by so that I don't piss off whomever it is that gets to pass judgment on me when I die. Who should I pick? Jesus seems cool... but won't worshiping him piss off the Jewish/Islamic God? What if they are right? What if the Romans and Greeks were right and I'm really ticking off Jupiter and friends? Won't Buddha do a belly laugh at my attempts to join him in Nirvana and just re-cast me as a cricket? What would Mother Earth say? How many Gods have I just angered by leaving them out of this list?

To a non-believer, the idea that you must practice a religion "just in case" is rather odd. Which one is right? How can you expect someone who expects empirical evidence to accept a faith?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[ultranova]

As an agnostic I naively thought I wouldn't have to deal with the debate.

You don't. No one and nothing is forcing you to. You can simply stop reading right here and not deal with it anymore. Or did you mean "have to" as in "I have to correct this fool, because otherwise he wouldn't know of my mental superiority"?

Seriously, why are you posting if you don't want to get involved?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Tomulus]

"Who built the builders?" They were the result of natural processes

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[EnsilZah]

I really can't see the distinction and I don't see how the second part of that statement follows from the first.
Because there's no known way for something to come from nothing... only an almighty random number generator could generate something from nothing.
What makes this almighty creator any different from any other process that you can complete that sentence with?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Some Bitch]

None know the sex of the turtle, all we can say for sure is...the turtle moves.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Some Bitch]

The fifth elephant wound up as treacle and mineral ores in Uberwald after falling off Great A'Tuin several millennia ago.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[bugs2squash]

When the Jesuits say "Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man" They are not forecasting.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[UnknownSoldier]

> but at the beginning what was the cause

Your fallacy is _assuming_ there was a beginning.

A circle has neither a beginning or end. It just is.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[colinrichardday]

Maybe a bull, or does she own all of those, too?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[ElKry]

Do you not need people in order to believe in God?

Re:The Golden Mean

[Quirkz]

I think sometimes people from your first camp get drawn into (or toward) the second camp as a way to create some space for themselves. Because it's nice to just kind of quietly believe what you like, but it's also very difficult (especially in the states) not to have other people's religion pushed onto you a bit--at the social level it's sometimes completely unintentional, sometimes pretty intentional, at other levels (like political) it's often very intentional. Taking the stance of an active disbeliever may be a way to say, "hey, get your religion out of my life!"

I do think there's a big difference between fighting for some personal space and being dogmatic about it and taking every opportunity to fight over the issue. You're probably talking more about the latter than the former, I realize, but I think there's also a lot of middle ground besides the two camps you mentioned.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[blueg3]

Equal probability isn't a default you can fall back on when you have no information. The correct answer is that you have no information, not that they have equal probability.

Re:Moses (was after Abraham)

[hex0D]

So how can you say Moses invented the 'single god'? Why are the major mono-theistic religions referred to as 'Abrahamic' religions? And what defined the Jews in Egypt if not this belief, taken from Abraham?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[sorak]

So, wouldn't Buddhism select itself out of existence? Christians spread Christianity and keep coming back as Christians. Once a Buddhist gets the right idea, he has 80 or 90 years at most to spread it, and then he's gone. If Buddhists had the right idea, you'd think that their population would dwindle.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Teckla]

One thing is sure, though: any strategy that involves opening a box is better than the strategy of not opening any of them because you can't decide.

Maybe God sends you to hell for believing in the wrong God, but DOES NOT send you to hell for not believing in him at all.

In that case, being an atheist would be the right box to open!

The point being: Even if God does exist, you STILL can't know what he wants. (Of course, many religions have made a great business at telling you what God wants. But if you believe in those religions, are you REALLY having faith in God himself...or are you putting your faith in those people who are telling you what God wants?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[DeadCatX2]

In other words, they choose to do the "right" thing because it is right, not because someone else said it was right and threatened them with torture if they disobeyed.

One of the reasons I liked the anime Naruto, is because Kakashi-sensei said in one of the very early episodes that "not doing right when you know it is right is a coward's way"

Also, Final Fantasy 9 had a quote from Zidane, something along the lines of "you don't need a reason to help people".

It is indeed possible to have morals without religion.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[pulse2600]

Ok, Ill bite...

It seems overwhelmingly self evident to me that people inherit their religious beliefs from their parents and the society around them. They don't wait until they're adults, capable of making these kinds of Big Decisions with a rational mind. They don't research all the alternatives and make an informed decision. They're basically brainwashed from birth.

I don't think this is completely true. You are correct, parents generally attempt to influence their children's religious beliefs at a young age, and religions provide means of education, indoctrination, and initiation of members from birth. I think brainwashing might not be the right word for this. However I also believe that as adults we all have the ability to learn, expand our minds, challenge the world around them, etc which usually leads to things like higher education and otherwise exploring different ideas about everything. I was raised Catholic, that is what I follow to this day, but not simply because that's what I was indoctrinated with as a child...as an adult I had questions, looked to challenge some of those ideas and challenging those ideas for me actually strengthened my faith.

If God really is a psychopath; i.e., if God really is going to send you to hell for eternity because you didn't believe or did believe, but believed in the wrong God, then the vast, vast majority of humanity is screwed, and is going to hell, because even if you do believe in the right God, chances are your faith and adherence to your religion is watered down enough to piss him off to send you to hell anyway...

Just one thing about the whole "right vs wrong God" thing...the major monotheistic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam - are there any others I can't think of? Maybe even Zoroasterism?) all worship the same God, even if some of the more fringe, radical types of people don't want to accept it. Just because a particular radical Muslim, for example, might believe that worshipping Allah is not the same thing as worshipping the Christian God, it doesn't mean they aren't doing it in reality. I might be able to stretch this a bit further by saying that maybe even some polytheistic religions are actually worshipping the same God I point to here, but they may simply incorrectly see other powerful spiritual beings as "gods". Catholicism gets a bad rap for this, some people seem to think that we worship angels and saints...this view is not correct. However maybe some of these polytheistic religions are looking at angels, saints, etc as "other gods". While God may not be man-made, religion is and therefore must be flawed in one or more aspects of each religion man creates. However the rest of what you say makes sense and surely is a possibility, except when you consider what you write next...

I would argue that to have true faith and confidence in God would mean having faith and confidence that he's competent and his plan doesn't suck so much that the vast majority of human souls will spend eternity in hell. You should have faith that God is not a complete psychopath just waiting to make the vast majority of his creation suffer torment for all eternity.

Now here is the big selling point for Christianity that seems to be lost on most people (including many Christians). Christianity is the new covenant between God and humanity. The concepts that are central to the Christian faith is this: God is perfect. God has created imperfect beings. God formed a new covenant with humanity and decided to be present among us in the form of a "human son" to teach us about this new covenant, about our imperfection, and eventually our salvation. The new covenant was sealed with the death of Christ on the cross, an event people commonly refer to as "Christ's personal sacrifice / death on the cross for our sins". The whole point of this exercise was for God to show us that he loves us so much that he sent his one and only son to "save" us from the devil, Hell, etc. (BTW: I really don't like the concept of

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[bjk002]

Or perhaps they all exist! And each of us have to serve our respective eternities with each in turn, before arriving at our predisposed choice?

Something to think about...

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[SpeZek]

Nothing came into being at the big bang. The Big Bang wasn't a bang that created things, it was a rapid expansion of things that were already there. Strong and weak forces were already in play. The only thing that was "made" was empty space between things.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[infinite9]

I'm a christian.

And many theists assume that, even if there is a God, that it's important to him that you believe in him during this life. (Why would that be so important to God anyway?!)

I believe you're given an opportunity to redeem yourself here on earth. Once you're out of here permanently, you've either missed your chance or you haven't. Why it's been setup this way, I have no idea.

And many theists assume that, if you don't believe in God before you die, that God will be so upset that he'll send you to hell for eternity. (Why do so many theists think God is a psychopath?)

God doesn't want anyone to end up in hell. If you end up in hell, it's because you've sent yourself there by not accepting the offer of rescue.

And even if you do believe in God, what are the chances you've chosen the right one to believe in?

Deeply personal things have happened in my life to prove it to me. I became a christian at 14. At that instant, I was filled with an overwhelming sense of peace and love, something I had never felt before, not even from my parents. I believe this was the holy spirit. I know it sounds fantastic. And you might be able to explain it away with some scientific explanation. But it doesn't matter to me what other people think about my experience and decision.

Christianity? What if the Muslims are right?

Islam? What if the Jews are right?

Judaism? What if the Hindus are right?

Hinduism? What if the Buddhists are right?

What if all the major religions are wrong?

Bible prophecy exists, not so that people can predict the future (although you can), but so that people can look back at the prophecy and know that the bible predicted it before it happened. There are 100s of prophecies in the bible that have been fulfilled. It's never been wrong. Some of them are vague and could maybe be explained away by a skeptic. But others are impossible to explain away. (The Daniel 11 (iirc) prophecy for example.) Some of the prophecies are so dead on that historians insist that they were written after the event, even when much proof exists that says otherwise.

I believe the other religions in the world are demonic in origin, specifically designed to direct people away from salvation.

And on and on it goes...

It seems overwhelmingly self evident to me that people inherit their religious beliefs from their parents and the society around them. They don't wait until they're adults, capable of making these kinds of Big Decisions with a rational mind. They don't research all the alternatives and make an informed decision. They're basically brainwashed from birth.

I became a christian at the age of 14 in spite of my parents.

If God really is a psychopath; i.e., if God really is going to send you to hell for eternity because you didn't believe or did believe, but believed in the wrong God,

Like I said, you send yourself there. God (Jesus) will rescue you if you only accept the offer. It's true that people are deceived into believing the wrong thing. This is why satan is called the great deceiver. But have people been completely deceived, or have people allowed themselves to be deceived because the deception is more compatible with their desire to live in opposition to God?

then the vast, vast majority of humanity is screwed, and is going to hell, because even if you do believe in the right God, chances are your faith and adherence to your religion is watered down enough to piss him off to send you to hell anyway...

Sadly, it's true that the vast majority of humanity won't make it. But getting into heaven is about accepting the offer of redemption. Once you're saved, you're always saved, no matter what.

I would argue that to have true faith and

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[fiannaFailMan]

Scientifically, philosophically and theologically "the beginning" is just something we can't figure out. Perhaps our brains are too small.

Only royalty can use "we" in that sense.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[vadim_t]

Well, that's the problem with it. Agnosticism is saying "the existence or inexistence of god is unknownable". IMO you don't reach such a conclusion by "who gives a shit?", that's better described as apatheism.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[debiansid]

http://www.freethunk.net/russells-teapot/comics-russells-teapot-strip-2.php :D

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[fiannaFailMan]

He's publicly stated a belief in an invisible sky wizard, improper use of "who" and "whom" is the least of bit of evidence pointing to a lack of intelligence.

Here's an honest question, I ask of you as a fellow atheist:

Why do so many atheists feel the need to be smug assholes? What the fuck does it matter to you if he believes in 'an invisible sky wizard'? Why can't you just let people believe what they will, why must you impose your beliefs on other people?

Religion has infiltrated or taken over the education system of many countries, secured public funding from people including those who do not adhere to its doctrines, and in some religions (such as Christianity) there is an imperative to convert people to that faith. In other religions (such as the more violent flavours of Islam) there is an imperative to kill infidels and apostates. Preachers stand at street corners yelling into megaphones at people going about their business telling them that they're all going to burn in hell for all eternity.

But yeah, it's really the atheists who are "smug assholes" and are "trying to impose their beliefs on other people."

How you got an "insightful" mod rather than a "troll" is beyond me.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[ManUMan]

For what it is worth, the modal logic version of the "Ontological" argument was first advanced by Charles Hartshorne in Anselm's Discovery and the Logic of Perfection. Plantinga's version of the argument emphasizes the way that "necessary existence" is different from "existence." None the less both emphasize the articulation of Anselm in the third chapter of the Proslogion rather than the second.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[meerling]

"We who are about to die, don't want to." Rincewind

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[bjk002]

"they choose to do the "right" thing because it is right, not because someone else said it was right and threatened them with torture if they disobeyed."

I call it individualized social-humanistic morality [link], where "right" is self-determined based on the awareness of the potential of human society.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[jfengel]

Believers are in the same position: they accept some deity(ies), while believers in other deities threaten eternal punishment. So belief is no protection against having chosen the wrong deity. We're stuck with a large set of arbitrary, conflicting infinite promises/threats.

So we step back and ask if any of these infinities have anything behind them besides "I said so". Since none of them do, my choice can be arbitrary.

Then again, I could have saved a bunch of work by simply rejecting your premise. Its probability is non-zero, but so are an infinite number of other hypotheses, and "it might be true so it must be treated as true" is not a form of logic you want to get started with. It leads you to very bad places very fast.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[infinite9]

Because "God did it" adds nothing to our understanding and adds an extra, seemingly unnecessary link in the chain of reasoning. It's a platitude, not an explanation. On top of that, "God did it" has never, in the entire history of mankind, been the correct answer where such answers became knowable:

Why does the sun move across the sky? God did it... no wait, the earth is rotating so it only seems the sun moves across the sky. Why do people get sick? God did it... no wait, it turns out there are things called germs and pathogens that affect our bodies and make us sick. Where does thunder and lightning come from? How is wine formed from grape juice? What causes the seasons to change? There used to be a "God did it" explanation for all of these.

I'd like to point out that christians still wouldn't be wrong by suggesting that God did it, even if a later scientific explanation were available, since it's all a creation of God. To me, science is simply the study of God's creation. If we discover some scientific explanation for something, it may be that previous assumptions that were made by christians about the nature of the universe might have been incorrect. But I think the difference between me and non-christians is that I'm open-minded enough to consider the possibility that "facts" proven by science may actually be inaccurate or even totally incorrect. I'm also not hard-headed enough to think that christians are always 100% right about the nature of the universe and the current mainstream belief about the age of the earth for example. Time has has no meaning (or at least is perceived totally differently) in the afterlife. It may be that both christians and scientists are technically right about the age of the earth.

So why should we accept "God did it" as the reason the universe exists?

Why should I accept that there is no God? Because of science?

Go one step further...

[bjk002]

Suppose a GOD truly exists as you describe as a "psychopath".

Why would anyone with any soul at all ever worship a deity proclaiming his/her intent to cast so many righteous individuals (in terms of their own belief system, right or wrong) to an eternity in hell because they worshiped the wrong way?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Manfred Maccx]

Science still can't explain from where soul is coming from and what happens with it after death.

You are making a big assumption here. You are assuming that there is such a thing as a "soul" and you are assuming that science can't comprehend it. So far, even if there are still a lot of things to learn about the brain, science got a pretty good grasp on the electro-chemical processes happening in our brain and many other animals' brain too.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[gfreeman]

Something created what exists, otherwise it would not exist. Things don't magically pop in and out of existence; there's something that does it.

Well, yes they sort of do. The theory is that the switching of the overcritical field that causes the spontaneous creation of the universe, is the destruction of the universe before it. Ad infinitum, and it's possible that the previous universe is actually this universe - if time is curved in on itself totally.

It was explained to me much better than I can explain it here, sorry :(

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[AkiraRoberts]

I'm about to oversimplify again, but one response is the Mahayana Buddhist concept of the bodhisattva - an individual who becomes enlightened but holds back from going all the way with it until all sentient beings have been liberated.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[doshell]

I am discussing the truth value of the proposition put forth by the original poster: that "atheists stake their eternal future on the presumption that God does not exist" and (not said but implied by the poster) god-believers somehow do not. I presented an argument showing that the proposition is false. My argument is not affected in any way by personal beliefs (either yours, mine, or anyone else's) or the intricacies of particular religions, which is all your last post refers to. Your remarks, though relevant and even interesting in other contexts, do not have a bearing on anything I said previously.

You seem to be too focused on your own personal beliefs to analyze this matter from an unbiased, rational point of view. I'm not inviting you to give up on your beliefs; however, in order to have a rational conversation, you must at the very least be able to abstract from them (which does not mean ceasing to believe in them). Otherwise, you will soon find you cannot have any meaningful conversation with people with different beliefs than yours (and then you probably wonder why they do not seem to respect your own).

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[infinite9]

It has nothing to do with me being an atheist, I'm just an asshole.

God loves you in spite of this and wants you to accept his invitation to live forever. :-)

Argumentum ad Baculum

[Epeeist]

If they are wrong, and there turns out to be a judgement day they will spend eternity burning in hell.

The standard Christian thing, believe or burn in hell for ever. Such a good argument it has been used by the Mafia ever since.

Now others have pointed out that you are also invoking Pascal's Wager, something that relies on your god being so stupid he doesn't realise that you are only believing in the hope of a reward. A reward you will never get since only non-theists go to heaven.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[MysteriousPreacher]

Occam's razor isn't about favouring the simplest solution: It's about opting for the solution that requires the least number of assumptions and entities. Supernatural explanations by their very nature tend to multiple assumptions and entities way beyond anything offered by naturalistic solutions.

Which position requires fewer assumptions?

1) There is a divine being who created the universe and takes a personal interest in our lives.

2) Earlier societies, when faced with need to understand how the world works, would use a mixture of superstition and inductive reasoning to arrive at similar outcomes - i.e. guesses.

I deliberately avoid describing earlier societies as being primitive, since we see the same stuff going on today. A large group of people honestly believed Palin to be a great choice, and there's no shortage of people willing to argue against the evidence for 9/11 and the efficacy and safety of vaccines. Occam's razor isn't foolproof but it's certainly easier to test a hypotheses when it requires fewer assumptions and entities. The Sherlock Holmes approach of first eliminating the improbable isn't necessarily the best approach when the improbable is supernatural and prone to being redefined to defeat efforts to challenge or test it.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[digitig]

It depends on what you mean by "good reason". There can be no scientific reason, for some definitions of "scientific", because the modern version of the scientific method was actually developed with the express purpose of excluding any foundation for religious belief. For instance, Russell Berg has proposed 15 criteria for whether a theory is scietific (behind paywall, sorry), and his first criteria is that it excludes God and gods. On those rules there can't be a "good" reason by definition, but I think it tells us more about the people making the rules than about the existence of God.

I do think that if somebody believes that they have had a subjective experience of God then it is rational to act on that experience unless they have good reason to reject it, and "lack of evidence" is not of itself good reason to reject it because they do have evidence (I don't say "proof"), they just can't pass it on other than by unverifiable statements. Alternative explanations are not necessarily sufficient reasons for rejecting the experience either, unless there is good reason for preferring those explanations. When push comes to shove, all evidence available to the individual is apprehended subjectively, and there's no a priori reason to prefer one set of subjective experiences to another.

Consider a thought experiment. Imagine you are charged with murder. You have no recollection of committing the murder, but rather have a clear recollection of being at home on your own on the evening the murder occurred. However, you have a motive and are picked out in a line-up, and ultimately convicted. The scientific (especially the classical foundationalist) view is that the objective evidence points clearly to your guilt, so you should reject the hypothesis that you are innocent. Because of information only available to you, subjectively, though, you would be completely rational to continue to believe yourself innocent, even though your recollection could in theory be defective. Sure, if the evidence continues to pile up -- a taxi driver remembers picking you up from home and taking you to the murder scene, he has the stub that shows he was paid with your credit card, DNA evidence places you at the scene, and so on, there comes a point when you would have to take seriously the possibility that your recollection is wrong. But the point remains: your subjective recollection, whilst being fallible, does carry some weight, so the degree of proof needed to convince you that you are wrong is quite properly higher than the level of proof needed to convince anybody else that you are wrong.

Now, what about your wife? She was away at a conference at the time of the murder, but based on her knowledge of you she tends to trust your claims of innocence. Not as strongly as you do, because she doesn't have the subjective experience, but enough to campaign about what she is sure is a miscarriage of justice.

Between those two positions I do see how it can be reasonable to have religious belief, either because of subjective experience or trust in the testimony of those who claim to have had religious experience. Neither position is "scientific", but I believe that both can be rational as long as they don't hold out against too much contrary evidence (and what constitutes "too much" is subjective anyway).

Does that make any sense?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[ultranova]

That is a question to which an answer will never be found. Never. I'm not being pessimistic, it's simply that to discover the answer, one has to be able to manipulate the system from outside of it. The known universe is 8.79829142 x10^26 meters in diameter. We're about 1.5 x10^0 meters.

And top quark is about 10^-24 meters in width. Yet we can detect and make experiments on it.

Yes, because it's smaller than us, so we can easily look at it from the outside. We can't look at the known universe from the outside, because it would take billions of years to travel outside of it even at the speed of light and ignoring its expansion.

Also, learn to use blockquote.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[oldmac31310]

The drawers were made by a highly skilled cabinet maker whose name eludes me at this time.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[digitig]

But if you believe in those religions, are you REALLY having faith in God himself...or are you putting your faith in those people who are telling you what God wants?

Ultimately everybody -- religious, agnostic, atheist -- is putting faith in themselves making the right call. I don't see any way around that.

Why the fuss?

[Froggels]

Science and God are not mutually exclusive.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[MightyYar]

I'm curious how you would describe the reasons for even having a personal code?

Just like religious people, atheists have various reasons. But I think what it boils down to is that - with the exception of sociopaths - people generally have a sense of empathy and so doing terrible things to other people makes it hard to sleep at night, even with prescription drugs.

I've even seen an economic argument against things like murder. The fact is that religions tend to codify rules that existed before that particular religion itself did.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[precariousgray]

I could also postulate there is a god that will send you to hell for being a nice person

I just wanted to chime in and let you guys know that this God does indeed exist, and further, I suggest that you be nice to others UNDER ABSOLUTELY NO CIRCUMSTANCES WHATSOEVER.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[James_Duncan8181]

"The fear of libertarianism is the terror that the mediocre feel at the possibility of being judged on their merits."

Well, or the feeling that the job of society is to support all of the members of that society...or even that regulation of the market produces better outcomes. You've got a bit of a strawman there.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[sumdumass]

But along that circle is can be points of reference much like how a clock is numbered so you know when the day starts and stops.

Time will have a beginning and end as points of reference. Especially, when we are attempting to pin specific events to it.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Cyberax]

OK. Earth is larger than us, but we were able to learn quite a bit about it long before we even discovered all the continents.

There's no hard requirement 'to be outside' of something.

<blockquote>Also, learn to use blockquote. </blockquote>

I hate the formatting language here.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[MightyYar]

And hey, if you do that, you'll become a martyr! Just imagine all the children you'll usher into heaven, even if you're going to hell.

And as a bonus, more reward virgins await suicide bombers in heaven!

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[MadUndergrad]

"What would Zeus Do?"

Turn into a duck and have sex with it.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[canadian_right]

The ontological proof is the weakest one of the six common proofs.

• The cosmological argument argues that there was a "first cause", or "prime mover" who is identified as God. It starts with a claim about the world, like its containing entities or motion.
• The teleological argument argues that the universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator God. It starts with a rather more complicated claim about the world, i.e. that it exhibits order and design. This argument has two versions: One based on the analogy of design and designer, the other arguing that goals can only occur in minds.
• The ontological argument is based on arguments about a "being greater than which cannot be conceived". It starts simply with a concept of God.[16] Avicenna,[17][18] St. Anselm of Canterbury and Alvin Plantinga formulated this argument to show that if it is logically possible for God (a necessary being) to exist, then God exists.[16]
• The anthropic argument suggests that basic facts, such as our existence, are best explained by the existence of God.
• The moral argument argues that the existence of objective morality depends on the existence of God.
• The transcendental argument suggests that logic, science, ethics, and other things we take seriously do not make sense in the absence of God, and that atheistic arguments must ultimately refute themselves if pressed with rigorous consistency.

Pretty much all of these boil down to "I really, really, really, want there to be a god".

And the rebuttals:

• Cosmological - recursion problem
• teleological - explaining away complexity be adding a complex being.
• ontological - starting with what you want
• anthropic - recursion problem
• moral - a quick read of the bible clearly shows that modern christians get their moral values form the same place as athiests: modern liberal secular values that have been explored since the enlightenment and can be simply expressed as do onto others as you would have done to yourself, or do not directly harm other people.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[beschra]

I'd say that it takes faith to believe that it doesn't matter if you neither accept nor reject.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[gfreeman]

So you are running into meaningful coincidences every day? I don't. No-one I know does. I have never even heard of anyone for which that statement is true. Until now, and you.

From this, I deduce that either;

God exists and you are his chosen one,
or
You are suffering from some sort of mental delusion, for which I urge you to seek professional help,
or
You misunderstand what a coincidence actually is.

Based on my experience in this world, one of those is infinitesimally unlikely.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[ultranova]

OK. Earth is larger than us, but we were able to learn quite a bit about it long before we even discovered all the continents.

We did. There's still a lot we don't know about it, because we don't have other earths to experiment with and compare the results. For example, is global warming caused by human activity, Sun's activity, some natural to Earth cycle, or alien heat rays softening us up for the invasion?

There's no hard requirement 'to be outside' of something.

Yes, there is. How are you going to isolate the influence of various variables if you can't perform different experiments and compare the results?

I hate the formatting language here.

I hate it too, but it's simply easier to tell what is quoted text and what is not if you use blockquote rather than quotes.

I know God exists for a fact

[CrazyJim1]

The notion that God created the universe isn't some tool to prove that God exists. The notion that God created the universe is something you need to take with faith. If you have no faith in God, you don't have faith he created the universe. If I wanted to build someone's faith, I'd start with showing that God is good and loving then go forward from there. Just because the beginning of the Bible starts with God creating the universe doesn't mean its the part designed to build your faith the most.

I know God is real. Jesus is LORD. I know for an absolute fact. www.goodnewsjim.com

Hebrews 11:3 "It is by faith that we understand that the universe was created by God's word, so that what can be seen was made out of what cannot be seen. "

Re:I know God exists for a fact

[LanMan04]

I know God is real. Jesus is LORD. I know for an absolute fact.

[Citation Needed]

Re:I know God exists for a fact

[HeckRuler]

haha, Jim, you crazy.

Re:I know God exists for a fact

[John Hasler]

The notion that God created the universe is something you need to take with faith.

Therefor there is no point in discussing it with those who do have faith.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Raenex]

I'm sorry you aren't taking up the chance I have given you. Now you have no chance at all.

Re: If they are wrong

[canadian_right]

Catholic is pretty mainstream and here is their thoughts on what happens to unbelievers after death:

Those who have rejected God and His love are condemned to torment in a temporary hell until the resurrection. At the resurrection the condemned souls are reunited with their bodies and then they are cast into the everlasting hell with the devil and his fallen angels.

Unbelievers go through the same process as Christians. The difference is that someone who does not believe in Christ or His Church is not condemned for that fact IF, and this is ONLY IF, they are invincible ignorant of Christ and His Church.

The definition of God

[DeadCatX2]

I believe the problem lies in the definition of God. There is this obsession with defining God as some entity that exists separate from our existence.

I say bullshit. God is the position and momentum of every particle in existence at every moment in time with infinite precision. God is all the laws of physics that control the evolution of those particles' position and momentum. God knows laws that we don't understand or fail to model; our physics are just poor approximation for God's laws, further distorted by our limitation of finite measurements.

This is why God knows everything. This is why God is everywhere. This is why God is all powerful. This is why there is only one God. It's the only way I can reconcile the classical concept of a God with the scientific world that I know is correct.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[oldmac31310]

I don't think Buddhish is a religion in the same way as other religions. I see it more as a philosophy. What is the Buddhist god? Buddha? No. I don't think there is a buddhist god, therefore it is closer to atheism that theism. Of course plenty of versions of Buddhism resemble religions more due to rituals and various forms or idolatry - but that's not Buddha's fault.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[pieceofstone]

Maybe you would be amused by this Dresden Codak comic. http://dresdencodak.com/2005/11/29/secular-heaven/

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Missing.Matter]

One of the funniest and scariest things said to me: "You're an atheist? How do you know right from wrong if you don't believe in God? If I wasn't Christian, there'd be nothing stopping me from going on a killing spree."

In other news...

[pwolk]

...Pope Picks God over Physics For Big Bang

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[MightyYar]

What the fuck does it matter to you if he believes in 'an invisible sky wizard'?

It must be the same force that drives people to become an evangelical Christian. Some people just have a bug to tell people how they should be living their lives.

Honestly, I feel sorry for these people - they are destined to be unhappy, as they will never convince everyone. That has to be frustrating as hell.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[bobdotorg]

Things don't magically pop in and out of existence

You appear to be unfamiliar with ninjas. Space ninjas.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[canadian_right]

Most atheists do what they want so long as it does not directly harm other people. Most atheists are very moral people who put a lot of thought into their beliefs instead of just accepting accepting the default dogma of their society.

About 10% of USA citizens are atheists, but atheists only make up about 0.02% of the prison population.

I think it very unlikely there is a god, just as I think it unlikely there is a tooth fairy. BUT, if you were to show me compelling proof of gods existence I would be willing to change my mind. God would have to get busy reducing some of the evil in the world before I'd accept he is good.

Re:Just sprinkle physics dust on it

[iinlane]

It's because he tries to explain mathematics in a language that's originally designed to help apes to find food. Similarly you can't explain quantum physics in human tongue, it just isn't built for that.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[gfreeman]

You don't often see a person of (blind) faith have a crisis of conscience.

Is that supposed to be a good thing? I have no crisis of conscience about giving the same civil rights to homosexuals as to straights, whereas the pope also has no crisis of conscience in this area but he reaches a different conclusion. One of us is wrong.

There's probably a lot more "soul searching" and crises of conscience in churches now, because people are questioning their blind faith. When moral codes and social rules are explained from first principles, they make for fewer crises of conscience than if you are told what to do with no more explanation than "God says so".

Who created the law of gravity?

[Openstandards.net]

Who created the laws of the universe? Forget about the universe! Who created the atom and got all that atomic power to hold together? We've seen what happens when you pop them.

Re:Who created the law of gravity?

[HeckRuler]

The formation of atoms got determined around 3 minutes after the big bang. It's old-hat to high energy physicists. An atomic explosion has nothing on the conditions prior to that 3 minute second mark. So, you're dismissing the conversation and trying to point out something you consider more powerful in sort of a "hey, isn't this more important!" sort of maneuver. And all it's doing is showing your ignorance on the topic. Please refrain from contributing unless you have something to contribute.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[LaRainette]

then the same can be said about gravity.
You're missing the point.

Why would it require someone or something to set a rule ?

I think hawking has it wrong though because it just replaced god by gravity, but it changes little (except for the morons who are convinced the universe was created by an anthropomorphic mad creature who is made of pure love but yet created a race full of hate to rule upon the world, a world which is by the way a little small to be as unique as it is said to be in the bible..)

Re:But what created the morality?

[canadian_right]

Moral atheists get the morals form the same place as modern Christians: modern secular humanism principals which boil down to "do not directly harm other people". The bible is full of evil stuff: kill your kids if they back talk, its ok to kill people who don't observe the sabbath, etc... The old testament is down right vile in places. Christians have generally rejected the "bad" parts of the bible and embraced the good parts: love your neighbor as yourself, turn the other cheek, etc... And the good Christians chose what is good the same way the atheists did.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Missing.Matter]

Doesn't the concept of original sin mean that you're born going to hell? As an outsider, from my understanding it should be common belief among Christians that babies go to hell.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[nschubach]

There are many aspects people stick to binary (true/false) operations on. Democrat or Republican, left or right, God or not... very few people think of the middle ground because the middle ground may actually be a combination of sub-choices and requires more thought. One could argue that every decision boils down to a subtree of true/false actions, even picking a color of paint or pen you use. There are those that stick to black or white because it requires less processing.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Mongoose Disciple]

About 10% of USA citizens are atheists, but atheists only make up about 0.02% of the prison population.

On the other hand, "finding religion" in prison (whether genuinely or not) can make a prisoner seem a more sympathetic figure for parole or other advantageous treatment. I consider myself an atheist, but if I was in prison and thought that seeming to "find Jesus" would get me out faster I probably would.

In a sense I think any kind of statistics on atheism are going to be skewed because most people consider themselves to be religious and some are deeply distrustful of atheists. Most people agree now that you shouldn't judge someone based on their race, and people are starting to come around on sexual orientation, but hating on someone's religion or lack thereof is still very alive and well in our culture. If you ever want to be President, for example, telling people that you're an atheist is not a smart move. Principled, sure, but you've just guaranteed that you won't win.

Re: If they are wrong

[LaRainette]

Christian's official dogma regarding after life has changed so dramatically in the last 2000 years it is pretty hard to take it seriously as a word of god.
Hell was invented in the late 6th century and purgatory in the mid 11th.

With that in mind I ask you do you really believe in God because you have a concern about after life, as some existential quest, or are you just a bigot who doesn't he is one ?

Religion is mostly a social thing.
That's what religious people don't get about atheists. Nobody is trying to limit or judge your thinking, but it would be very reassuring for us if you could sum up your beliefs in non-self-contradicting sentence.
On this side I guess Buddhism is much less scary. It's also mostly based on mythological bullshit but at least it's pretty consistent.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[IICV]

This is true; however, that idea is so unpalatable that most Christians have come up with ways around it. See, for instance, baptism and Dante's idea of limbo.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[eufreka]

Really, it's "easier..."? So amusing to see non-theists appropriating theistic "logic" for their scientific proofs.... Sure, Hawking can theorize that there is no God, even claiming that there is no evidence (acceptable to him) to support the existence of God. But until *he* can make something out of nothing, I think I will keep him relegated to the more suitable position of skeptic. In fact, the *only* way he can prove there is no God is by being/becoming one and making something out of nothing!

In other news ...

[danwiz]

Pope Picks God Over Physics For Universe Creation.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[canadian_right]

God isn't required to explain the universe as it is. The universe as it is has lots of features at odds with an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent being.

Did god let my friends 5 year old daughter die from a brain tumor because: he didn't care, he didn't know, or he could not do anything about it?

Antibiotics have saved more lives than all the "miracles" in all of history.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[kramerd]

You do know that not every religion has the Judeo-Christian concepts of heaven, hell, and "judgement", don't you?

For example, Judaism does not have the concept of hell.

iq is a bell curve

[circletimessquare]

the half below the bell curve never will, nor can you realistically expect them to, understand the world like stephen hawking

so you are going to have to put up with people anthropomorphizing and otherwise taking mental shortcuts to describe their world. the alternative: an iq test before you can have an opinion, is a worse option

we need to learn to accept that some people can only go with the simpleminded and the literal. not everyone is meant to be a great scientist and understand reality at a maximum of the humanly possible. for the simpletons then and their religious tomfoolery then, we need to have begrudging tolerance, and silence. don't worry about it so much, because the way it always has been and always will be

Re:iq is a bell curve

[cowscows]

Ok, well what about intelligent people who are religious? Or do you refuse to accept that such people can exist?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[MartinSchou]

Here's an even better one, courtesy of David Michell

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[nschubach]

One could also say that the bigger problem with most religions isn't so much the existence of God as the placating individuals into thinking there is one and making them follow a strict set of rules decided upon by said religion.

Don't confuse Atheism with Anti-religion. Some people feel both ways, but some of us only feel as though there is no god. I could give a rat's ass what you do in your free time as long as it doesn't mess with my free time.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[blackraven14250]

Actually, the ninjas were always there, you just couldn't see them.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[nschubach]

I would say it's not a faith. It's a philosophy.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[LanMan04]

There are **FOUR** elephants!! /picard

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[blackraven14250]

That means that, according to that paper, the electromagnetic field was there, and created matter, as far as I can tell.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Grizzley9]

But then aren't you putting your defined "God" into physical terms? Seems to me that if there is an infinite God, he would be outside of the laws of his created universe. Comparing his actions to what scientists think should happen is just silly.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[oracleofbargth]

Though, it did start with 5 elephants, but one tripped.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[The Wild Norseman]

In some sense you must say that "they're equally likely to exist" - we have completely identical knowledge/proof about all gods existence (no idea at all),

While I agree with you, I wanted to nitpick slightly.

SO FAR -- all of the characteristics ascribed to various deities over the past ten thousand years or so have been proven to be incorrect; that basically deities are myth and invention made up by humans. First, we have to define what "god" means and again -- SO FAR -- those definitions have been refuted.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Sir_Lewk]

In my understanding of it, "the existence or inexistence of god is unknownable" more accurately describes "strong agnosticism".

I: 1) don't know. 2) don't know if anyone can know. 3) don't care.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[professionalfurryele]

I'm not saying you cant have a nuanced position. I'm not even saying that you cant critique the question itself. If I ask you if there is a shopping centre in a nearby town the correct response may well be "I don't know". But that does not answer the question I asked, it is pointing out that the question was a stupid one to ask (presumably because you don't know the town well enough).

If I press you on the issue you either believe there is a shopping centre, or you do not believe there is a shopping centre. If you really are completely uncertain then you don't believe there is a shopping centre.

You can point out that 'god' is poorly defined and unclear and you have no idea what 'god' is supposed to be. That is fine, but in that case again you don't believe in a god. You are at liberty to point out that asking the question is stupid because you haven't been provided with a definition of god and hence cant believe in one, but there is an answer to the question.

Theists and atheists get frustrated with agnostics because when asked one question they keep answering another.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[bar-agent]

It's worse than that. Can you think of anything done on earth that deserves eternal, and infinite punishment? Think about it.

As I understand it, Hell is not a place of punishment for your actions or inactions specifically, but rather is the default place you and every human ends up in unless you are rescued by God, and he will only do so if you agree to his terms. And Hell is for all of humanity because of the Original Sin. When Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, they basically opened Pandora's Box and created evil. The concept was sealed away until they ate the fruit. In that light, Hell seems reasonable. Humanity reaped what it sowed, and now God looks at us with a jaundiced eye. We are, literally, troublemakers.

Luckily, I am an atheist, so all this is academic to me. But just in case God does exist, and all that nonsense applies, I am tempted to emancipate my eternal soul. You know, just let it go free from my body and live without. Just to put me beyond Hell's grasp. I wonder how theologically sound that is? You can sell your soul, after all, so therefore can you not just give it away, or drop it on the ground?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[LanMan04]

Such beliefs were common method of spreading religion in times when people were fearful, uneducated and ignorant.

You don't get out much, do you?

Today you're much more unlikely to make a person religious by threatening them with Hell and eternal sufferings.

Yeah, that only works on small children.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[yotto]

You are making the assumption (It's okay. I do it all the time).

"It's Turtles All The Way Down" is a catch-all, jokingly straw-man argument when discussing science articles. It's particularly apt here as Hawking himself used it (Though he thinks it originated from another of my favorites, Bertrand Russel) himself in A Brief History of Time. stealing quoting from Wikipedia which I will assume quoted the book:

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever", said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[LanMan04]

Suppose I put twenty boxes in front of you and told you that one of them contained a good cheque for $1,000,000 and the others contained nothing. You can open any one, and keep the contents. What are the changes of picking the right one? Not great. What reason is there for choosing one box over another? Not much: maybe hunch, maybe try to interpret my facial expressions. One thing is sure, though: any strategy that involves opening a box is better than the strategy of not opening any of them because you can't decide.

Unless, of course, there's a 21st box hiding out of view, which no one has ever heard of, that actually contains the cheque. And that box sends you to "hell" for opening one of the 20 boxes that were presented to you.

Religions come into being all the time. Why is one of the currently-existing ones correct?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[AkiraRoberts]

Well no, it's not. You can have Buddhism with or without deities and it works fine either way. But some of Buddhism's claims, in re: the endless cycle of rebirth and suffering have a bit of a non-material feel to them, and veer a little more towards the religious side of things. And it does tend to assimilate whatever sort of deities happen to be around in the countries it ends up.

Of course, the thing about Buddhism is that it "works" even if you do away with all the supernaturalist elements - the Buddha's teachings about suffering etc., applied to a single lifetime, are quite useful (in my opinion, that is)

You can run on for a long time...

[frist]

Fuel, meet Fire. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJlN9jdQFSc Yes yes, flamebait :)

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[bar-agent]

It is what makes us "happy" here.

...are you calling me a plant?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[jimicus]

One could also say that the bigger problem with most religions isn't so much the existence of God as the placating individuals into thinking there is one and making them follow a strict set of rules decided upon by said religion.

Most of those rules make a huge amount of sense if you're in charge of a large enough tribe who live in the middle of the desert, policing hasn't been invented, nor has imprisonment.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[LanMan04]

If you can find someone who actually believes that children go to hell by default, then they're basically a lost cause).

You mean pretty much all Christians? No baptism = hell. Period.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[nschubach]

I totally agree. Though, I no longer live in the desert. ;)

Hawking Picks Physics Over God For Big Bang

[daffey]

Why can't humans grasp the concept that 'Maybe everything has always existed in some form'? We seem to like 'beginnings and ends, for some reason. Even though we are born and die, the basic building blocks for us were/are there before and after, just in different form.

Re:Hawking Picks Physics Over God For Big Bang

[JSBiff]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that once upon a time, there was a 'stable universe' theory that posited the universe had always existed and always would exist. Then a few things (like entropy and the idea of the 'heat death of the universe', and the observed expansion [and rate of that expansion[ of the universe) forced scientists to come to the conclusion that the universe could not always exists in the form we see it today - hence ideas like the big-bang theory.

My point is, that people could accept that, "Maybe everything has always existed in some form", but we have to fit our hypothesis to the facts, and not the other way around - that is, we can't *assume* that everything has always existed in some form, it must be shown to be (probably) true.

I'll have to check his book out, to see what he actually says, but somehow I'm missing how 'gravity' makes it necessary that anything must exists. If there is no matter, there can be no gravity, right? Maybe I'm completely wrong about that though - I don't really understand string theory, or claim to, but maybe his book will shed some light on the dark of the matter.

Re:Hawking Picks Physics Over God For Big Bang

[John Hasler]

Then a few things (like entropy and the idea of the 'heat death of the universe', and the observed expansion [and rate of that expansion[ of the universe) forced scientists to come to the conclusion that the universe could not always exists in the form we see it today - hence ideas like the big-bang theory.

The big bang theory does not entirely exclude the possibilty that the bang repeats.

If there is no matter, there can be no gravity, right?

Wrong. As I understand it (which is imperfectly) there are solutions in which the universe contains only gravity waves.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[The Wild Norseman]

Swinburne in turn left the Church of England for the Orthodox Church after he found it the only Christian denomination that matched where his philosophical reasoning led him.

And where did his scientific reasoning lead him?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[LanMan04]

Why do so many atheists feel the need to be smug assholes? What the fuck does it matter to you if he believes in 'an invisible sky wizard'? Why can't you just let people believe what they will, why must you impose your beliefs on other people?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years_War

That's why. Truly believing that an infallible force instructed you to do something is justification to do ANYTHING. And while religion may not be the "true" core of many seemingly-religious conflicts, religion makes war MUCH easier to start/escalate/get away with. The ultimate artificial dividing line.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[jdavidb]

Well, I read every word. Most of it was just disrespect. It might surprise you to learn that decent people actually tolerate differences of opinion. I do.

I'm not sure what you're on about with the pyramids and iron forging. I can't remember the pyramids ever being mentioned in the Bible. If this is your reason for refuting it, then it's obvious you're the one who hasn't done five minutes of honest inquiry. I had a friend in college who repeatedly told me how wrong the Bible was because of the things it did or did not say about space aliens. I kept pulling out my Bible (yes, I carried one in those days) and asking him to show me what it said, over a course of several months, but he never took me up on that offer.

We remained friends, and neither one of us held the other in contempt. I've read the Bible tens of times since then and have yet to see anything about space aliens. Or pyramids.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[John Hasler]

Atheist or not, SOMETHING had to have always existed. Otherwise it's turtles all the way down.

An unsupported assertion. Why can time not have a beginning? Or be closed?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[LanMan04]

Photons beg to disagree!

Re:The Golden Mean

[Barsteward]

"The moment religious folks stop mandating when I can and cannot get groceries because of their "holy" days and stop interfering with what my hypothetical children get to learn in school, I'll stop fighting them. Until such time, I will fight any and all legislation that boils down to "because my religion says it's good/bad" with all I have within me."

Hear hear..... once they are relegated to the same importance in the law etc as a football team fan club (which is basically what they are) then all the bashing will probably cease all by itself. Its their infernal interfering in other peoples lives that makes people angry.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[John Hasler]

> Something else in another dimension unrelated to ours.

A dimension is not a place.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Chalnoth]

Not quite right. That's true of classical logic, but modal logics contain some assumptions about reality (specifically concerning possibility and necessity), so within a modal logic it is possible to demonstrate something about the "reality" that the logic describes. The issue is whether that "reality" is the one in which we live -- my point of disagreement with Plantinga -- but that's undecidable by observation.

But that's passing the buck from the logical argument to the logical system. It still leaves open the question as to whether or not the logical system applies to reality, in which case it is still up to observation to determine whether or not the premises (or conclusions) are true.

As for the "meaningless statement" issue with regard to omnipotence, if we take the classic one, "Can God make a rock so heavy he can't lift it?" this is far from a meaningless statement, because I can make a rock so heavy I can't lift it (granted, I can't create it from scratch, but I can form it from existing rocks). The statement only becomes ridiculous when you apply the attribute of omnipotence to the god. For instance, we can imagine a god that can create all the rocks he wants, of whatever size he wants, but isn't able to actually pick them up, in which case the answer would be yes. Or we might imagine a god that is stupendously strong (rather like a strong person) but can't create rocks, and thus the answer would be no.

Anyway, even if you don't accept the argument from evil, you still can't demonstrate that a god is actually possible, because to do that you'd have to show how such a god is consistent with the fundamental rules that underly reality, which we don't know. So the assumption that such a god is possible at all is still an unfounded assumption.

There's a final problem with this sort of logical argument that makes the whole thing just plain stupid instead of subtle: the whole thing boils down to, "The most amazing thing I can imagine must exist, therefore god exists." And no, that's patently absurd, because there is absolutely no guarantee that just because we can imagine it, it must be possible. This sort of logical argument, in other words, boils down to a play on words to disguise just how ridiculous it is.

Asimov - The Relativity of Wrong

[LanMan04]

http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

Read and be enlightened. Quote:

"Another way of looking at it is to ask what is the "curvature" of the earth's surface. Over a considerable length, how much does the surface deviate (on the average) from perfect flatness. The flat-earth theory would make it seem that the surface doesn't deviate from flatness at all, that its curvature is 0 to the mile.

Nowadays, of course, we are taught that the flat-earth theory is wrong; that it is all wrong, terribly wrong, absolutely. But it isn't. The curvature of the earth is nearly 0 per mile, so that although the flat-earth theory is wrong, it happens to be nearly right. That's why the theory lasted so long.

The curvature of such a sphere is about 0.000126 per mile, a quantity very close to 0 per mile, as you can see, and one not easily measured by the techniques at the disposal of the ancients. The tiny difference between 0 and 0.000126 accounts for the fact that it took so long to pass from the flat earth to the spherical earth.

Mind you, even a tiny difference, such as that between 0 and 0.000126, can be extremely important. That difference mounts up."

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[dontgetshocked]

Consider this; Scientists have identified over 100 chemical elements,Their atomic structure displays an intricate mathematical interrelationship of the elements.The periodic table points to obvious design.Such amazing design could not possibly be accidental,a product of chance.As to the big bang;Take for example a dissembled watch and put it into a bucket and shake it until it becomes a watch again.Let's never mind that the universe is more complex and improbable than this.Think too about a car manufacturer or any make of goods,do they not supply to you a manual as to how it is supposed to operate? How much more so the grand creator! It is more logical to find that the creator gives you a way to read his manual and understand his instructions than not.Man while imperfect cannot understand the mind of god,the one who created him.Did god have a beginning? Our minds cant fully comprehend it.No one can point to a certain moment as the beginning of time.Even though our lives end,time does not.We do not reject the idea of time because there are aspects of it that we don not fully understand.Which is more reasonable,that the universe is the product of a living,intelligent creator? or that it must have arisen simply by chance from a non living source without intelligent design?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[IICV]

Pretty much all Christians? So the Quakers and the Salvation Army don't count as Christians?

Seriously, ask pretty much any Christian what happens if a child dies before they can be baptized. I think the answers will surprise you. Dogma is one thing, human compassion is another entirely.

But anyway, this doesn't really change the thrust of the argument; you just have to wait until they've been baptized, or you baptize them yourself depending on how you think that works.

Here's the process as a slashdot meme:

1. Ensure child will go to heaven, or at least will not go to hell (may be baptism or whatever your beliefs say)
2. Kill child
3. Prophet!

Basically, as long as there's a way to ensure that the child does not go to hell, then the logic works.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[John Hasler]

> And, quite frankly, in the end *something* must be eternal ...

prove it.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[nschubach]

You are getting into the "more processing" category. For me, it doesn't matter if there is a shopping center, so therefore it does not exist to me until I visit it or drive by. I guess you could call me a "Athopping Centerist." (I kid.)

There are a group of people who would agree that that shopping center must exist because they've seen a shopping center and they know they exist or simply by trusting you. Therefore, there could be one there (there must be one there) until proven otherwise. I, however will not plan my day around that shopping center existing, nor will I be telling everyone else that it exists based solely on your word.

Now, that breaks down my thought process into several tiny decisions. Such decisions can be (but not limited to) knowing you, trusting you, having prior knowledge of if the place you mention exists, if I've been there, if there was something else there before... several nodes of processing later I come to a decision that: "That's cool. Thanks for letting me know, but I'll probably never go there unless I need to." And I don't need a god to live my life. Therefore, I don't need to believe in some god... therefore, it doesn't exist.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[UnknownSoldier]

> Time will have a beginning and end as points of reference.

So when does time stop?

Time is _independent_ of space. (Yes, I know some would argue that you can't seperate space-time but that is incorrect conclusion based on an incomplete premise.)

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[moortak]

Then what created that? At some point no matter what set of beliefs you hold you come to a handful of options. Something sprang into being or something has always been there.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[marcello_dl]

> Well who created the all-mighty then?

Compiler warning: the concepts of WHO, CREATION, ALL MIGHTY are defined in our reality on our logic. They are not necessarily defined outside of it with a comparable meaning. Question is invalid. You gotta assume they are. Atheists have not the luxury to make assumptions else they become an alternative religion that needs belief in something you can't prove.

That leaves religions. If some of them speaks of a creator's creator it would be interesting.

As for the topic: Hawking discovers that the universe must exist according to a law that we, existing thinkers, have distilled from the behaviour of an existing universe. Cool but a bit circular, and depending on the same assumption that I pointed out earlier: Laws we discover just describe the universe, the universe does not obey laws defined INSIDE it. The universe might obey rules that are defined outside it, assuming that "obeying" and "law" are concepts that have a comparable meaning. Atheists have not the luxury to make assumptions. Well I maybe should say agnostics.

The existence of God

[hackwrench]

Consider this: The real reason we exist is because there is no reason we don't. Cause and effect is an illusion. God exists because there is no reason for God not to exist as well. There are an infinite number of universes and an infinite number of Gods

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Mathinker]

The answer "she loves me" wouldn't be appropriate in a journal article in a scientific journal about correlating human brain activity with human actions, but it might very well be an appropriate answer in other contexts.

It could also be the case that when she looked at you, she remembered how much fun she had cheating on you last week and felt smug about keeping it a secret.

In other words, you can't justify your explanation because it requires you to know something you can't know. (ie the mind/nature/intent of your wife/God).

How nice! Without trying, I've made you partially espouse something which I believe in, which is strong agnosticism

At least your analogy has two advantages over the "God did it" hypothesis: First, it actually does offer an explanation even if you can't justify it.

I think you're missing a big point in my analogy, here, which is that "love", like "God", is an undefined concept in the field of science.

It makes a lot of assumptions but if we accept those then the conclusion can follow logically. "God did it" offers no such possible connection... it's merely a bald assertion.

No, it's merely a non-scientific assertion.

Second, there is sufficient cause to believe your wife actually exists in the first place, which is actually another layer to the problem.

Again, you seem to miss the fact that I'm assuming that "love" exists, and in this sense the analogy is closer than you credit it.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[slashing1]

Well, you've raised a lot of different points in this post, although I'm not sure it hangs together as a unified argument. You start off with a bunch of questions about the "right" beliefs, which digitig (1056110) has addressed in part. Then we get to this:

It seems overwhelmingly self evident to me that people inherit their religious beliefs from their parents and the society around them. They don't wait until they're adults, capable of making these kinds of Big Decisions with a rational mind. They don't research all the alternatives and make an informed decision. They're basically brainwashed from birth.

It sounds like you are condemning this, but I don't understand why. If you work with the presumption that God is just some sort of social construct that, at most, helps us get along with the people around us, then the fact that people inherit their religious beliefs from the people around them shouldn't be surprising at all. I don't know what benefit there is from some sort of "rational" or scientific approach in making religion selection later in life if that's going to impede your social development as a younger person. Sure, if your thinking too closely mimics exactly what everyone else around you is thinking, that may limit your contribution to society and the chance for big advances. I'm not sure that's a real risk for young people; their chances for big contributions to society are probably higher when they're older and more capable of "rational" thinking.

Another alternative is that you're postulating the existence of some sort of God being that is analogous to the laws of physics or nature. If you don't respect the laws of physics or nature, bad things happen. Thus, we need to figure out the laws of physics and this law-God. You can't really negotiate with or placate the laws of physics, you just have to follow the rules. In this case, it really depends on what the consequences of not following the God rules are. If they just affect our relationship with the people around us, we're back in scenario 1. If they have some significant impact on us that is not mediated through other people, then we need a scientific approach to figure out what those impacts are. This is not easy.

A third alternative is that you could be postulating the existence of some sort of God being that is more analogous to a human with intentionality and will. This is God being with whom you could communicate and interact in a way that does not correspond to our interaction with the laws of physics. Another tricky area-- how do we interact with this type of God? Again, what are the consequences of interacting well or poorly with this God? What if this isn't a God that I can actually see and hear talking with me?

I wish I had more answers for you rather than a slew of additional questions. I just don't think the issues you are raising are a strong condemnation against religious belief formation. I think everyone wants to make "good" decisions about how they're living their lives, and at any time, we just make the best decisions we can given our limitations. We don't all agree, and both great things such as innovation, and terrible things such as wars, can result.

Who IS this God person, anyway?

[Parhelion]

Who IS this God person, anyway?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Smidge204]

I'd like to point out that christians still wouldn't be wrong by suggesting that God did it, even if a later scientific explanation were available, since it's all a creation of God.

This is exactly why "God did it" is not an explanation. "Even if we're wrong, we were still right... just not in the same way as we originally meant!"

If you had a solid foundation for the claim "God did it" then you wouldn't have to keep moving the goalpost every time someone pokes a hole in the idea.

Why should I accept that there is no God? Because of science?

You have that backwards, IMHO. Instead you should be asking: "Why should I accept the claim that there is a god/gods?"

If you feel you have adequate justification to think any deity exists, then you can work from there towards more specific claims like how many there are. Then you can get even more specific, like claims specifically of Yahweh, or specifically of Quetzalcoatl...
=Smidge=

He's not talking about time-travel

[badlapje]

From the short summary he's not talking about timetravel but about relativistic spacetravel, which are two entirely different things altogether. I'd assume that Dr. Hawkins knows this, or at least he should having written a book to explain Einsteins theory of relativity and inventing a way of describing time within that theory. Seems to me he's regressing...

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[NiteShaed]

Y'know, all things considered, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with you being part of this conversation.......

Re:Hawkings

[Voulnet]

I'm not sure that was the original point, dear friend. The original point, I believe, is how the universe is so complex, yet so systematic, like clockwork. It couldn't have happened by chance, and even if one believed in chances; the chances of that happening are nothing compared to the 'chances' of the universe being 'created', if you want to play with probabilities. Why would anyone accept the idea of the universe happening by chance (Oh, and I'm not talking about evolution here, so sorry if any confusions ensued), but they wouldn't accept somebody coming late for a date or a meeting with the excuse that their car burned to ashes, then by random chance the molecules of the ash changed into molecules of the original components, then suddenly flew up in the air, got glued together and formed the car back up again, with the same memory cells being stored in the 'revived' car computer cells to form the original firmware of the car.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[marcello_dl]

All mighty? WE created the law of gravity. It's our model to describe stuff. We hear a drum rhythm on the stereo, build a metronome that follows the rhythm closely, put it next to the speaker and proclaim: the rhythm obeys our metronome. May I say LOLWUT? I respect the act of measuring and building a matching metronome but that's about it. Is the rhythm sequenced or from a drummer? does the drummer follow a metronome himself? will he get tired and change? The metronome makers don't want to hear about these questions because it belittles their efforts. Some others are interested in the cult of the Drummer.
Put all in perspective, believe what you want but be aware that it is a BELIEF.

i consider myself intelligent

[circletimessquare]

(all of the trolls disputing this statement to the contrary)

i also am able to carry on conversations about god with people who are very religious and possibly not so bright. even though i am not a believer, because i understand the symbolic interplay between the idea of god and the facts of the universe, then there is no cognitive dissonance going on in my head when i talk to them. i merely translate what they say into what i think i know, and i translate what i think i know into a literal framework about the idea of god when i talk to them. and everyone is talking about the same thing, and everyone happy

in fact, i said i was not a believer. but i believe in the universe and its laws. so, in effect, based on my definition of what god really is, i guess i am believer than too

so intelligent people who believe in god is not a contradiction. all that is happening is that intelligent people understand god less literally, and more metaphorically and deeply, such that at its root, their faith is no different than a positivist nonbeliever's humanism and understanding of the physical world

really, this is the truth: the debate about the existence of god/ not is a complete joke. everyone is simply arguing about the same thing

of course, those who are very literal and not so bright and are negativist about humanity use the idea of god as justification to murder abortion providers and become suicide bombers. but this isn't an argument against god, this is an argument against the negative and the stupid

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Smidge204]

I think you're missing a big point in my analogy, here, which is that "love", like "God", is an undefined concept in the field of science.

I think the psychology, anthropology, sociology, biology and neuroscience departments would all like to have a few words with you...

=Smidge=

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[MozeeToby]

So assuming that someone believes the literal truth of the Fall as the reason why we are sent to hell... no, that still doesn't make sense. I deserve eternal punishment (and I think I could make the argument that despite what you say, the vast majority of people who believe in hell as an actual place view it as punishment) for something that my great, great, great (etc, etc) ancestors did? What kind of fucked up asshole would punish me for something that happened 6000 (or more) years ago.

Now, I could maybe, just possibly, justify belief in a hell that is possible to leave. You are kept there until you accept god's love or whatever it is that he wanted out of you in the first place. In which case, I can't imagine that hell is populated by anyone except the super religious who are so convinced that they are dirty evil sinners that they are unable to accept that god doesn't want to punish them. The irony would be delicious if we weren't talking about condemning people to an eternity in hell for doing no wrongs at all.

What Came Before The Big Bang?

[RudyHartmann]

This kind of thing fascinates me. But I have always wondered what came before the Big Bang? It just doesn't make sense that there was nothing (also sometimes called the singularity?) then it just comes into existence. I always thought every effect had a cause. What was the causality that caused the Bang? Now I know there is a theory that one "brane" collided with another, but that just pushes causality off to a lower level. It doesn't make sense that the universe could also be eternal and infinite.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Sir_Lewk]

I had to stop watching half-way through... to get more snacks.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Mathinker]

> Are you arguing that "God" like "love" is an entirely subjective
> phenomenon that occurs only in the human brain?

No, I'm merely arguing that both of these concepts are essentially non-scientific, I'm not ruling out the possibility of their existence independently of human cognition. Such "existence" would, however, necessarily be non-physical in nature.

To see that (most religious models of) "God" is non-scientific, it suffices to make several scientific hypotheses which include God, and by inspection see that these hypotheses are not contradictable --- i.e., there doesn't exist any observation which could cause one to discard one of the hypotheses in favor of the other. For example: "The universe was created by God out of nothing 6000 years ago in exactly the state we observed it 6000 years ago", "The universe was created by God out of nothing 5 minutes ago in exactly the state we observed it 5 minutes ago", and "The universe was created by God via the Big Bang". (All this assumes an omnipotent God.) Since all scientific hypotheses have to be contradictable by observation, it seems clear that these are not scientific hypotheses.

"Love" is actually harder to show as being non-scientific, since that hinges on its being defined in a totally subjective manner. Some people, for example, if asked, might believe that "all of the universe is filled with love". Or they might even be strong literal believers in the saying "God is Love". Etc., etc.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[corbettw]

See my previous post.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[ZeRu]

If there indeed is no such thing as a soul, then science should be theoretically able to create life out of bunch of atoms through chemical reactions. If that happens, it would be a strong argument against God's existence. But so far, science couldn't create even an amoeba, simplest of all beings. I guess there's a component scientists are missing.

What makes living things living? If we're nothing more than a bunch of atoms and there is no soul, why couldn't a rock become living being? Or perhaps every atom is a living being?

you are objecting to the literal and crude

[circletimessquare]

not to the idea god

if someone were so negative and stupid as to use god as justification to suicide bomb or murder abortion providers, then your argument is with stupid and negative people, not god

god is just a metaphor. in fact, your hostility to the idea of god is the same sort of irrationality that drives those who have to fight for the existence of god. the extremely intolerant atheist who insists on the destruction of theism is just as wrong as the religious fundamentalist who insists you believe as he believes: its the imposition of your will onto other people, which is more wrong than the existence or lack thereof a silly metaphorical idea. god can be interepreted a million different ways, so your argument is with certain wrong interpretations, including some interpretations that reject his or her existence but are still just as violent as a religious fundamentalist. belief in god or not does not define anything at all, its a red herring, a false pointless argument

just accept that people think differently about the world, and always will. whether or not their thinking includes the idea of a god holds no meaning, positive or negative, either way. in fact, if you waved a magic wand, and removed all the world's religions, new ones would spontaneously spring into being. why? because belief in god is a sociological and psychological phenomenon of human existence: it is never going away. you need to accept it, or you at war with mankind, not god. some day you will die. do you fight this ugly truth? or accept it? well, you also need to accept that belief in god, like sitting on the toilet every day, just happens. it does no good to accept an unbending fact of human reality

i am a nonbeliever. yet the idea of god doesn't threaten me, i'm perfectly at peace with it. i am completely beyond the argument, such that i am comfortable even calling myself a believer nowadays, deceitfully, mischievously, or just because i'm bored. with such contempt do i hold the whole debate about god's existence. it is such a colossal waste of time and thought. the root of the argument is about conformity, which is the real danger, whether for or against god

Re:you are objecting to the literal and crude

[tenchikaibyaku]

Well, that's a lovely rant and all, but what does it have to do with me and what I wrote?

Your claim is that "everyone has a different way of describing the same thing". You also claim that "god IS the laws of physics". On the other hand we have people claiming, for example, that Jesus is Gods son and all that. What does Jesus and the laws of physics have in common, you mean?

To me it seems as if some people use the same term ("God") to describe very different things, rather than describing the same thing with different names.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[mcgrew]

If there's nothing, there aren't any photons, either. Someone here has a sig I like: "In the beginning there was nothing. Then it exploded."

Besides, wikipedia says (and if you are a physicist and know better, please correct wikipedia) "The photon is currently believed to be strictly massless, but this is an experimental question."

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[oldmac31310]

and much of what Jesus and Muhammed purportedly said are more in the vein of moral and philosophical teaching than mystical silliness. Some good philosophical teachings have been hijacked and distorted by organized religion, I have no doubt about that. It seems some are naturally predisposed both emotionally and psychologically to need to believe in the abstract and the rest of us quite happily enjoy life believing in the concrete and provable.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Anonymous Coward]

1) No, I don't think most kids inherit "religious beliefs" from their parents, they inherit "religion" alone. (rules, traditions, a checklist of things to do and places to go). Most kids inherit religion, but no matter how you look at it, no kid inherits faith. It's an inward decision, it's a heart issue, which in turn governs how you live every moment of your life. Kids beaten into a religious mold may not actually have any belief at all.

2) People solidify what they believe the first 18 years of their life. Most who are presented with a different position after that are far less likely to shift because life experiences have already glue their feet to the ground about one perspective or another -and right or wrong people are stubborn! Not to say people can't change, but beyond 18 people are far less likely to be open minded to thoughts on change.

Regarding God being a psychopath ... since you seem to be feeding off the Bible's take on Heaven and hell you should get some clarification. God doesn't arbitrarily send people to hell. God is pure holiness (without sin), and perfectly righteous (as a judge cannot sway from the law), and wants all to go to heaven. But the law says sinners cannot enter heaven, and God is just so since we are all sinners we all go to hell. So he loves us enough to want us all there, but is perfectly just and has to send us ALL (by law) to hell.

Imagine if you bake a cake and the recipe calls for 6 eggs, but it turns out you only have 5 good eggs and one rotten ugly egg. You throw all 6 in thinking no one will notice. In the end you have a cake that has the appearance of perfection but has some rotten stuff inside. Anyone who knew better wouldn't put that cake in their stomach. It would make you blow chunks. In a similar way God is just and cannot let sin into his presence. It's not psychotic, it's common sense.

Since we ALL deserve hell, and he wants us ALL in heaven ... in comes Jesus (God made flesh) the one who can come and die to soak up all our sin so we are transformed into perfection and able to step foot into heaven. Is God really a psychopath to willingly suffer and die so we don't HAVE to go to hell?

So you die and stand before the court of God and he says, "You are guilty of sin. By law you deserve eternal death. I'd like to help you out but remember that Jesus guy, that's my kid. He died for your sake and you blew him off."

In contrast you die and stand before the Court of God and he say essentially you are just as filthy and dirty and deserve eternal death." In steps Jesus who says, "Me and him are buddies. I promised to pay all his parking tickets myself." God remarks, "OK, you are now by law perfectly innocent, the door to heaven is over there."

The difference is one man decided to be judged based on his own merit.
The other recognized his filth, wanted clean and accepted Jesus' solution.

There is no psychopathic God here. God is just. The guilty deserve death. The innocent deserve life. It's not emotionless torture. Psychopaths don't give up their throne, suffer and die for self-centered greedy people. Heck, neither do normal people.

If a man doesn't believe a doctor can save his life, he is welcome to die alone. But if he actually believes a doctor can save his life he gets his butt to the hospital ASAP.

3) God created us to not suffer. WE are the ones that chose sin, trashed this planet, and deserve every ounce of hell's torment prescribed for breaking God's law.

One might say God should just give a free pass regardless. But if he broke his own law then he is neither Just nor Good. A good judge stands firm and holds to the law. A better judge holds to the law AND personally suffers the penalties of those he convicts. In that way he is still a perfect judge, is sinless, and demonstrates not an apathy for his creation but a dire love and sympathy for them and the mess they got themselves into. The door is completely open for NO

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Parhelion]

Look, it's pretty basic. I didn't believe in God either until my college philosophy teacher explained it to me, over the course of a semester. In fact, proving God exists can be boiled down to two sentances: "We know that everything in this physical universe is TEMPORARY; the sun will eventually burn out, everything will eventually have an end" "Because everything in our universe is temporary, there has to be at least ONE THING that is eternal, stretching infinately in both directions in time, into the past, and into the future, with NO beggining and NO end" The news about Hawking's upcoming book challenges this argument, but unfortunately the article doesn't give details on why Hawking believes that the law of gravity proves that something can be created from nothing. If that can be proven (and I doubt it really can) then we can no longer prove that God exists with the above argument, and we are left with only faith.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Mongoose Disciple]

So what you're saying is, our modern conceptions of Hell are inspired, many times removed, from what amounts to a historical version of the Springfield Tire Fire?

Wow.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[digitig]

But that's passing the buck from the logical argument to the logical system. It still leaves open the question as to whether or not the logical system applies to reality, in which case it is still up to observation to determine whether or not the premises (or conclusions) are true.

Not quite, because the difference between the modal logics is necessarily metaphysical and can't be decided by observation. The differences relate to what can be and what must be, whereas observation only tells us what is.

As for the "meaningless statement" issue with regard to omnipotence, if we take the classic one, "Can God make a rock so heavy he can't lift it?" this is far from a meaningless statement, because I can make a rock so heavy I can't lift it (granted, I can't create it from scratch, but I can form it from existing rocks). The statement only becomes ridiculous when you apply the attribute of omnipotence to the god.

It's not that it becomes ridiculous, it's that it becomes contradictory (and therefore meaningless) when applied to an omnipotent being. "A rock that an omnipotent being cannot lift" is already self-contradictory and so meaningless. Tagging "Can God create" in front of it doesn't give it meaning. It's a category error to think it says anything about the possible omnipotence of God.

Anyway, even if you don't accept the argument from evil, you still can't demonstrate that a god is actually possible, because to do that you'd have to show how such a god is consistent with the fundamental rules that underly reality, which we don't know. So the assumption that such a god is possible at all is still an unfounded assumption.

Yes -- but no more so than the assumption that such a god is not possible.

There's a final problem with this sort of logical argument that makes the whole thing just plain stupid instead of subtle: the whole thing boils down to, "The most amazing thing I can imagine must exist, therefore god exists." And no, that's patently absurd, because there is absolutely no guarantee that just because we can imagine it, it must be possible. This sort of logical argument, in other words, boils down to a play on words to disguise just how ridiculous it is.

But that isn't what the ontological argument does. The ontological argument refers to the "greatest" thing, and carefully defines "greatest" in such a a way that anything that exists is by definition greater than anything that doesn't. There's a problem with the notion of "greatest" beyond that point, though, which I think is one problem with the ontological argument (is a hearty meal greater than a comfortable bed?) If you can resolve that issue then the ontological argument most certainly leads to something that exists (if anything at all exists) and defines that thing as "God", although (and here's the second problem I have with most proofs of the existence of God) it's not clear that the thing is anything like what anybody actually thinks of as God. In that sense I agree that it's a play on words. It proves the existence of God by redefining "God" to be something it can prove the existence of.

ZARNIWOOP: But don't you see that people live or die on your word?
MAN: It's nothing to do with me, I am not involved with people. The Lord knows I am not a cruel man.
ZARNIWOOP: Ah! You say . . . the Lord! You believe in . . .
MAN: My cat. I call him the Lord. I am kind to him.
ZARNIWOOP: All right. How do you know he exists? How do you know he knows you to be kind, or enjoys what you think of as your kindness?
MAN: I don't. I have no idea. It merely pleases me to behave in a certain way to what appears to be a cat. What else do you do? Please I am tired.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Mongoose Disciple]

Scripture says that you have to be truly sorry for your wrongs and denounce them (these are the concepts we traditionally call "sins" and "repentance") to be saved.

Most strains of American Christianity don't hold this to be true. Pretty much all the Protestant dogma for sure directly contradicts that. (Perhaps ironically, they also say that the Bible alone is the final authority on all matters of the faith.)

Note: I'm not trying to argue that they're accurately interpreting what the Bible says.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[MWojcik]

Not the way I interpret it. OP is using Pascal's wager trying to present the choice of faith as a logical outcome the following options: "you win eternal prize and lose nothing", "you are damned and gain nothing during your life" and "there is nothing afterwards and you lose nothing"

This ignores
- there are other deity options, so "eternal prize" is not guaranteed if you follow Christian religion
- you do give up quite a lot if you follow Christian religion - some might feel that the option of having sex in other purpose than having children is quite important. Non-procreation sex is a sin in Catholic doctrine (yes, even in marriage), possibly in other Christian doctrines too
- will God accept your "I believe just in case" belief as genuine if he exists?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Hinhule]

Why? Because I thought that my observation might make someone smile a little.

I mean have to as in when you say that you are agnostic the "but you have to believe either is right deep down, you just haven't thought about it enough" comes every time followed by a pitch for their belief.

As far as my mental superiority is concerned it is obvious and doesn't need any help making itself known ;)

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[AkiraRoberts]

Well organized religion tends to screw things up, to be sure. But then again, organized $InsertAnyGoodIdeaYouLike tends to screw things up.

Personally, while I find the moral/philosophical teachings most important, I also like a bit of abstraction too. That said, it's not really essential to my belief system and I'm happy to acknowledge that, objectively speaking, it's a little silly.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Mongoose Disciple]

That isn't actually a very strong argument against taking a position. Suppose I put twenty boxes in front of you and told you that one of them contained a good cheque for $1,000,000 and the others contained nothing. You can open any one, and keep the contents. What are the changes of picking the right one? Not great. What reason is there for choosing one box over another? Not much: maybe hunch, maybe try to interpret my facial expressions. One thing is sure, though: any strategy that involves opening a box is better than the strategy of not opening any of them because you can't decide.

There's a few problems with this line of reasoning:

First, it presumes that you (or the person claiming there's money in one box) are credible. That is to say, that there isn't a large possibility that there's no check in any box.

Second, it presumes that the cost of choosing a box is low or nothing. In your analogy, that's true. In terms of picking a faith, I don't think it is.

Third (and this is one of the big problems with Pascal's Wager as well), it presumes that either people can choose what they believe, or that God is a sucker that you can bluff. Allow me to illustrate:

I don't believe Santa Claus is real. I'm fairly sure, in fact, that Santa Claus, as understood by four year old children, is not real. It's not possible for me to decide that I believe that Santa Claus is real. What I can do, if I want to badly enough, is pretend I think he's real and do my very best to act as though he were. I'm not aware of any religions that promise salvation if you pretend very hard that you believe in their version of God.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[ChatHuant]

The fifth elephant wound up as treacle and mineral ores in Uberwald after falling off Great A'Tuin several millennia ago.

Actually, the elephant mostly wound up as fat strata, with mineral inclusions (former bones and nerves) [Headknock, Year of the Suspicious Moth]. Geologically speaking, the treacle deposits weren't part of the elephant at all; huge areas of Uberwald were at the time a marsh, where a wild ancestor of modern sugar cane grew [Hammersmith, Year of the Dizzy Anteater]. Demonochemical analysis [Ming Po-lu, Year of the Acrobatic Mussel] has shown that treacle is the end result of the slow baking process (or melbaization) of the cane biomass.

The force of the elephant's fall caused some of the muddy/sugary mixture to splash away. The splashes created the shallow treacle deposits that propelled economic development in previous centuries. Some splashes landed as far as Klatch (creating the sugary sands of Snikerstan, and the treacle glass drops known as nosebreakers) or even in the low seas bordering hubward areas of the Agathean continent (slowly dissolving treacle vents have created their own ecology, of which maybe the most interesting specimen is the Maraschino squid [Twoflower, Year of the Incontinent Water Buffalo]). The treacle mines of Ankh (now exhausted) were also created by such a minor splash.

In Uberwald most of the sugar cane was caught under the carcass of the elephant; as a result, Uberwaldian treacle deposits (whose size is estimated to be over 100 greater than all available treacle in the rest of the Discworld, [Lord Sweettooth the Lisper, Year of the Annoying Bullfrog, as revised by the Fifth Dentists' and Candymakers' Conference of Bonk, Year of the Emasculated Ant]) are deeply buried, and difficult to reach.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[pulse2600]

I most certainly did not make that assertion. Of course it does. However I don't view the human mind as something that is unable to change anything it learns as a child. "Because that's how I was raised" is the weakest excuse someone could ever have for maintaining a life philosophy or personal beliefs. If you disagree with that, then I feel sorry for you as you can not possibly turn away from something that you might not truly believe, no matter what other points of view have been presented to you since childhood.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Gregour]

Why do so many atheists feel the need to be smug assholes? What the fuck does it matter to you if he believes in 'an invisible sky wizard'? Why can't you just let people believe what they will, why must you impose your beliefs on other people?

Why do so many theists feel the need to be smug assholes? What the fuck does it matter to you if someone doesn't believe in an invisible sky wizard? Why can't you just let people believe what they will, why must you impose your beliefs on other people?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[cain]

Atheists stake their eternal future...

Huh. Never seen a clearer example of begging the question in the wild before. To assume one's future is "eternal" presupposes an afterlife.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[MWojcik]

To clarify what I mean as "non-procreation sex": contraceptives are sin, oral sex is a sin, anything that wouldn't result in fertilization during ovulation is a sin.

Some doctrines see this differently (e.g. in Eastern Orthodox contraceptives are allowed, not sure about Protestant/Evangelism etc) but in general - most things related to sexuality are sin.

Re:Hawkings

[HeckRuler]

The original point is how the universe is so complex, yet so systematic, like clockwork.

Yeah, except for the part where it isn't that systematic. There isn't any apparent order or function. It's entirely unlike clockwork. Oh, our planet orbits a star in a circle? Yeah, there's a reason for that. And the circle is not perfect. We've explained why planets for in orbits. Everything else fell into the protostar or flew out of the system. By sheer chance, a planet formed here between Venus and Mars.

and even if one believed in chances

Well consider me a "chance-ist". I've done my fair share of experiments involving the mysterious devices known as "dice" and feel pretty comfortable declaring that things like "probability" and "chance" do indeed exist.

I'm actually agnostic when it comes to high energy physics though. I have the belief that I'll never really grok this. Because it's hard and stuff.
But from what I gather, research in quantum mechanics show us that on a very small level, everything is probabilistic. And if you understand the butterfly effect, then you'll understand how that propagates to the larger scale of dice, lightning, and planet formation. So yeah, probabilistic universe, woo.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[oh_my_080980980]

God you are dumb.

It's really quite simple. When you ask, Who created God? You get the answer God always existed or God created itself.

So if you say the Universe created itself, religion nuts claim that can't happen because the Universe can't create itself. Meanwhile they are perfectly happy saying God create itself.

See the problem.

I can accept that a supreme being created all the universe. I can also accept that that universe happened all by itself. Neither one gets me closer to the how.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[oh_my_080980980]

Actually the correct answer was Mormon....

Atheism is always a Win Win Ethically

[strangedays]

Being a moral atheist is a total win win, compared to being a mere Theist.

Version 1:

Dead Atheist: Oh!, um hi God..., didn't think you existed, oops!

Deity: No problem, it's not like I left any useful clues... Welcome to my heaven.

Dead Atheist: Nice... How come I qualify?

Deity: Because you were a moral and ethical being, because you lived by a code of ethics; you understood that love was the right thing to do even in a universe that you had good reason to believe was completely and utterly godless. You were moral because you chose to be, not because you "believed" in some silly magic book; or were too scared, or weak minded, to think for yourself.
You chose to do the right thing, even when you did not have to; you lived by a moral and honorable code, not by some mythical manifesto of terrorism and fear...

Dead Atheist: So what happens to all the myriad god followers, "believers", the Theists, martyrs, crusaders, suicide bombers, terrorists, etc?

Deity: Tricky one that! They are not really worth anything much, because they never thought for themselves ethically speaking... What do you suggest?
Anyway, no hurry, they can wait outside indefinitely while you decide what to do with them. Welcome to heaven!, go pick yourself out some virgins...
Etc...

Version 2:

Dead Atheist: Hello, Anyone There...! (nothing, nada, zip, zilch, silence, nope...)
Dead Atheist: Thought So! (vanishes in a sudden total existence failure)

So........

Looks like a Win Win to me!

Re:Atheism is always a Win Win Ethically

[rcastro0]

This text is great. Is it an original? I searched for some of the phrases you used in google and it sounds so...
You're spot on. Reversed Pascal's Wager into a sure bet. Congrats.

Re:Atheism is always a Win Win Ethically

[Bawbsmith]

Your version 2 is right, but let me pose a alternate version 1 -

Version1.1
Dead Atheist: Oh!, um hi God..., didn't think you existed, oops!

Deity: No problem, it's not like I left any useful clues... cya.

Dead Atheist: Nice... How come I didn't qualify?

Deity: Hey this was your choice all along - no biggie - got a alternate spot picked out for you already...

So I consider MY version the real win-win.

If you're right, and I cease to exist, it doesn't matter - but if I'm right, and God does exist, then that REALLY sucks for you.

As an aside - I do not agree with "religion". Religions are what give true Christianity the reputation for being a cage. And I would say I'm no more caged than anyone.

Also - I cannot explain my faith other than describing my own experiences - and I don't believe that doing so would be any more useful than Armstrong describing walking on the moon. Sure, I could get an idea, but without actually doing it, I could never know what it was really like.

As far as being moral and ethical - I would say that real Christianity teaches you to live like Jesus, and to accept the gift that he gives us. If you're already moral and ethical, then the only thing missing is accepting the gift. If you were standing in line (i.e. "alive") waiting for your new car ("death") and you're already holding the ticket to your 1981 Yugo with 200k miles("hell") and someone comes by and says "here's a ticket for a brand new Bugatti Veyron, oh and an infinite gas card to boot! All you have to do is accept the ticket!" ("Jesus") It's your choice which car you get. But if you're right, then there is no line, and you're just walking the plank of existence.

Re:Atheism is always a Win Win Ethically

[DarthVain]

While I like you Deity rant, not everyone is that bad. Maybe they wouldn't be called "true believers" but join the church because the believe in a certain interpretation of the moral teachings of the bible that mirror their own personal views. Many join for a sense of community, comfort, tradition and the idea that they are part of something a bit greater than their individual lives. Some think they can help their community or others by participating. There is also the fear of death, which can be a powerful thing to overcome.

Personally I think it is all insane, and I don't believe or belong. However I can understand how some might. However the true believers, are just crazy to me.

Re:Atheism is always a Win Win Ethically

[lawpoop]

You were moral because you chose to be, not because you "believed" in some silly magic book; or were too scared, or weak minded, to think for yourself.

Not that I disagree, but why is 'choosing' or 'thinking for yourself' the highest good, the one that some transcendent deity would base its judgment of you on? For all we know, it might judge you based on whether you ever had a toe infection.

If we're going to say that religious people claim that Deity is just and judges people justly, they also claim a lot of other things about Deity that we don't subscribe to (such as it wanting us to have faith). Why do we subscribe to this one?

Re:Atheism is always a Win Win Ethically

[strangedays]

Is it an original? Yes. I try to do all my own joined up thinking.

Just to be clear, there is no sure bet, in my humble opinion, and to an extremely high probability, there is no god. However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Re:Atheism is always a Win Win Ethically

[strangedays]

Mea Culpa, you got me, I used a red herring to make my point, as entertainingly and in as few words as possible.

Your logic is sound, there is no reason to subscribe to any specific rationale of judgment by a deity, because there is no deity.

I chose this particularly bloody herring, as a small homage to Socrates.

When he was sentenced to death, Socrates chose to die rather than give up Philosophy, because "The unexamined life is not worth living." I paraphrased (and partially disguised it) as 'choosing' or 'thinking for yourself'

Socrates considered philosophical self examination one of the "highest goods", and paid for that choice with his own blood.

Re:Atheism is always a Win Win Ethically

[strangedays]

IMHO, Pascal's wager proceeds from the, unstated and unproven premise, that a god will both judge, and require a person to have belief (in that specific deity presumably).

That the premise is unstated, shows either a lack of logical rigor, or an intent to deceive on behalf of Pascal, which detracts from his argument.

That all the arguments premises are also unproven and unprovable, (which Pascal himself acknowledges of his stated premises) makes the entire argument worthless, as the proposition is unfounded.

Extraordinary claims (such as the existence of a god) require extraordinary proof, which Pascal and all religious believers decline to provide.

Another version might claim that a malicious (and arguably insane) deity, may well choose to send all "true believers" the faithful, martyrs, straight to some Dantean hell
simply for having faith, for holding an unconditional belief, for not demanding better proof prior to committing to a "belief".

Dante's hell, is of course a fate no Human could ever possibly deserve, no matter how evil or misguided their lives.

Re:Atheism is always a Win Win Ethically

[strangedays]

I accept your point that for some, faith and religion is an irresistible temptation; like a drug, it partially suppresses natural fears and loneliness.

Those that take advantage of human weakness to sell faith, the pushers of religion, the clergy, are the real evildoers in most human cultures.

When history records the worst abuses of the 21'st century it will not be the predatory sexual acts of priests that are viewed as the most horrible of religions crimes against humanity (terrible though they are), but rather the ongoing mental abuses, indoctrination and outright deceptions forced onto defenseless young minds, by many religious organizations.
"suffer the little children to come unto me" is both a mandated and abusive practice, and a terribly irony.
Amazingly, and a real cause for hope, many children survive and recover from these wicked mental abuses, and become Atheists, like myself.

Re:Atheism is always a Win Win Ethically

[KritonK]

This text reminds me of something Isaac Asimov wrote, about what he imagined would happen, when he died, if god did turn out to exist. Asimov's version ended with Asimov asking St. Peter for a typewriter, instead of virgins.

Re:Atheism is always a Win Win Ethically

[DarthVain]

While there are some vile people out there, I think there is a special place in hell (sorry for irony), RSVP'ed for the charlatans on TV that basically use god simply to swindle money from old people and the unenlightened... Makes me sick just to watch. Even worse these the snake oil salesmen that are allowed to have silly infomercials to bilk the same money out of they same demographic of people. Just people taking advantage.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[digitig]

First, it presumes that you (or the person claiming there's money in one box) are credible. That is to say, that there isn't a large possibility that there's no check in any box.

If the cost is low (your next point) then credibility doesn't matter much (as long as you trust me enough to be sure that the cost is low).

Second, it presumes that the cost of choosing a box is low or nothing. In your analogy, that's true. In terms of picking a faith, I don't think it is.

That depends on the faith. Some of them only demand stuff that I think is pretty good to do anyway.

Third (and this is one of the big problems with Pascal's Wager as well), it presumes that either people can choose what they believe, or that God is a sucker that you can bluff.

I wasn't trying to defend Pascal's wager in general, only to show that one particular argument against it was flawed. I agree that one can't choose to believe something, one either believes it or not (something that both the religionists and atheists seem prone to forget as they recommend their adversaries to change their beliefs). Yes, I think that is a more serious flaw in Pascal's wager; although it might be possible to change one's belief (by engaging in some sort of brainwashing program) the cost is no longer low.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[EnsilZah]

I believe you're referring to Chuck Norris.

yes

[circletimessquare]

"some people use the same term ("God") to describe very different things, rather than describing the same thing with different names"

and i am asking you to accept that this is the way it was, and always will be, and this cacophony is never going away, and you need to lose your discomfort with this ugly but inescapable status quo of humanity. unless you want to do away with free will and wage a crusade for cognitive conformity. which is obviously worse. and yes, i know, such a crusade for conformity is going on, in the name of religion. but fighting that crusade with a crusade of your own ("there is no god!") basically means you are just as wrong as everything you dislike about theism

Re:yes

[tenchikaibyaku]

So, do you mind pointing out where I went on that crusade against people using the word God in any way? Or maybe where I said that I disliked any theology and ranted against theism of any kind?

I am not particularly interested in prescribing any particular meaning to the word God, people may use it however they like. Of course, it makes things a lot easier if they define what they mean with it so one can have a meaningful discussion. I did not quite see the logic behind the reasoning in your original post.

Now, I do happen to believe that there most likely is no such thing as a God (as the word is most commonly used, referring to some kind of almighty being). And I do believe that I am allowed to tell the world about my stance if I were so inclined. And if someone starts arguing with me about it, I might argue back I guess. Or maybe I won't bother, it has yet to happen.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Art3x]

I suggest C. S. Lewis's book The Problem of Pain. He addresses a lot of your arguments. He was an atheist until he became an adult.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Art3x]

That sounded odd. I meant "until sometime in his adulthood."

Re:The Golden Mean

[HertzaHaeon]

The problem is that it doesn't take much to be percieved as one of those extremist atheists, especially by a certain kind of religious people. It's enough to simply question religion or to claim that religious arguments are only valid for those who believe in them. That's hugely offensive to some religious people, who then make a big fuss about being under attack from evil atheists and try to make smear all atheists to be bad, extremist dogmatics.

This seems to be especially true in the US. Atheists are more distrusted than any other controversial group, including gays and muslims.

So yes, there are douchebag atheists. I would keep in mind who accuses atheists of this,however. If it's someone whose millenia-old religious dogma and the power dreived from that suddenly has competition, I would be skeptical about their claims.

Re:Hawkings

[Voulnet]

The butterfly effect goes against a systematic universe. When talking systematic, I'm talking about a system of uniform design, such as; the law of gravity; it's a system that doesn't break when applicable. Yes, we can get theoretical for decades about it, but consider another example, the clockwork of the time, for instance. What chance is that the system of the universe goes for the same and the laws of the physics remain the same, and what chance is that universe started from something that resulted in such great and gigantic structure instead of just plain chaos. I know there is something called chance, but I think it's way too absurd(sorry for the word) that the universe in its current form resulted from chance. Seriously, what chance do you have to guess a private key right? Very little, almost non-existent, well, what chance do you have to keep guessing it the same if pure chance was involved?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[drakaan]

I've never understood why hardcore atheists believe that scientific explanations preclude God as a valid concept.

Because "God did it" adds nothing to our understanding and adds an extra, seemingly unnecessary link in the chain of reasoning. It's a platitude, not an explanation. On top of that, "God did it" has never, in the entire history of mankind, been the correct answer where such answers became knowable...So why should we accept "God did it" as the reason the universe exists? =Smidge=

Agreed. My point was about the issue with the seemingly exclusionary view that either it's science, or it's "God" at the beginning of everything. To my mind, God is a concept every bit as abstract as an invisible, vibrating string that is the fundamental building block of everything *. Neither of them have any impact on my daily life that I can observe. Neither of them fill me with any deeper sense of meaning, etc.

I'm not saying "God did it" is the reason the universe exists, I'm saying that saying "God didn't do it" is as pointless as saying he did.

*...although, what are strings made of, where did they come from, and why do they vibrate...repeat ad infinitum for things that make up things...the turtles live...

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Teckla]

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice

Or perhaps it means you've decided there's insufficient evidence to make a choice.

Making a completely arbitrary, random guess based on insufficient evidence sounds stupid to me.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Idiomatick]

Christians are betting that Satan hasn't killed God and isn't currently ruling the afterlife. By praying to God and worshipping him you are incurring the wrath of Satan. And you will be forced to burn in fiery hell for your godliness.

Pascal's wager sucks.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Peeteriz]

If you have no information, you have no reason to prioritize one option over others, or to exclude other options - and that turns any argument involving a pretend-choice between 'no God' and '[Judeo-Christian] God' into a false dichotomy, thus carrying no weight at all in a logical discussion.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[earlyhiker]

Choosing a God to follow is not like a lottery where you are guessing and later win or lose. If you are genuinely seeking truth then you will constantly dig into what this world offers and distinguish truth from trash. Yes there are a variety of religions who need to wake up and question what they are doing. Those who don't are caught up in efficient religion not faith-based religion. But even when historically a religion screws up and goes off the deep end like the crusades -yes, the church was screwing up as a whole driven by worldly greed not biblical principles -it's unfortunate that we have to wade through man's foolishness corruption to find real truth.

Pascal's wager: You are right that following a religion can be pretty messed up. Religion is what you do on Sunday. It's the checklist of rules and traditions you decide to abide to. What you are supposed to do is find a "faith" that is a solid place to stand. Then you can go looking for an institution (aka "religion") that tries their best to live that faith in a concrete way. Not everyone that believes the Bible to be true does what it says. But if the Bible is truth that is where you start, and find your daily footing.

Regarding Pascal's Wager, he states that you have everything to gain and nothing to lose. I fear that you might be nitpicking about what Pascal considered valuable. I think he is saying that anything worth having, anything of high honor, of high praise of high joy that this world offers is more likely to be gained on the path of believing in God.

Believing in God often yields strong communities, common goals, positive thoughts, good advice, outward/selfless actions, etc.

When he says you have nothing to lose he doesn't mean you won't lose anything. He just means of all the things you will lose they are in fact worth losing.

By Pascal's thinking, whatever you DO lose won't remotely compare to the value of what you gain by believing there is a God

So if you are concerned about pork and whiskey Pascal would tell you that there are far better prizes to be had and that you should forget those things for what you will yet gain.

What will you gain? He doesn't say, but for some reason he recommends wagering your life on it. And who risks their life on a wager that doesn't have an incredibly better prize?

I personally believe in God and the hope in Christ for 30 years. May not mean much, but I'd testify to Pascal's Wager being the most rewarding bet you can make.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Mathinker]

The problem here seems to be that we're defining "science" differently. See my other post. (E.g., it's hard for me to see how a clinical psycologist is going to contradict the statement "the universe is filled with love" via experiment.)

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Quirkz]

I didn't really expect a "scientific" argument, as I certainly understand why that wouldn't exist. A "philosophically/logically sound" one was mostly what I was asking for.

I can accept personal experience as a reason for someone to have a belief in something, though I have plenty of reservations there, because personal experience can be potentially fallible. Back in the day I had an experience at the time *I* described as religious, but that now I wouldn't say was in any way supernatural. What people experience, or think they experience, is a fascinating subject, but you can't study it for long without running into a lot of suggestions that people can easily get stuff wrong, or (being more kind) can have wildly different subjective experiences than other people despite being in a very objectively similar situation.

One of the other major problems with personal experience is it's personal. I'm not the type to tell someone else that my knowledge trumps their experience in a realm where facts can't apply, but if I haven't also had that experience myself I'm still left without any real evidence.

If we step away from religion a little, and talk about something maybe less personal, like ghosts, the same thing still applies. I've never seen a ghost. Lacking evidence, I'm not particularly inclined to believe in them. Still, if they exist I'd like to see one. I'd actually take the time to do some sort of ghost hunt, if ever given the opportunity, just to increase the odds of a personal experience.

I know a lot of people who do believe in ghosts, for various reasons, none of them generally backed up by much logic. I've talked to a very few people who claim to have experienced something like a ghost themselves, but it's just not the same as having a personal experience. Plenty of people fabricate those stories to entertain or scare or just as a joke. Even for the one or two people who I know are dead serious, there are plenty of doubts about accuracy.

My own wife, for instance, has a story about staying at a "haunted house" and hearing noises. However, in our own home she often fails to recognize what I consider exceptionally familiar noises--the neighbor outside calling for his dog, which he does every night; the cat, downstairs, clawing at our couch; the cat, upstairs clawing at the carpet; etc. When these noises startle her and cause her to sit upright and ask me "what's that?!" I simply can't take her ghost noises stories as authoritative.

It doesn't help that the subject is flooded with hoaxes, cheesy fakes, and obviously explained phenomena--and I'm just talking the really obvious stuff here, not the classic "I'm a skeptic so I'm dismissing it out of hand" kind of stuff. It's hard to wade through that stuff to get to the genuinely unexplained stuff, and again one person's unexplained (like strange noises) might be another person's obvious.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Sulphur]

Just three.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Manfred Maccx]

If there indeed is no such thing as a soul, then science should be theoretically able to create life out of bunch of atoms through chemical reactions. If that happens, it would be a strong argument against God's existence. But so far, science couldn't create even an amoeba, simplest of all beings. I guess there's a component scientists are missing

Well, if the study described in that link is true and valid, your point is not true anymore and we could then have that strong argument as you said. http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge318.html

and yes, it is a completely pointless argument

[circletimessquare]

which was my original point

lol

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[digitig]

I can accept personal experience as a reason for someone to have a belief in something, though I have plenty of reservations there, because personal experience can be potentially fallible.

Yes, but it's still rational to act on it unless you have reason not to.

One of the other major problems with personal experience is it's personal. I'm not the type to tell someone else that my knowledge trumps their experience in a realm where facts can't apply, but if I haven't also had that experience myself I'm still left without any real evidence.

Absolutely, and it's an important point. It can be entirely rational for one person to believe something and for another person to reject that belief. Reason doesn't mean that everybody who uses it will come to the same beliefs -- something that often gets missed in these arguments.

I simply can't take her ghost noises stories as authoritative.

And if you had an experience that you interpreted as a ghost then others may not accept that interpretation. Models of explanation help, of course, but the models you accept will in part depend on your experiences.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[bcrowell]

If you think that because some religious people have stupid reasons for being religious they must all have stupid reasons for being religious then perhaps you should spend a few minutes with a critical thinking primer too.

I would distinguish between stupid ideas and stupid people. There are lots of smart people who have stupid ideas. Linus Pauling got a Nobel prize, so I think that qualifies him as smart in most people's books. But he also was convinced that vitamin C could cure cancer and do all sorts of other wonderful things, and when conclusive evidence showed that vitamin C didn't cure cancer, he wouldn't accept the evidence. He was a smart person who went to his grave stubbornly insisting on a stupid idea.

The fact that many smart people believe in Christianity doesn't automatically mean that there are good, intelligent reasons for believing in Christianity. People who are rational and objective in one area may be unable to think rationally and objectively in other areas. Of course the truth-value of Christianity is hard to define because there are many different brands of Christianity, and many different types of claims made by Christianity (historical, genealogical, moral, metaphysical). But there are certainly some of those claims that are known objectively as of 2010 to be false, such as the historical claims in the Old Testmant that make out the Hebrew tribe to be far older and far more powerful than it actually was. If an intelligent person believes those claims, then that's a case of an intelligent person believing a stupid idea.

The fact that an intelligent person believes in fairies doesn't imply that the existence of fairies isn't a stupid idea. It also doesn't imply that I should spend a lot of time reading books about fairies, because one of them might actually have a really good argument for the existence of fairies, which would finally convince me that I'd been wrong for all these years on the fairy issue.

Re:The Golden Mean

[Mongoose Disciple]

This is a very good argument against anthropogenic climate change, then.

That's not necessarily true.

Let's pretend for a minute that anthropogenic climate change is not only true, but is much more severe than anyone's suggested: if it's not halted within 10 years, all human life will perish within 20. Let's also pretend that only someone who's an expert in this field can fully understand this.

If you were a scientist who was pretty sure that was true, your zealousness and need to convince others of the truth of that fact wouldn't indicate that you were uncertain -- it would indicate that convincing others of the truth of that fact was extremely important.

Science and God are one

[xonar]

"Because there is a law such as gravity" If there is a God, who do you think created such laws?

Why is it that science and God are always held at opposition. Isn't it naturally logical that a hypothetical God would have used natural laws that he likely put into motion to begin with? God wouldn't just use magical fluff, he'd obviously be the greatest mathematician and scholar in existence.

"the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist"

Isn't God often attributed to have always existed or having created himself?

Even Stephen Hawking can do nothing but grasp at ideas when it comes to literally proving the existence or lack thereof, of a creator god.

Re:Science and God are one

[richardkelleher]

So, is gravity god then...

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[duh P3rf3ss3r]

I'm interested in your statement that space-time is separable. Please explain, ideally, with the appropriate references.

It would appear to me that saying that time is independent of space is like saying that the length and width of a rectangle can exist separately of each other. I also am dubious of your contention that two independent things are, of neccessity, separable. I may be able to independently set the length and width of a rectangle that I draw but that does not make them separable since it ceases to be a rectangle without one of those components.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[mrwolf007]

The news about Hawking's upcoming book challenges this argument, but unfortunately the article doesn't give details on why Hawking believes that the law of gravity proves that something can be created from nothing. If that can be proven (and I doubt it really can) then we can no longer prove that God exists with the above argument, and we are left with only faith.

Something appearing out of nothing?
Happens all the time, Pair production due to Quantum fluctuation.
Negating the thought with the time limit brought by the Uncertainty principle is impossible as the is no way of knowing if time even exists outside the boundaries of our universe.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[digitig]

The fact that many smart people believe in Christianity doesn't automatically mean that there are good, intelligent reasons for believing in Christianity.

Not in itself it doesn't; you have to look at the arguments. And it turns out that there are arguments on both sides that are a lot more subtle and involved than most non-specialists realise. It gets rather tiresome to see folks treating anybody who disagrees with them as having not thought about the subject with enough care or intelligence, when there are people on both sides of the argument that have put in a degree of care and intelligence that few if any here could match.

Here is a thought....

[rehtlog]

What if there was a God, and he actually created the entire universe. Now tell me that what actually happens when you die is nothing, your just dead. We could just be some form of entertainment for him, or he could just not care anymore and moved on to other planets, solar systems, galaxies, universes (with would actually make it multiverse). Not that I care, I just had a thought. (I'm an atheist also.)

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I've always had a problem with this. Why does an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being need to have a son to scout things out and die for our sins? Why can't God just forgive us and be done with all that nonsense? I'll tell you why. It's a fairy tale ... a plagiarized amalgam of older fairy tales.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[FriendlyPrimate]

"And what if we've picked the wrong religion? Every week we're just making God madder and madder." - Homer Simpson

And we've come full circle...

[Temujin_12]

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.

Oh so you mean "Creation Ex Nihilo". So in other words, "Hawking follows complex equations to conclusion that contradicts one of the fundamental axioms of science."

Don't get me wrong, Hawking is brilliant. But it seems, as a lay person, that he has let the equations run away from him on this one.

Of course, it all depends on what one's definition of "nothing" is.

Re:And we've come full circle...

[John Hasler]

"Hawking follows complex equations to conclusion that contradicts one of the fundamental axioms of science."

Please state that axiom.

Jury duty. . .

[JSBiff]

Faith is all fine and good, but faith is not "knowing for a fact".

1) I hope I never have occasion to be in front of a jury to begin with.

2) If I am ever in front of a Jury, I hope none of them think like CrazyJim1.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[fredklein]

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever", said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"

The scientist then asked "All the down... to what?" The lady threw her knitting at him and went home.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Smidge204]

I don't think anyone is saying "God didn't do it" either.

What they're saying is, "There's no reason to believe God did it." These two statements are not the same thing at all.

(Usually paired with "There's no reason to believe God even exists" - but not always)
=Smidge=

Re:The Golden Mean

[c6gunner]

I think saying "all atheism is alike" is like saying "all Christianity is alike."

Not even close.

Atheism is an answer to a single question - "Do you believe that God exists?".

If you answer "yes", you're not an atheist. If you answer "no", you are an atheist. Therefore all atheism IS the same, since it include no other questions, no answers, no beliefs or tenets of any kind. You could argue that not all atheists are the same, and you'd be correct, but the difference between them would have nothing to do with atheism.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Quirkz]

Very interesting points. Don't have much more to add, but it's some stuff to think about.

For the record, if I ever do see a ghost, I wouldn't ever expect anyone to believe me. I'm not sure I'd even admit it to anyone, except as a campfire story.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Your.Master]

I'm not sure how you can conclude that something has to have always existed. In fact, that seems to be the turtles all the way down position.

Perhaps the only thing that exists is a finite time-space. Or perhaps time is infinite only in the future direction, and not in the past.

I can't think of one single cogent reason why an infinite regress of time is more likely than a finite one. As for the opposite direction, I can cite entropy. Although I can also counter that because it may very well be that entropy is merely an expression of probability over the long term rather than a necessity, so given infinite time you would get "temporarily" reversed entropy for a handful of billions of years even through sheer chance.

I think the problem is that you're assuming that if time has a beginning, then there has to something "before" it that caused the beginning -- the uncaused cause. I think requiring a first mover or whatever is somewhat nonsensical (there is no before time, by definition; and if you invoke "outside of time" then it's exactly as relevant to universes with infinite time, so it's irrelevant), and anyway it's a leap of faith that I don't see any support for.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Attila Dimedici]

I had to google Kalam as I had never heard of it before. Perhaps you are unaware that the principle that anything that had a beginning had a cause is why so many atheists resisted the Big Bang theory for as long as they did?
That principle is also a basic tenet of all of the philosophies of science that I am aware of.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Evil Shabazz]

Ask Hobbes...

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[doshell]

[...] And yes I knew he would say his way is right, I just don't understand yet, but so might have Hitler. [...]

I declare this thread officially Godwin'ed!

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[amRadioHed]

If there was no time before the big-bang, then there was no change and thus no big bang would have been possible. That would be my guess at least.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[AdeP]

I could have used any maniac's name, Hitler is just well known *shrugs*

Re:Hawkings

[HeckRuler]

The butterfly effect goes against a systematic universe.

. . . Yeah. It does, doesn't it. It shows that the universe isn't "systematic" as you say.
But, uh, the butterfly effect is just a phenomena of calculations. Pure math. It can be applied to real world calculations like weather predictions, and lo and behold it's true. The main gist is that small, seemingly inconsequential changes can have macro-level results. And really small stuff, at the quantum level, is probabilistic, not deterministic. There's a chance that the atom will decay, and with enough that chance is very determinable and repeatable, but it's still a chance. I guess this is what I'm getting at: The universe IS just a gigantic bag of "just plain chaos". The "systems" you see are emergent properties of that chaos. Time, gravity, atoms, everything has it's fringe-cases where the rules as we know them break down. ok, this is a little cliche, but what the hell:
The chances of a specific set of lotto numbers being drawn tomorrow are very slim. But what are the chances that the lotto tomorrow will be a series of numbers? Very very good. And so you're standing there telling me about the miracle that is lotto, when there's no miracle at all.

Likewise, if there was another big bang, and it turned out that the sky was purple instead of blue, planets were torus-like, and neutrons bunched around electrons instead of protons, then everything would be different... But it'd still be here.

Re:The Golden Mean

[PitaBred]

The main problem is that if you just ignore the Christians, they pass laws outlawing the teaching of evolution and other such stupid things.

I am secure in my atheism. I don't go out preaching it. But I'm sure as hell not going to sit down and shut up when someone tries to use religion as a reason I should or shouldn't do or accept something.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Kitsune Inari]

If you're considering becoming a christian, please do it now. There's not much time left.

True, there are only 5,000 million years left, tops.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[CRCulver]

Funny enough, Swinburne's second concern after philosophy of religion is philosophy of science. He does not feel that the reasoning of the latter must somehow compensate for the former.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[PitaBred]

Because their beliefs get them special treatment from the government, and encourage them to engage in "holy" wars, try to restrict science and education in the name of their "sky wizard"... do I need to go on?

The problem is that people can't separate their religion from secular policy. If you can't, I damn well will make fun of you and your "sky wizard" and try to force you to take on the facts instead of using your superstition as a shield.

Re:The Golden Mean

[SanityInAnarchy]

I know a few people who are quietly atheist. Perhaps agnostic would be a better word, as they do not believe in God,

Nope, that's atheist, and the more people who use the term properly, the less often I'll have to answer "Prove to me God doesn't exist!" or worse, "Prove that atheism is true and correct!"

And then I have met many atheists who are zealots, or at least hobbyists, about it. Their disbelief is not a passive thing, but an active assertion, a passion, an argument they must make at every possible opportunity.

And yet, we should make a distinction here -- the disbelief itself is very much passive, and even in the most "militant" atheists will admit that, given sufficient evidence, they would believe. It is the consequences of that disbelief in light of such ubiquitous belief that leads to the "passion" you're talking about.

I have a passion for truth.

Robert Pirsig once observed that very few people run around screaming that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. Things we are deeply certain about generate very little in the way of zealotry.

This is largely because not only are we very sure of it, there isn't much argument about it. If there was a large community of people in the desert who were absolutely convinced the sun wouldn't rise tomorrow, and thus not concerned about finding shelter from the coming heat, then hell yes, I would be running around screaming that the sun would rise tomorrow to anyone who would listen.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

Perhaps I misread the intention behind the GP, but from my viewpoint it seemed as though he was refusing to learn about the subject, which would make the GP himself wrong. Then again, I could have had my Troll-Goggles on at the time.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

As a surprisingly well-minded poster has already said, why are you assuming I don't? I do spend quite a bit of time studying, especially in science(though math is more my thing). Logic I don't believe is something that can be taught, per se - to be honest, you have to experience and think critically on your own if you want to develop solid logic standpoints.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[fredklein]

Nor is there evidence against it. So, picking any option other than "I don't know" requires faith.

So, your Official Position on the gay, pink, invisible flying fire-breathing dragon in my garage is that you 'don't know' if it exists?

Re:Point Missed

[SanityInAnarchy]

The only reason I posted at all is because I get really tired of the "atheism is a religion/no it's not" argument. It's sophomoric, pedantic, and silly.

What? No, it's actually fundamental to the debate, and it undermines almost everything you said.

The epistemological observation is made that people "believe" a lot more than they "know," and it turns out that in the realm of belief-prompted-actions, atheists and Christians and Buddhists and everyone behave in strikingly similar ways.

Certainly -- except that "no god" is not a belief of any atheist I know. It's merely the default position. Neither knowing or believing has anything to do with it -- it's simply not knowing.

We want other people to believe what we believe.

Again not something I find terribly many atheists have as a goal -- at least, if you are talking about the lack of belief as a belief.

Nor do I necessarily care that other people share most of the things I do believe. I believe I'm a decent programmer, but I really don't care what you think.

The primary goals are much simpler: We want others to stop preaching at us and others, we want public and political debate to be informed by reason and evidence instead of emotional and biblical appeals, and we want people to stop making assumptions about atheists -- in particular, that we're evil, though the assumptions you made about beliefs are annoying also.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[TheoMurpse]

Humans evolve. Humans create self replicating robots. Humans go away. Some robots say they were built. Other robots rebut 'But who built the builders?' No one, they were not built.

Futurama called.

Inevitably...

[TheChrisCarroll]

When a scientist reaches for the word "inevitable" - and Hawking is not at all the first major scientist to do this - you have to ask, what place does empirical data have in this theoretical framework. "Inevitability" is not an empirical quality.

"the Big Bang was inevitable due to the law of gravity" (as the article puts it) is not an empirical statement. It's not science.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Chalnoth]

Yes -- but no more so than the assumption that such a god is not possible.

It doesn't matter. It's still an assumption in the argument, one that isn't necessarily the case, and thus the argument cannot possibly be a proof of the existence of a god.

It all just boils down to one single assumption: god is possible. But by this modal logic, anything that is possible is necessarily true. Thus in modal S5, the assumption that a god is possible is the assumption that a god exists.

The rest of the argument is just window dressing, an attempt to deceive the reader into thinking that they've actually proven something, when in reality they're just assuming the conclusion from the start.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Tetsujin]

I did, and I'm my own Grandpa.

It sounds funny, I know, but it really is so!

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Creedo]

Really? Plantinga's proof is a bad joke. It's just the same as every other attempt to salvage the ontological argument. You can attack it on a variety of levels, not just the weird piece of modal logic he uses to derive his conclusions. Plantinga may be a smart fellow, but he uses stupid rationalizations to support his beliefs.

Re: Buddhism

[TaoPhoenix]

Nah. Buddhism is pretty realistic.

Switching to modern language, it becomes:

"Everyone craves something. Craving isn't so great after all. You really need to tone down, and no matter how much your instincts throw a tantrum, it is possible."

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Creedo]

Read it several times. I bought into it before I was exposed to some actual logic. A weird false trichotomy and an argument from natural law is not what I would call intellectual arguments.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Creedo]

Because those people are voters who have some sway over how the country I have to share with them is run? I consider that more than enough reason to confront such juvenile beliefs when held by adults.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[digitig]

Consider this thought experiment:

Joe Smith has been accused of murder. You don't know Joe Smith, but you take an interest in the case and decide to investigate it. You talk to one person who says they believe Joe Smith is innocent. But they can't point to any actual evidence that supports that. They deny the oppositions evidence, replacing it with illogical theories of their own.

See? That's what talking to someone who argues there is a god is like. They swear there is a god, but they. have. no. evidence.

Yes, absolutely: no evidence that they can offer you. But they may have evidence that satisfies them. It's rational for them to believe (if they have the experience they claim), and it is just as rational for you not to believe. Our thought experiments don't contradict each other in any way unless you believe that reason will infallibly lead everybody to the same conclusions. And if you do believe that, what is the foundation for that belief?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[digitig]

But if you assume God cannot exist then there is no possible argument. My disagreement with Plantinga is over the choice of S5.

"Everything has a cause" = lack of imagination

[Tetsujin]

moral - a quick read of the bible clearly shows that modern christians get their moral values form the same place as athiests: modern liberal secular values that have been explored since the enlightenment and can be simply expressed as do onto others as you would have done to yourself, or do not directly harm other people.

Well, to say that people, Christian or not, are discovering and holding the same values is a good argument for the existence of objective morality. After all, if such a thing as "objective morality" exists, then wouldn't there be a good chance that even nonbelievers would accept those same principles, even if learned from another source?

To me the better approach is to question the idea of objective morality. Does such a thing really exist outside of ourselves? Most of the guidelines accepted as "moral standards" are simply practical guidelines for living as a social creature. As we are social creatures, we must live in a way that enables us to enjoy the company of others. Is it wrong to kill? Or to steal? The reason these behaviors are unacceptable is because they lead to gain at another's expense. If this kind of behavior were tolerated by the group, the group would tear itself apart with acts of vengeance and greed. There must be order for a social group to work, and that (I contend) is the basis of morality.

Re:"Everything has a cause" = lack of imagination

[canadian_right]

I think that there is no objective morality that can be tested like the law of gravity can be tested. Still, there is value in discussing morality and trying to come to an agreement that most people in a society can agree to as to what is good and bad.

Re:"Everything has a cause" = lack of imagination

[jesset77]

To me the better approach is to question the idea of objective morality. Does such a thing really exist outside of ourselves?

Yeah, I believe there is such a thing as objective morality. I hope I'm matching terms with you, but my understanding is that:

* The universe is a constantly changing medium.

* Motive beings are defined by their agendas; what they want. How they wish to influence the universe around them. Keeping things the same (aka, imposing order upon chaos, slowing the change of the universe around them) counts as an agenda, and helps to define that particular motive being.

* The success of a motive being is defined as their ability to realize their agendas.

* Cooperation and alliance are the most powerful means we know for motive beings to successfully realize their agendas. In short, motive beings are more powerful influences than non-motive forces, and profiting from their activities is easier to do when you cooperate with them than when you antagonize them.

* Thus, whatever strategies can be empirically determined to more successfully foster cooperation can be defined as "moral" and whatever strategies, due to bad planning, selfishness, short sightedness, etc fail to foster cooperation or that lead to communal (and thus ultimately individual) failure can be classified as "immoral". This model sees foolishness and malice as isomorphic. We must instead strive for wisdom and shrewd kindness, which are also born out as isomorphic characteristics.

I agree this approach entails rerooting the definition of many terms including "morality", but I believe we wind up with a pretty consistent working definition to what we use in daily life, but with a working model that helps describe how to behave in a variety of difficult edge and corner cases. We're also left with an explanation and definition of "objective morality" that presupposes no more than certain characteristics of the universe, and the existence of motive actors, which you would kind of need anyway, right? Inanimate objects cannot behave morally as they cannot be said to "behave" at all.

Let me know if this explanation is reasonable at all. Took me all of 30 years to work out, and it's served me well in practice for the 3 years since. :3

Also, hells yeah bow ties are cool. :D

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Tetsujin]

tl;dr

Weak, dude, seriously. If you can't take the time to read things then go watch some Youtube or something. Leave the philosophical discussions to the would-be philosophers. You know, the ones with an attention span...

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[sammysheep]

False. That atheists have no "moral code" simply because the reject some arbitrary collection of do's and don'ts is a common but incorrect assumption. Sure, there are plenty of amoral atheists, but then again, there are plenty of outright scoundrels who will bleat long and loud about their "Christian values". On the other hand, some of the most "moral" people I know are atheists. They take full responsibility for their actions (no "salvation" just for uttering some magic words) and weigh those actions against a thoughtful and continuously evaluated personal code. In other words, they choose to do the "right" thing because it is right, not because someone else said it was right and threatened them with torture if they disobeyed.

Agreed. I think atheists do have a sense of morality, and some follow it more than others just as you say. If I ask why and where it comes from, I anticipate getting a variety of answers ranging from utilitarianism to cultural heritage to some guiding personal philosophy that they one day understood. Therefore, I'll skip to something less cliche...

From reading post after post I've noticed a trend: atheists are incensed with the idea of God sending people to hell. God is called unjust and worse by creating such an inequitable punishment; however, in order to call God unjust a moral framework is presupposed. If this framework is just a construct, as an atheist should suppose, then why call God unjust, it's just a construct? If the framework is absolute, then you are presupposing God exists and then trying to disprove Him by it.

I'll cut through the rhetoric then. Human beings, including Christians, are shocked at what God does and doesn't do. We don't understand Him all the time, because really, He's not the same as us. (Why should we suppose God is created in our image?) When it comes down to moral reasoning, a subject (like humanity) lacks the objectivity to define its own moral goodness or badness whatever the set of rules. Legally, you cannot be judge and witness at once (wait for the /. tangental counterexample that is set +5 insightful). Someone outside you must play the part of judge. That Someone is God for humanity, and if we don't like Him sometimes, it doesn't make Him as unfair as letting us judge our own persons. Guess what, I can't mod myself up! Why is that?

PS! To other Christians: the "believe because if you're wrong, you'll go to hell" argument is not good. People typically believe what they find credible, whether appealing to a trusted authority, by personal experience, or by rational thought. Belief by fear is not any these, and the first Christians did not use it either, rather, they appealed to the empty tomb and to the witnesses (historical-legal evidence) who had seen the risen Lord.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[digitig]

Ooh, the modding war on that post is fun, isn't it? Almost as if some people don't want the argument to be noticed!

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Chalnoth]

While I still hold that the particular god which Plantinga pointed out cannot possibly exist, it isn't necessary. This is because there are not two options, but three:

1. Assume that this god can exist.
2. Assume that this god cannot exist.
3. Leave open the question of whether this god can or cannot exist.

One need only take the third position to demonstrate that Plantinga's argument boils down to assuming that this god exists.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[AnyoneEB]

I am not exactly sure what you are looking for here. What you quote is an empirical fact verified by psychology studies. If you want a reason for that trait to be common in humans, I guess the reason would probably be something along the lines of it being an evolutionarily successful trait as it allows humans to trust each other and therefore work together, but IANAEP.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[sjames]

Personally,I don't believe we go to hell if we get it wrong, we just have to do it again until we get it right. Sort of a life-long Groundhog Day :-)

I suppose I count as a theist of some sort, I believe there is a great collective intelligence.

Moderation abuse, surprise, surprise.

[Vidar Leathershod]

Here I take the trouble to point out the hypocrisy of the parent, and *I* get marked as a troll, and he gets marked insightful for his insult.

Stay classy.

Re:Hawkings

[Voulnet]

The butterfly does indeed explain chaos, but it explains restricted and limited chaos, within some sort of parameter, that is why weather can be predicted, because it's a system; it just has some entropy, otherwise we wouldn't have a limited set of weather conditions. The butterfly effect is definitely not an example of the creation of the universe, because it explains how a change can ripple through many dimensions, rendering it a completely unpredictable, but not necessarily un-systematic, which I kinda did not explain optimally in the previous post. If there weren't limited sets of possibilities, the computer you're typing on could have just evaporated before you clicked submit, yet the atoms making the computer can have some entropy; but it's controlled entropy; a mere tolerance in a system. The butterfly effect, in a complete chaos form cannot possibly explain the creation of the universe. Probability doesn't just fail to explain the creation of such a complex related system, it also can't explain its sustainability, the very complex laws governing its relations such as the laws of thermodynamics. If you won't make sense of the previous example of a car suddenly forming up and running from ashes, how can one explain the creation and sustainability of this universe, which is so systematic, yet it preserves some sort of little entropy; giving it some flexibility, it's the contrary of what you explain; not lots of chaos that resulted in a system, but rather a system that has some entropy or 'freedom' in little minute fragments.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[haruchai]

You can find YouTube videos with Muslims responding to the question of who created Allah. The answer is usually something like since he is eternal and is both the first and the last ( something to do with his names), he is, by definition, uncreated.
I imagine every religion that believes in a similar deity makes or can make the same argument.

So, if millions (billions?) of supposedly rational people have no trouble believing in an omnipotent, eternal alien who has always been and always will be, and who demands the adulation of insignificant specks of organic matter, what's the problem with me believing in a universe that exploded into existence out of absolutely nothing.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[sammysheep]

Because "God did it" adds nothing to our understanding and adds an extra, seemingly unnecessary link in the chain of reasoning. It's a platitude, not an explanation.

It is important to distinguish between first and secondary/last causes. For example, if I were to ask you why you were born, I could say "God did it." You might argue:

My parents had sex and I was born.

True. However, nothing in our universe has a cause in itself, so I might argue: but only because their parents had sex first! We can continue this chain of cause & effect until we return to the beginning of the universe and I can still say "God did it," but now as a "first cause," not as the "last cause" of your parents having sex. Moreover, knowing that God did it as a first cause does not stop me from investigating the plentiful secondary causes, unless of course I lack the means or am intellectually apathetic. Both the first and secondary causes are true, but the former gives spiritual insight whereas the latter gives mechanistic insight. Each has its own separate and different value. There are miraculous exceptions of course, but that's a puzzle that should be examined carefully.

But what caused God then? You said nothing in our universe was the cause of itself.

For God to create the universe, He necessarily transcends it and is not bound to cause & effect, time, or space. He exists outside them, or in them, as He chooses. Too many theories of God have Him as an all-powerful member of our universe when really He is quite beyond it.

All that aside, I'm sorry when people use the "God did it" argument in order to avoid secondary causes.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually in modern physics, all forces are result of Gauge symmetry of the universe. For example, Electromagnetism comes from local O(1) Gauge symmetry, which is the symmetry that says not only are you free to multiply the field describing a particle by any complex number |z|=1, you are free to multiply by any complex function |f(x)|=1 of space time coordinate x and the field would describe the same thing.

The point is. Instead of thinking of the forces as ad hoc existence that some would say created by god, we now think of them as result of symmetry of the universe. Surely one can still argue god is responsible for the said symmetry, but that's just the same old historic moving-the-goal-post response from theists.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[MightyYar]

Isn't that a new topic entirely? Your original question was regarding why an atheist would have a personal code, and my answer was that one reason is that they have to sleep at night - and that is hard if a person is both nasty and empathetic.

As to WHY a person is empathetic, I think it probably is because humans with that trait did better than humans without that trait because it made their society/tribe more likely to succeed as a whole. But that is decidedly not my field, and I'm just speculating wildly.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[raind]

We can find the answer in the book; The Tao of Pooh. Very fun book.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[raind]

Uhh no. wtf are you talking about AC?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[BitZtream]

I'm fairly sure you have no clue what most Christians think.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[BitZtream]

Yes, and statistics prove that its safer to ride a bicycle on the street than it is on the side walk.

Statistics can prove the Earth is flat, and that you have a large penis.

Whats that mean? Anything can be warped to the point that its wrong, even if you can seemingly 'prove' it.

Any thing you through out there with 'proof' I can find proof of the exact opposite, doesn't make either one of us right, it just makes you stupid for believing retarded statistics without thinking for yourself about how illogical they are and trying to determine why logic and reality don't align.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[youngone]

Well, I think you should choose mine. I haven't ironed out all the wrinkles yet, but I think it'll work. It will involve beer somewhere along the line, I'm pretty sure about that. I haven't quite figured out how to make you send me money yet, and that seems to be the most important part of any church, so I'll fill in the rest of the details when I've got that bit sorted. Meanwhile, cheers.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Pseudonym]

Thousands bought it, hundreds read it, dozens understood it.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[corrie]

It is not that "scientific explanations preclude God as a valid concept".

It is that "there is nothing that needs a God concept as part of the explanation for it".

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[XxtraLarGe]

This is a fantastic argument against Christianity. Why would anyone want to worship what sounds like pure evil?

That's an odd choice of words. The concept of evil doesn't even make sense in a world where there is no God. In a Godless world, evil is just a matter of opinion, not something quantifiable. Still most of us are readily able to identify something truly evil. Ironically, many atheists claim the God of the Bible is evil, and therefore doesn't deserve to be worshiped. That means either they believe that God exists but isn't worthy of worship, or they don't believe he exists, which negates their ability to refer to him as evil in the first place.

As to why anyone would want to worship "what sounds like pure evil", it's quite simple. You can't ever be good enough to earn your way to Heaven, so God gave you an easy way in.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Scientifically, philosophically and theologically "the beginning" is just something we can't figure out.

Why would you declare this knowledge impenetrable? Hawking discusses this specifically in A Brief History of Time.

The basic idea is that time is a dimension. Do you say that before the Big Bang that length always existed? Width or depth? If not, then why time? There is no 'before the Big Bang' because you need time to explain that concept, and there was no time.

So, then you can play Zeno's Paradox with time, and try to get asymptotically close to it, but Hawking's insight is that time is closed near the beginning. Try to get to zero and you come back out into the positive again, as if it loops back on itself. I'm sure I have the details wrong, I seem to recall irrational numbers are required to do the math, but the basic point is that there is no time zero in our universe, so there's no possible way to get to zero much less -1.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Atheists don't do faith - it's kinda the point. The only people who insist that they do are religious nutters who lack imagination, and thus can't conceive of anyone not being exactly like themselves.

That's false, and I can provide a counterexample. I'm not religious in any sense, but I recognise that it requires a measure of faith* to say, with certainty, that no god exists. It is, in fact, the agnostics who are true sceptics without faith, waiting for evidence for or against the existence of a deity.

* The word "faith" has the wrong connotation here, but it's appropriate enough.

A thing can't be its own cause

[Dannon]

Lee Strobel (former atheist and crime beat journalist) has several great books that take a serious, rational look at whether the evidence stacks up for or against Christianity. I just recently finished The Case for Faith, and he looks at Hawking's arguments. He's got a good methodology: He takes the skeptic's view, and interviews top theologians, philosophers, and scientists. Here's just a few good pieces out of the chapter on miracles and science:

Craig chuckled. "Of course, something coming from nothing doesn't make sense! Lee, you've been quoting the famous skeptic David Hume quite a bit in our interview. Well, even he said: 'But allow me to tell you that I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.'
"Atheists recognize this. For example, one of contemporary philosophy's most prominent atheists, Kai Nielsen, once said: 'Suppose you suddenly hear a loud bang... and you ask me, 'What made that bang?' and I reply, 'Nothing, it just happened.' You would not accept that.
"And he's absolutely correct. Yet think about it: if there must be a cause for a little bang, then doesn't it also make sense that there would be a cause for a big bang?"

"First, whatever begins to exist has a cause. Second, the universe began to exist. And, third, therefore, the universe has a cause."

"Atheists themselves used to be very comfortable in maintaining that the universe is eternal and uncaused," he replied. "The problem is that they can no longer hold that position because of modern evidence that the universe started with the Big Bang. So they can't legitimately object when I make the same claim about God-- he is eternal and he is uncaused."

So, it seems to me that atheists are stuck trying to explain away "turtles all the way down" this time. In a nutshell: Thanks to Hawking, we can see gravity either in the old-school attraction-between-masses way, or in the curvature-of-spacetime way. Either way, gravity is built in to the universe. It does not compute that a part of the universe could be its own cause.

Re:A thing can't be its own cause

[benhattman]

He's got a good methodology: He takes the skeptic's view, and interviews top theologians, philosophers, and scientists.

I would be very hesitant to use Strobel's books as proof of anything. His actual methodology is to find famous biblical apologists and ask them skeptical sounding (but softball) questions, and then never challenge their first answer.

Let's say a well known atheist interviewed Dawkins or Dennett and they hold this fake interview.

"If there is no god, how did we get here?"
"Oh, we've known for a long time that we evolved from other primates."
"Wow, that's pretty impressive to have figured that out"

And the interview ends. If you read that, you'd be flummoxed that he didn't follow up with harder questions about abiogenesis or the big bang. You would say the book was a charade. This is how Strobel executes his own interviews. Worse, he tends to ask his interviewees questions they aren't really qualified to answer. Your quote is from William Lane Craig, who is a theologian and philosopher. There are broad differences of opinion in the fields of theology and philosophy, but Craig is at least a qualified expert in those domains. He is not an expert in astrophysics.

That doesn't mean he is unqualified to hold an opinion. Only, that his opinion in those fields is not particularly more valid or interesting than if you asked a random person off the street. Why would Strobel go out of his way to interview people on topics about which they are not experts?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[tombeard]

Worship thou her the majestic IPU

Re:Point Missed

[tombeard]

http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~avm1260/atheism/dawn.html

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Vectormatic]

No, you can progress in any life, even if you were born an earthworm, granted, you wont go from earthworm to person in one step (i think anyway), but it isnt sitting around waiting to become a hindu

As for the hindu thing, this reincarnation thing is also tied in with the old caste system, people who did poorly in life will come back as a lower caste person.

But yeah, in essence your current place in the world would be the result of what you (well, i dont know how much of you, since memories/mind do not persist) did in previous lives..

(if any hindu spots a flaw in my explanation please correct me by the way)

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Vectormatic]

i agree with your explanation of pascals thinking, but i dont agree with pascal. Obviously my pork and whiskey were trivial matters (honestly, i could probably do without pork or alcohol if i wanted too), i was sort of avoiding mentioning losing freedom, since that is in essence what most mainstream religions make you do. They take away part of your freedom in exchange for some (potentially false) security in the afterlife.

So yes, i am in disagreement with pascal about what is valuable, i value the ability to think for one self as a human, pascal obviously thought freedom was of minor importance

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Tablizer]

If Chuck Norris chucked himself, would that be recursion also? How many chucks would a norris chuck if a woodchuck......nevermind.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[hkmwbz]

Because that's how we evolved. It was an evolutionary advantage, and strengthened the group. Empathy means that members of the group would help each other out, which made them stronger together, and that increased the survival rate of members of the group.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[hkmwbz]

If this framework is just a construct, as an atheist should suppose, then why call God unjust, it's just a construct?

Because the atheist thinks God, the fantasy figure being described, is unjust, as per the atheist's moral code. Just like you can look at a movie with a fictional story and hold opinions on the actions of the fictional characters therein.

If the framework is absolute, then you are presupposing God exists and then trying to disprove Him by it.

You don't need absolute morality to have opinions about what you think is good or bad.

When it comes down to moral reasoning, a subject (like humanity) lacks the objectivity to define its own moral goodness or badness whatever the set of rules. Legally, you cannot be judge and witness at once (wait for the /. tangental counterexample that is set +5 insightful). Someone outside you must play the part of judge.

Not at all. Anyone can hold an opinion on anything. If an atheist finds the description of God in the fantasy book call the Bible to be disgusting and immoral, then that's that atheist's opinion and moral stance. No invisible sky-daddy needed.

Your argument is circular, and assumes that God made morality.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[VJ42]

The basic idea is that time is a dimension. Do you say that before the Big Bang that length always existed? Width or depth? If not, then why time? There is no 'before the Big Bang' because you need time to explain that concept

I can't speak for the GP, but we can still ask the question "what caused the big bang" if we ever get an answer to that question, we will then as what caused that and so on. At the moment, even if it's not Turtles all the way down, they stretch for as far as we can currently see.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Smidge204]

For God to create the universe, He necessarily transcends it and is not bound to cause & effect, time, or space.

This is called "making shit up so I don't have to answer the question."

A thousand years ago people thought the Abrahamic God was very real and very active in the daily lives of humans, just like every other god before. Now that empirical science has provided workable and useful explanations for nearly everything in the observable universe, apologists are saying "Oh yeah?! Well God is OUTSIDE the universe! Neener neener neener!"

Keep moving that goalpost.
=Smidge=

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Okay. It is impossible to deduce something from nothing (one of the first rules of logic).

Ergo the step nothing -> something is an impossibility, in theoretical mathematics.

Ergo our universe never made the step nothing -> something, as it obeys those mathematics (if it doesn't we might as well shut down science and call it a day).

Ergo there is something eternal in the background. (I don't mean God, or at least, not *necessarily*)

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[sznupi]

Indeed, ideas & concepts are not physical; and their mere formulation doesn't mean creation.

Generally - "not physical / not touchable"...the last resort, last escape for some; to wash out the concept out of most of the meaning it had. Because quite likely also your deity, just as well as most of them, supposedly was at some point very much approachable. Don't believe me? Read a decently full cut of your mythology for once.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[sammysheep]

Because the atheist thinks God, the fantasy figure being described, is unjust, as per the atheist's moral code. Just like you can look at a movie with a fictional story and hold opinions on the actions of the fictional characters therein.

The point here is that if your moral code is just a preference or a construct, you can have opinions about it but your angry feelings are silly and irrational under your own assumption.

You don't need absolute morality to have opinions about what you think is good or bad.

Yes that's true, which is why my argument is framed by letting you accept either axiom, absolute OR constructed morality, and follows then each assumption to its conclusion. I apologize for not making that more clear.

Not at all. Anyone can hold an opinion on anything. If an atheist finds the description of God in the fantasy book call the Bible to be disgusting and immoral, then that's that atheist's opinion and moral stance. No invisible sky-daddy needed.

You did not answer my appeal to objectivity even though you quoted me here, but yes, one can have opinions about anything; however, if you want those opinions to have meaning and choose to use them in arguments, then you have to presuppose something is true. If you presuppose morality is a construct, then God's offenses are meaningless, so a more direct route would be to prove your assumption that morality is a construct instead, not that "God is bad" which you assume to be meaningless. If you choose to presuppose morality is absolute and God created it, then trying to disprove Him by appealing to an absolute framework is not only double-minded but also requires you to have perfect objectivity unavailable to you as a member within humanity (absolute morality presupposes self-judging as invalid).

Your argument is circular, and assumes that God made morality.

The idea of axiom, as you well know, is to accept something as true and work out the consequences based upon those primary assumptions. This has nothing to do with circular reasoning but taking each idea and following it to its logical end. If I fail to come up with a coherent argument against something by presupposing either axiom, then it is worth my time to reframe my argument.

As to my appeal to objectivity, an atheist can either accept that self-judging one's own moral goodness is either valid (relative morality only) or invalid (in the case of either kind of morality). If you suppose it is valid to judge oneself morally then we have nothing to discuss because you have perfect faith in your own objectivity. That is your axiom and you may choose it. However, if we take self-judging to be invalid and need something outside of ourselves to judge us, then railing against God for judging humanity as a group is by definition invalid since such railing fails the objectivity test.

Btw, this "Sky-Daddy" business is humorously reminiscent of "Ceiling Cat" to me.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[sammysheep]

The idea of appealing to transcendence is not unique to Christian thought.

Scientists have hypothesized multiverse models to explain the formation of the known universe. The multiverse, except for our part of it, is beyond the scope of our ability to test directly. A multiverse can be considered "transcendent" because it is beyond our universe and may not be governed by the same physical laws in every respect.

As a side note, the transcendence and *imminence* (being near) of God are both present throughout the Bible and well-understood by theologians.

In any case, I find the" who created God versus what created the multiverse/universe" question to be too rhetorical. A more concrete question is: when we observe what is not transcendent, does it seem that the universe and life is formed by stochastic mechanistic processes or by organized intelligence?

Kind regards.
S^3

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[sammysheep]

Forgive me for the false dichotomy, allow me rephrase: to what degree is the universe and life is formed by stochastic mechanistic processes and/or by organized intelligence?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Joce640k]

You can prove there's more atheists then theists in prison or that the Earth is flat? OK, go ahead.

PS: Note how all my posts have links to back them up but yours don't...? Hmmm.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Joce640k]

John 10:30: "I and the Father are one."

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[SakuraDreams]

moral - a quick read of the bible clearly shows that modern christians get their moral values form the same place as athiests: modern liberal secular values that have been explored since the enlightenment and can be simply expressed as do onto others as you would have done to yourself, or do not directly harm other people.

The history of the development of natural rights or human rights is very interesting. It predates Enlightenment and it follows Roman and Greek Law. The concept of human rights isn't even common outside of the West and seems to have developed closely tied to the Christian Church and Canon Law. Personal God = personal rights.

Brian Tierney:
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/jihr/v2/2/2.pdf.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Teckla]

Ultimately everybody -- religious, agnostic, atheist -- is putting faith in themselves making the right call. I don't see any way around that.

I don't agree.

Faith is belief without proof. Most agnostics and atheists have looked at the data and drawn conclusions based on that data. (And some non-religious theists, too.)

That's the exact opposite of faith. They've shaped their decisions based on data.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Teckla]

I am religious (though probably not more than average - but enough to usually defend religion in threads like these) and I'm not offended by your post. I think you made some valid points. But even if all major religions are wrong, it still doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.

I agree, and I hope I didn't suggest otherwise. My stance is, "I don't know whether or not God exists, and neither do you."

The only thing I'm really interested in pointing out is that nobody knows the mind of God (if he exists).

This is why I reject religion (of any kind). Religions are just groups of ignorant people that insist they know the mind of God.

If God does exist, I'm not sure he'll be very impressed by the people who spouted off, in his name, from a position of ignorance.

Also, I wouldn't want to believe in a psychopath God who send all members of different religions to Hell.

Even if you take hell out of the equation, all the Abrahamic religions have, at their center, a psychopathic/sociopathic God.

In some, such as Christianity, God has supposedly decided to become less psychopathic/sociopathic. But there is no denying that, according to their holy books, God at least used to be psychopathic/sociopathic.

If God exists, I don't think he'll be very impressed with people that thought he ever behaved in such an insane manner.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Thiez]

> It's like you're floating in the ocean, then when the coast guard throws you a life preserver you refuse to grab onto it, expecting to be rescued some other way, then curse the coast guard for allowing you to drown.

Well in defense of the people refusing to be saved by your coast guard, he is the same guy that created that ocean and threw those people in it in the first place. He shouldn't be surprised when people notice how he's screwing with them and think drowning is a small price to pay for ones dignity.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[digitig]

Faith is belief without proof, as you say. Why do you then go on to treat it as if it means belief without data, which is not the same thing at all? And why do you assume that religionists have not looked at the data and drawn conclusions based on that data? Have you so much faith in your own data gathering and analytic skills that you believe anybody who comes to different conclusions can't have done those things?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[operagost]

He sets the rules and follows the rules. It goes against nature for willfully rebellious creatures to be with a perfect, lawful being. It's like drawing a circle and saying it's just a square with only one side.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Teckla]

Faith is belief without proof, as you say. Why do you then go on to treat it as if it means belief without data, which is not the same thing at all?

Sorry, I'm not catching the distinction you're making. I'm internally defining: proof = data = evidence.

And why do you assume that religionists have not looked at the data and drawn conclusions based on that data?

Because the data overwhelmingly suggests that people inherit their religion from their parents and society.

Have you so much faith in your own data gathering and analytic skills that you believe anybody who comes to different conclusions can't have done those things?

Gathering data and analyzing it isn't faith, though one does have to be careful about confirmation bias.

Keep in mind that I admit that I don't know whether or not God exists (and neither do you!), and if he does exist, I don't pretend to know what he wants and what his motivations are.

I'm going out of my way to say "I don't know!" (and neither do you!) to the big questions, rather than staking a position based on ignorance and insisting it's right.

Re:The Golden Mean

[operagost]

That was my point-- I was refuting the idea that the greatest zealots actually have a seed of doubt that motivates them.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[digitig]

Sorry, I'm not catching the distinction you're making. I'm internally defining: proof = data = evidence.

That's a fundamental problem, and I find it hard to see how you could construct any coherent argument with that understanding. In their normal meaning they are very different things.

"David Cameron is Prime Minister of the UK" is data, but it's not proof of the existence of God, and few would even consider it evidence of the existence of God.

Perturbations in the orbit of Neptune were evidence of an object in an orbit further out, but not proof of it. Observation of Pluto was proof of such a planet, but the perturbations turned out to be caused by relativity, not by Pluto.

Has it occurred to you that a persons upbringing might influence what data is readily available to them?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[DarthVain]

The Titans. Sheesh! How hard was that!

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[DarthVain]

10 Turn into X screw Y.
20 Throw a lightning bolt.
30 GOTO 10

That seems to be the AI programming for Zeus.

Let X be any animal of creation.
Let Y be either a God or Human.

Re:Hawkings

[HeckRuler]

Well you seem like a nice enough guy, even if you have some odd ideas.

Hawking Picks Physics Over God For Big Bang

[MrKaos]

Oh, thank God someone finally came up with the answer!

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[bcrowell]

>>The fact that many smart people believe in Christianity doesn't automatically mean that there are good, intelligent reasons for believing in Christianity.

>Not in itself it doesn't; you have to look at the arguments. And it turns out that there are arguments on both sides that are a lot more subtle and involved than most non-specialists realise. It gets rather tiresome to see folks treating anybody who disagrees with them as having not thought about the subject with enough care or intelligence, when there are people on both sides of the argument that have put in a degree of care and intelligence that few if any here could match.

What if I say that you have to look at the arguments for the existence of fairies. It turns out that there are arguments on both sides that are a lot more subtle and involved than most non-specialists realize. It gets rather tiresome to see folks treating anybody who disagrees with them as having not thought about the subject with enough care or intelligence, when there are people on both sides of the argument that have put in a degree of care and intelligence that few if any here could match.

You talk about "specialists," as if there was some intellectually rigorous body of knowledge and technique, with underpinnings that experts had agreed on based on objective criteria. What "specialists" would these be? If they're philosophers, then I suspect you will find roughly zero academic philosophers these days who think that proving or disproving the existence of the Christian deity is a meaningful exercise. Ditto for academics who study logic mathematically. If they're theologians, then you're talking about people who have already bought into a certain religion, debating according to principles that are only accepted within their religion.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[digitig]

You talk about "specialists," as if there was some intellectually rigorous body of knowledge and technique, with underpinnings that experts had agreed on based on objective criteria. What "specialists" would these be? If they're philosophers, then I suspect you will find roughly zero academic philosophers these days who think that proving or disproving the existence of the Christian deity is a meaningful exercise.

Only true for remarkably large values of zero. A recent survey reported in Philosophy Now magazine identified that roughly 20% of academic philosophers believe in one or more gods, and philosophy of religion is still an active field. I've been researching the literature in the field recently (earlier this year) and there is a lot still being done on the arguments for and against the existence of God. The general public might think that the issue is trivially decided, but academia doesn't.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[DarthVain]

Its because of how our minds work. We categorize things, we name things, we describe things, by the very definition we create BOUNDARIES around things that are and are not. We make generic terms for absolute values we really don't understand. Things like everything, or nothing. The same logical fallacy, If god is so great, have him make a bolder he cannot lift. It is circular logic based on an absolute value that we don't really comprehend other than we have given it a name. We seem to be great at conceptualizing things to make them simpler and easier to understand, however the real world which we try to describe is more complex than that, and we have difficulty with that principle. A favorite example is static vs dynamic. I don't think there is anything in the "real" world that is static, everything (oops there we go) is dynamic. Static only applies to conceptual ideas, not things. Take an apple for example. Someone might argue that a single apple is one static thing. However even a lowly apple is made up of particles that are moving, vibrating, changing shape, over time (don't even get me started on time). If you proceed smaller and smaller it becomes more and more volatile. At some point "stuff" is so dispirsed, that calling it anything, other than just "space" would be ridiculous. Are we prepared for the idea that we exist in some sort of dynamic cosmic apple? Its pretty mind blowing. Also by its very nature, of being absolute, there is only but two occurrences in the entire universe, and because of its rarity and our limited interaction to it, it is not all that surprising that we fail to really comprehend what it is all about. I am convinced that part of our problem is that we evolved thinking through communication (though some might argue the other way around, but it is a moot point, only that one is based on the other), and that limits the way we can actually perceive things around us and how well we can really understand. Personally there is likely at some higher level of understanding a trick of physics that evolves beyond the idea of limits and boundaries, where the definition of infinity isn't quite what we currently perceive it to be. We also pretty much have to use our minds to perceive things. Something like 80% of all information we receive is visual. That of course is limited to the visual spectrum of light. Most thing at a very small of big scale we look at what we can shoot at it, and try to observe what happens (bounce, bend, flicker, movement, etc..). In most cases that is light. However at the very small scale (relative to us) light will actually change what it is trying to observe due to its similar size. There are also problems at the other end of the spectrum (pardon pun) where light becomes diffuse and dispersed but more importantly, very very slow on a cosmic level. Things like the Large Hadron Collider are the next step in elemental observation, though it think it only gets harder from here. Science might be on an exponential curve of difficulty as we leave the realm of learning about things in approximation to ourselves. It could be that we have mostly learned most of the easy stuff (so far as physics is concerned), and that it gets much harder and slower from here on out. I know anytime I try to figure out this sort of stuff my brain hurts, and I end up having to cool it down with beer or something.

and no i don't believe in paragraphs! :)

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[corbettw]

And you should leave the humorous comments to the would-be comedians. You know, the ones with a sense of humor...

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[jackbird]

As a rule of thumb, the further west you go, the more Buddhism resembles a traditional religion. Japanese Zen Buddhism is definitely as you described, but by the time you get over to Tibet or India, the boddhisatvas, demons, consorts, and other assorted beings, not to mention the practice of making offerings to idols, starts looking much more like a polytheistic religion.

Re:Hawkings

[Voulnet]

Well, it is indeed very rare these days to have a rational discussion in Slashdot regarding a volatile topic such as this, so kudos to you too for upholding a polite debate.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[UnknownSoldier]

You still haven't given any proof or references that time starts or stops that you initially asserted...

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Cyberax]

OK. Another example: we started to study our Solar System looooooooong before we were able to detect planets around other stars.

We studied it well enough to discover Neptune first by _predicting_ its existence based on observations.

You can isolate influences of various variables by modeling their influence. Which certainly is possible.

Besides, maybe it'll be possible to look at _other_ Universes somehow.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[UnknownSoldier]

> It would appear to me that saying that time is independent of space is like saying that the length and width of a rectangle can exist separately of each other. I also am dubious of your contention that two independent things are, of neccessity, separable. I may be able to independently set the length and width of a rectangle that I draw but that does not make them separable since it ceases to be a rectangle without one of those components.

That is an bad/incorrect analogy; you are mixing dimensions. Space is 3 dimensional, Time is only 1 dimensional.

> I also am dubious of your contention that two independent things are, of neccessity, separable.

What is the definition of independent??

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[UnknownSoldier]

Sorry, thought you were the GP.

> I'm interested in your statement that space-time is separable. Please explain, ideally, with the appropriate references.

First prove that Time exists...

You _do_ realize the nonsense of trying to prove something that is essentially non-provable, in contradistinction to something that is knowable. The only 100% proof you will find is after you are dead -- if you are lucky you will know it before, but given your ignorance between proof/knowledge/gnosis, I sadly, and seriously doubt that.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[bjk002]

"If you're considering becoming a christian, please do it now. There's not much time left."

How much time is left? I want to mark it on the calendar with a reminder to post back to you just before the end, thanking your for the warning.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[bcrowell]

>>If they're philosophers, then I suspect you will find roughly zero academic philosophers these days who think that proving or disproving the existence of the Christian deity is a meaningful exercise.

>Only true for remarkably large values of zero. A recent survey reported in Philosophy Now magazine identified that roughly 20% of academic philosophers believe in one or more gods, and philosophy of religion is still an active field.

Your statement doesn't contradict my statement. Belief by a modern academic philosopher in one or more gods doesn't imply an opinion that existence of the Christian god can be proved or disproved by the methods of modern academic philosophy. Similarly, belief by a plumber in one or more gods doesn't imply an opinion that existence of the Christian god can be proved or disproved by the methods of plumbing. The existence of academic philosophers actively working on the philosophy of religion also does not imply the existence of academic philosophers who think that it's a meaningful exercise to prove or disprove the existence of the Christian god.

Podcast Discussion

[sammysheep]

Some astrophysicists from reasons.org (with an old-earth creationist view) discuss the Hawking announcement in a recent podcast: Science News Flash

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[drakaan]

I don't think anyone is saying "God didn't do it" either.

What they're saying is, "There's no reason to believe God did it." These two statements are not the same thing at all.

(Usually paired with "There's no reason to believe God even exists" - but not always) =Smidge=

Okay, but someone who believed that God did it (and exists) would be exceedingly unlikely to make either of those statements. They may not be the same statements, but the inference is pretty obviously there (I understand pedantic arguments, believe me, so I fully expect to be challenged on that).

The circumstances surrounding the comment and it's reporting led me to believe that Hawking was making a statement about the pointlessness of a god figure in creation. I can't think of many reasons *why* the statement would be made, and Occam pointed me to make an observation regarding the most likely reason, whether the statement was explicit or not. I don't even necessarily disagree with him on what causes a BB, just with his idea precluding the concept of god, which it appeared to try to do.

A few people have been down the positive/negative proof conversation path, so I'll throw this one out there to add to it. Is saying "There's no reason to believe God did it." the same as saying "There's no reason to believe God didn't do it."

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Jawnn]

You do not know not every Judeo-Christian religion has the (same) concepts of heaven, hell and 'judgment' don't you?

Yes, I do. And your point is, what?
The contradictions contained within any given edition of "The Holy Bible, the complete and unerring word of God" alone are enough to make any thinking person doubt it's veracity. The doctrinal differences between various versions of Christianity, even more so. The doctrinal differences between all of the many Abrahamic religions still more. So yeah, I do pretty much realize that most of it is undeniably bullshit (they can't all be right) and most likely, all of it is.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Jawnn]

Excellent questions, but we've already strayed pretty far from the topic at hand. The discussion of what constitutes "right" or "most right" is a classic philosophical debate, one which remains unresolved. As such, it is beyond the scope of this thread. For my part though, I will share that I find the school of thought that we are "wired" for empathy an intriguing avenue for exploration. Codified in various versions of "the golden rule", this tendency (for lack of a better word) would account for much.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Jawnn]

Scripture says that you have to be truly sorry for your wrongs and denounce them (these are the concepts we traditionally call "sins" and "repentance") to be saved.

Perhaps in your edition of "the complete and unerring word of God", but not in all of them. Far more to the point, however, is the fact that you can sincerely utter those magic words over and over, as needed and not have to face responsibility for your actions. This lame-ass cop out is the basis for some pretty fucking huge hypocrisy on the part of so-called Christians. I'll pass, thank you.

Is there a prohibition against lying in your moral code?

Yes, actually. Why do you ask?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Jawnn]

From reading post after post I've noticed a trend: atheists are incensed with the idea of God sending people to hell.

I can't speak for atheists (not being one) but I will say that you are mistaken if you think that's what I'm saying. Yes, I believe that the whole judgment-damnation thing is a construct, but one dreamed up by men, not deity. Fear is a powerful motivator, especially when it is leveraged by ignorance and superstition. It is that type of exploitation, by man against his brother (begging pardon for the gender specific conventions) that incenses me. My deity doesn't engage in petty human vindictiveness and torture Her creations.

Re:The Golden Mean

[db32]

Yes, and I suppose firefighters are just anti-fire zealots. You see, the religious are causing active harm. They are persecuting minorities, they are advocating praying away our problems, they are causing psychological damage to children scaring them with stories of hellfire and punishment. These fools refuse to take any long term threat seriously because "God will save us" is a reasonable notion to them so they have no reason to plan ahead.

When the theists only had sharp sticks and rocks to use to murder in the name of their various gods they were much less of a threat. However, now we have nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and a very real ability to end all human life on earth. These irrational and delusional beliefs should have been challenged long before now, but now they must be challenged before they wind up destroying us all.But hey, I'm certain Iran will be more than happy to play nice with nuclear weapons...

Religious moderates are paving the road to ruin that the religious zealots will drag us all down.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[jesset77]

*squints* at your sig. So the $q stands for quine?

Ocrap, you meant the Brief History of Thingybook. Yeah, I read that. It were pants. :3

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[jesset77]

The scientist then asked "All the (way?) down... to what?" The lady threw her knitting at him and went home.

What, so scientist was unfamiliar with infinite regression?

Perhaps he wasn't so clever then, flunked precal and that.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[jesset77]

noting comes before it, so random comes out of [after] nothing.

Your suggestion is interesting but it violates what we observe as Newton's second law of thermodynamics. Please allow Maxwell's Demon to see you out the tiny door on your left.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[jesset77]

Yes, absolutely: no evidence that they can offer you. But they may have evidence that satisfies them.

Hai digi, I'd like to jump in and say that if I were caught in your "my vivid and continuous memories are starkly inconsistent with slowly mounting thorough physical evidence" scenario, I would actually fold quite early lacking any corroborative evidence or alibis of my own.

I think I see what is "reasonable" differently than mainstream, but individuals in our culture are quite fond of tying their identities directly to the bare metal of their personal experiences. I personally find that sentiment harmful to all involved, and choose not to follow that strategy myself.

In any conflict, I do my best to nerf the importance of any of my own unverifiable personal knowledge or anecdotes and avoid taking offense if others question the accuracy of my supposed observations. My observations still count as evidence, of which I have a volume, but it may be incorrect or more often than not misinterpreted, even by myself as the observer. It might be easier for me to do this than an average Joe because my memory has proven quite unreliable in practice throughout my life, so I've retrained my epistemological instincts to prefer immediate, verifiable sources of data over my own longer term recollections.

However, I have found that removing responsibility from my mental vlog helps to improve it's accuracy. When you strongly identify "truth" with "what you've witnessed firsthand", I find that it pressures you to fabricate data you do not have to fill in gaps you might be embarrassed to not recall for whatever reason. You're also pressured to insert your own interpretations of what you saw, confusing your conjecture with what you've witnessed. It's like being pressured to contaminate the mental equivalent of a crime scene. By reducing expectancy from my own memory, I've found that the memories I do retrieve are now much more frequently accurate: although still at times incomplete, badly indexed or difficult to accurately interpret until more empirical data is gathered.

So were I in your situation, I would be quite upset at having a memory that did not match an otherwise consistent trail of hard evidence, but it would not take much hard evidence to abandon my recollection as a frustrating probable falsehood, or at least a fiction lodged into a place it did not belong. Also, I believe that such an attitude would assist any person in properly adapting to the reality around them. Rare is the time (Orwellian governmental conspiracy notwithstanding) when your memories tell you more about the world you're living in now -- the world which will cut you down for not paying attention -- than hard empirical evidence and logic do.

Re:The Golden Mean

[Sun Chi]

Things we are deeply certain about generate very little in the way of zealotry

This might be true in the case of atheism if there wasn't a vast majority of people totally certain about the exact opposite, to the point where it interferes in the rationally thinking person's daily life. Until that is no longer the case, I hope people continue being as strong and vocal supporters of atheism as they can personally afford.

Re:Point Missed

[Sun Chi]

And the differences are meaningful, and often important, but rarely worth the vitriol and venom that goes into articulating them.

Belief in a magical man in the sky, whatever flavor and variation that belief comes in, is one difference worth a great deal of vitriol and venom from atheists. This is especially clear given how actions by believers in support of their religion, often to the intentional detriment of non-believers, negatively affect people around the world physically, emotionally, and intellectually. And before the obvious rebuttal, no amount of good done by religious people absolves the institution of the ills done in its name.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[fredklein]

"All the way" implies a destination.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[jesset77]

"All the way" implies a destination.

No it only implies a condition that does not cease until an optional destination is encountered. Natural numbers are finite "all the way to infinity", but this does not suggest that infinity is either a finite number, or a reachable destination.

In this case, the "destination" is merely the direction "down". Read literally, you have turtles for as long as there is still a "down" to fill them with.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[digitig]

Hai digi, I'd like to jump in and say that if I were caught in your "my vivid and continuous memories are starkly inconsistent with slowly mounting thorough physical evidence" scenario, I would actually fold quite early lacking any corroborative evidence or alibis of my own.

That's the sort of thing that I meant when I said that what constitutes "too much" contrary evidence is a subjective matter. But however early you fold, you can't rule out memory completely and still do reasoning, because all reasoning requires that we retain some chain of premises and conclusions and some facts to feed into that chain. That's why classical foundationalism (and most scientism) fails. It sees things as too absolute, failing to recognise that it's not always (usually?) possible to draw nice tidy boundaries, and that that's not due to the fact that our techniques aren't good enough yet, it's a necessary consequence of the fact that science is done by fallible subjects.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[oliverthered]

for a start it creates Newton's second law of thermodynamics.

Newton also created calculus did he not?
what's that +c bit all about. What would happen if you collapsed, say from 1 dimensions down into a measurement?

is the result of the collapse predictable?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[oliverthered]

take a system that creates wave function collapse.

make a symmetrical version, symmetrical with identical connotations.

now perform the two slit experiment on both.

both systems are identical, all but for the difference between the definitive results of each wave function collapse.

There is a difference, that difference is variable and random, you can't measure the entropy, yet it is not zero. So something has been created, but the systems are symmetrical, no difference between them, or a constant difference between them.

so something has been created nothing exists, except random.

other types of none-obvious creation could be for instance.

If I apply impulse to an object (in a low or relative zero gravity vacuum). The object will move away from me.

This creates distance between myself and the object, or you could say it creates space between myself and it.

You could say it's moving through space, or you could say it's creating space dependant on your perspective or that of the observer.

also, what about time. Always moving forward.
Now that could still be symmetrical if for instance you view time as relative to movement/size (for want of a better word). Now if you say that you must have a size otherwise you become zero point, or singular and gravity becomes instant, it's quite easy to say that time could cause size via 'movement' in the shape of a torus for instance, and that the movement could be clockwise or anti-clockwise, forming a closed loop, [possibly a string?]. It would be collapsed though, so measurements would still be probabilistic and uncertain /random. This feature can only exist due to collapse, collapse is relatively nothing so the feature of probabilist or uncertainty or random comes out of nothing and only nothing. (space is not nothing, it is space)

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[oliverthered]

entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium; and that the entropy change dS of a system.

so, the system of determinism must be in equilibrium or balanced, random is the equilibral system for determinism.

Also a symmetric system must also be balanced, so every symmetric system mush have a corresponding a-symmetric system.

latent momentum (e.g. the speed of light, or time) are an example of a-symmetry,
This can be seen as the accelerating expansion or the universe for instance.

dark energy (or just plain only none particular energy, or space) is balanced by gravity, or lack of space or time or mass whatever you want to call it.

That system has been measured to be a-symmetrical and unbalanced, however particular things are balanced so it could be viewed as something which balanced the symmetry of the particle system.

For instance, if you mix matter and space then that matter spreads out over space and collapses as if the space element is amorphous in nature. This balances the morphs nature of common matter.

Also, lack of gravity waves also points to a 'perfect' system, between the amorphous nature of space (no direct measures of dark-energy, or any sign of gravitational waves) and the seeming determinant nature of common / measured matter.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[hkmwbz]

The point here is that if your moral code is just a preference or a construct, you can have opinions about it but your angry feelings are silly and irrational under your own assumption.

No they aren't. I can hold my own opinions about right and wrong, and become angry if someone does something I consider to be wrong. That doesn't mean that my opinions are universal or objective. But that doesn't mean that it isn't real.

however, if you want those opinions to have meaning and choose to use them in arguments, then you have to presuppose something is true. If you presuppose morality is a construct, then God's offenses are meaningless

God doesn't exist, so he didn't do any offensive acts. However, we can read the fairy tale about his actions, and judge the made up story about God. Just like we can judge the imaginary actions of characters in a Harry Potter book.

so a more direct route would be to prove your assumption that morality is a construct instead, not that "God is bad" which you assume to be meaningless

No, I don't assume "bad" to be meaningless. I am pointing out that it is subjective. And if an imaginary being does something in a fairy tale I think is bad, I can point out how I think it is bad. And that means that if you do indeed believe that the fairy tale is true, then the imaginary being you blindly believe in has committed acts I find to be bad.

The idea of axiom, as you well know, is to accept something as true and work out the consequences based upon those primary assumptions. This has nothing to do with circular reasoning but taking each idea and following it to its logical end.

And you are using circular arguments to try to "prove" that God did it, and morals are objective, which they are clearly not.

As to my appeal to objectivity, an atheist can either accept that self-judging one's own moral goodness is either valid (relative morality only) or invalid (in the case of either kind of morality). If you suppose it is valid to judge oneself morally then we have nothing to discuss because you have perfect faith in your own objectivity.

What on earth are you talking about? Self-judging? What is that supposed to mean?

However, if we take self-judging to be invalid and need something outside of ourselves to judge us, then railing against God for judging humanity as a group is by definition invalid since such railing fails the objectivity test.

Are you retarded? Someone who does not believe in God cannot rail against God. That would be utterly pointless. However, he can rail against your blind belief in a fairy tale. The fairy tale exists even if the imaginary being doesn't.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Pseudonym]

There's no $q. What you're seeing is q{}, which is one of the Perl quote operators.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[sammysheep]

"Self-judgement" means to evaluate oneself critically. In other words, to be both judge and defendant. Depending on the thing being judged, this process may or may not be appropriate.

The comments appeared to be railing at God, and that was what didn't make sense to me, but since you say this is not the case, I must work harder to understand your perspective next time before answering. Apologies.

A final note: I was not trying to prove God exists by assuming He created morality and then showing that our having morals must mean that God exists. I made a vague reference to this argument as cliche in my first comment. Instead, I was trying to show that arguments against God on the basis of calling Him immoral are fundamentally flawed, as they collapse under the weight of either starting assumption for a moral system. I don't think I can prove God to anyone; however, I can show that certain arguments are not as helpful as they appear.

Kinds regards. - S^3

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[sammysheep]

No, I don't assume "bad" to be meaningless. I am pointing out that it is subjective. And if an imaginary being does something in a fairy tale I think is bad, I can point out how I think it is bad. And that means that if you do indeed believe that the fairy tale is true, then the imaginary being you blindly believe in has committed acts I find to be bad.

This seems to be an important part of your argument, so I won't ignore it. I see your point and it is well-taken.

The difficulty I face is this: if you see something as bad, morally speaking, but I can define bad myself subjectively, then the bad that is meaningful to you won't necessarily be so to me. If we agree on some definition of badness, it will have some meaning to both of us but perhaps not a third person. For your statement to have cultural meaning we need a cultural definition of badness (for our people). For it to have universal meaning we need to have a universal definition of badness (for all peoples). For your statement to have absolute meaning, we need an absolute definition of badness (for all times).

Which kind of badness are you appealing to? If I adopt your definition of morality, your calling God bad may indeed be meaningful to me; but for logical proof, it is "meaningless" because of it's subjectivity. I don't deny the rhetorical value of your statement if we happen to share our definitions of badness, but the argument doesn't escape its own subjectivity.

In brief: if morality is subjective then moral objections against a story of God are subjectively meaningful.

Pedro1948

[pedro1948]

Hawking saying we could know the mind of God is just another example of the foolishness of man. The mind of God is so far above us that it is ludicrous to say we could ever know it. Man's capacity for foolishness never fails to amaze me.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[hkmwbz]

"Self-judgement" means to evaluate oneself critically. In other words, to be both judge and defendant.

What difference does it make? You can judge yourself all you want, but people with power will also judge you. No god needed.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[hkmwbz]

if you see something as bad, morally speaking, but I can define bad myself subjectively, then the bad that is meaningful to you won't necessarily be so to me

Indeed! Why do you think some people think, for example, Israel's blockade of Gaza is justified, while others think it's unjustifiable? Because these things are subject to each person's opinion! There is no objective morality to judge Israel's actions on. It all depends on what you personally find to be important. Someone who defends the blockade might say that Israel's right to defend itself means that it's right to maintain the blockade, even if it leads to some suffering for civilians. Someone who disagrees with the blockade might say that as long as civilians suffer at all, it is completely unacceptable.

If we agree on some definition of badness, it will have some meaning to both of us but perhaps not a third person.

Indeed. But a lot of the time we won't even agree on something being good or bad. I might tell you that your claimed god's genocides are bad, but you might say that it's all justifiable for some reason you choose to accept.

For your statement to have cultural meaning we need a cultural definition of badness (for our people).

Even people within the same culture won't agree on what's good and bad.

For your statement to have absolute meaning, we need an absolute definition of badness (for all times).

For what statement to have absolute meaning? Why do we need an absolute definition of "badness"?

Which kind of badness are you appealing to? If I adopt your definition of morality, your calling God bad may indeed be meaningful to me; but for logical proof, it is "meaningless" because of it's subjectivity.

Saying that the god you believe in is bad is just a way to show you that maybe you think your beliefs lead to good, but the actions of your claimed god show otherwise.

I don't deny the rhetorical value of your statement if we happen to share our definitions of badness, but the argument doesn't escape its own subjectivity.

Huh?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[sammysheep]

For what statement to have absolute meaning? Why do we need an absolute definition of "badness"?

That's an excellent question, why do we *need* absolute morality? I don't claim great wisdom, but one use for absolute morality might be to avoid confusion as well as mediate between self-interested parties with competing definitions of morality. As you touched on, perhaps this helps lead people to a higher degree of "good" that wouldn't have been obvious to all parties.

Within argument, I think we need absolute definitions inasmuch as we want to make absolute statements such as: X is always true. I assume atheists are making absolute statements when they make arguments against God, but perhaps all they really mean is, "For all I can see, there is no God." If that is the case, I would be interested to know, because making such a definitive statement would require a certain amount of omniscience attributed only to you-know-who (not Lord Voldemort).

Even people within the same culture won't agree on what's good and bad.

I was merely assuming a definition of "meaningful." In truth I fully agree with you that people disagree all over the place and am not trying to demonstrate God exists by saying "everyone agrees on morality." They don't. They do tend to agree there is such a thing as morality, just not what it is in particular.

My definition of absolute morality; however, is based on what God considers "good" or "evil", not as we prefer it. I readily admit though that understanding what God precisely means by righteousness takes up the better half of religious study, and failure to understand Him (or listen) has resulted in people doing dastardly things in His name.

Huh?

Sorry I don't write more clearly. I just mean it can't be used as a proof. In any case, thank you for the thoughtful response.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[sammysheep]

What difference does it make? You can judge yourself all you want, but people with power will also judge you. No god needed

My proposition was focussed on the observation that we seek objectivity in judgement. In particular, when it matters, we avoid self-judgement and use impartial third-parties--juries and/or judges--within our legal system to get this kind of objectivity.

If we suppose God does exist (I know you do not, but you do for the sake of argument) and we want to tell Him His judgements on us are wrong and unfair, we would require His kind of objectivity to be able to say so with certainty that He was wrong.

Why is it easier for us to look back in history and see that what people were doing seemed wrong and dastardly? We judge them by our moral values--rightly or wrongly but perhaps more quickly than with ourselves. Why? Because in ourselves we have to compete with our desires, our interests, and our justifications. Even if our moral values are subjective, others things frankly do get in the way and make us do less than what we ourselves believe in. That's being human I suppose. But if there were a perfect judge for humanity, it wouldn't be us, it would be Someone who has the purity and omniscience and objectivity to do so. Those who believe call Him God, those who don't call it wishful thinking.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Insanity Defense]

Sure it does. Atheists stake their eternal future on the presumption that God does not exist. They live their whole lives doing what they want, and rejecting the concept that there could be anyone or anything greater than themselves. If they are wrong, and there turns out to be a judgement day they will spend eternity burning in hell. That takes a great deal of faith (or ignorance take your pick).

Theists gamble their eternity on the presumption that they picked the right religion.

I believe that if there is in deed a God worth worshipping that he/she/it will judge people on more than their faith but on their actions. A just God would not condemn people for eternity if they were good people.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[pkphilip]

I come from India and I am a christian. We are a minority - a mere 2.3% of the population. I know dozens of friends who though nurtured in non-christian families took the decision to become Christians.. despite severe persecution and despite having to lose everything.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[pkphilip]

When we speak about the origins of the world, we are referring to the first step in the natural processes which led to the world and everything within it. The doctrine of first cause posits that this first natural step was set into motion by a *supernatural* initiator who is above and beyond all known natural laws. This supernatural being is referred to as God.

So by definition God is *super* natural and therefore does not require a natural cause to come to be.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[KritonK]

Can you think of anything done on earth that deserves eternal, and infinite punishment?

This is called universal reconcililation, and early Christian theologians, such as Origen, were declared heretics for holding this view. (According to the theologian who told us about this, at school, it was for purely practical considerations, because people would have no incentive not to sin, if they know that they will be forgiven, eventually.)

sending Hitler to hell... for trillions upon trillions of years

Sounds about the right length of punishment for the crime.

Hawking and his publishers are the winners here...

[TechZoom]

I must say Hawking intentionally or not has generated a boatload of publicity for his book with this controversy. The debate will continue forever but til then he and his publisher are the real winners here.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[Raenex]

I'm speaking from a statistical point of view. Most people don't convert to Christianity in your nation because there is already a dominant religion. Most people adopt a religion based on their upbringing. And most importantly, before Christianity spread to India, nobody adopted it, because they didn't even have the chance.

And so I'll say again: "Does it sound like God really wanted one true message to be heard, and that it is Christianity? Or perhaps people were just making shit up."

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[hkmwbz]

My proposition was focussed on the observation that we seek objectivity in judgement.

So? We can try to make the judgment objective (does the person violate the rules), but the rules/morals are entirly subective. For example, if the rule is "it is wrong to kill", that rule is subjective. But the judging will be objective: Did he kill? If yes, then he is guilty of violating the subjective rule.

Why is it easier for us to look back in history and see that what people were doing seemed wrong and dastardly? We judge them by our moral values--rightly or wrongly but perhaps more quickly than with ourselves.

Exactly! Times change, and morals with them. My point exactly. They are subjective. No such thing as objective morals.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[hkmwbz]

That's an excellent question, why do we *need* absolute morality? I don't claim great wisdom, but one use for absolute morality might be to avoid confusion as well as mediate between self-interested parties with competing definitions of morality.

I'm sure absolute morality would be great (or would it?), and so would peace on earth and all that. But we have to live in the real world.

Within argument, I think we need absolute definitions inasmuch as we want to make absolute statements such as: X is always true. I assume atheists are making absolute statements when they make arguments against God, but perhaps all they really mean is, "For all I can see, there is no God." If that is the case, I would be interested to know, because making such a definitive statement would require a certain amount of omniscience attributed only to you-know-who (not Lord Voldemort).

All that is required is that there is not a single shred of evidence for the existence of god, but in fact there is a whole lot of evidence against the monotheistic god(s). That said, even Richard Dawkins has said that he is open to actual evidence of God's existence, so he places himself on a 6 on his scale from 1-7 where 1 is absolute belief in God, and 7 is absolute rejection of the existence of God. Dawkins prefers to see where the evidence points.

My definition of absolute morality; however, is based on what God considers "good" or "evil", not as we prefer it. I readily admit though that understanding what God precisely means by righteousness takes up the better half of religious study, and failure to understand Him (or listen) has resulted in people doing dastardly things in His name.

People can't even agree on how to interpret the bible (the claimed word of God). So even if he did exist, we wouldn't be even close to absolute morality on earth. Everyone would be fighting over what God tells them to do. And in fact, lots of people are already doing that, and blowing each other up in the name of their version of the deity.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[sammysheep]

there is not a single shred of evidence for the existence of god, but in fact there is a whole lot of evidence against the monotheistic god(s).

We disagree.

Richard Dawkins has said that he is open to actual evidence of God's existence, so he places himself on a 6

I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt that they are open-minded, so that is helpful to know.

People can't even agree on how to interpret the bible (the claimed word of God). So even if he did exist, we wouldn't be even close to absolute morality on earth. Everyone would be fighting over what God tells them to do. And in fact, lots of people are already doing that, and blowing each other up in the name of their version of the deity.

One premise is that truth exists regardless of whether people agree on it. If God does exist and His will is the definition for absolute morality, then it doesn't matter if people agree on what He said, the truth is still out there and may one day become more clear.

I can tell you whenever I am being peer-reviewed in a scientific journal, the interpretation of each reviewer on my findings are often at odds with me or with each other. It's actually expected and helpful, because it refines things. Given enough evidence, the hope is that the truth will become self-evident to everyone, and so will vindicate those who held on to it at first.

Morality isn't that different, if such a thing as absolute morality is out there, which I believe it is. The fact that we disagree in this area as well as others is to me just a part of what makes us human: we're finite, we make mistakes, we have to analyze and revise things, we like our own way, and learning is a process. I believe that truth, even if our perceptions of it change, does not change. The fun of life is searching for it, in whatever area you love.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[sammysheep]

So? We can try to make the judgment objective (does the person violate the rules), but the rules/morals are entirly subective. For example, if the rule is "it is wrong to kill", that rule is subjective. But the judging will be objective: Did he kill? If yes, then he is guilty of violating the subjective rule.

Great point. I agree completely in that sense. But it doesn't change the fact even if I have a subjective rule set, if I am the one being judged, I do not get to make objective statements about myself even if I had potential to be objective. This is about what is considered to be credible, not merely possible. People are not good at being objective when it comes to themselves or people they like, even if the rules happen to be arbitrary.

For example, why are slashdot moderators biased in this very thread? More importantly, why did the creators of slashdot come up with an intricate system in the first place to limit moderator abuse? People are self-interested and are not credible when judging themselves or even judging people they like or agree with, myself definitely included, so we keep looking for something more objective than ourselves.

Exactly! Times change, and morals with them. My point exactly. They are subjective. No such thing as objective morals.

If we are the only measuring stick out there, and there is no God, I fully accept your premise.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[hkmwbz]

Morality isn't that different, if such a thing as absolute morality is out there, which I believe it is.

That is just a belief. There is no evidence that absolute morality exists. And isn't it a bit odd for someone who claims to publish in scientific journals to not hold all his thought to the same standards? You accept that evidence is required in one case, but not the other?

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[hkmwbz]

But it doesn't change the fact even if I have a subjective rule set, if I am the one being judged, I do not get to make objective statements about myself even if I had potential to be objective.

I really don't understand the relevance. This doesn't seem to have anything to do with the discussion about absolute morality.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[kenp2002]

But we do not know if that decoupling could be localized now that the universe is considerably larger now. It opens the possibility of localized physics where the laws themselves could vary over vast distances. The physics themselves at the outer most regions of the universe could be vastly different then the central region. Such a possible discrepancy has not at this time been addressed. And as we know the inverse may be true, if they are localized over vast distances, they may also vary on the most miniscule level.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[sammysheep]

I really don't understand the relevance. This doesn't seem to have anything to do with the discussion about absolute morality.

We are starting to go in circles so I will try to stop after this. I have not been trying to prove God or absolute morality to be true but only that the original "God is unjust to judge people" argument was a non-credible one.

My appeal to objectivity was a part of my aforementioned two-part argument. Similar to mathematical proof, if we suppose proposition Y given X, and X may assume two mutually exclusive states (say X1, X2), we have to prove Y given X1 or Y given X2 is true. If I want to show Y is not true, I have to show Y given X1 and Y given X2 are both faulty. Y was the original argument. X is morality. X1 is subjective/non-absolute morality. X2 is absolute morality. I have assumed both states of X for the sake of argument.

That is just a belief. There is no evidence that absolute morality exists. And isn't it a bit odd for someone who claims to publish in scientific journals to not hold all his thought to the same standards? You accept that evidence is required in one case, but not the other?

First, I think it is a misconception that belief comes without evidence or reason. To the contrary, people believe in what makes sense to them, although one's reasoning or evidence may be faulty. If I am convinced by the evidence for God--and to be sure it is reason not credulity that frames my beliefs--then absolute morality is just a logical conclusion based upon my God hypothesis.

As for empirical evidence, it is admittedly only suggestive that people ubiquitously try to define a morality of some kind for themselves since I can come up with other reasons for this phenomena, such as a "group survival mechanism." However, this does not preclude God from setting morality in place for our survival as well. So yes, people want to be "moral," whatever reason you ascribe to it.

Thank you for the discussion. I think I've learned better about atheist thought than before.

The problem with science is scientists.

[John Q Dallas]

The problem with science is scientists. Too many have the notion that if you can't measure something, then it doesn't exist. But they readily admit their math does not even add up and they can't predict the weather more than seven days in advance. Schrodinger came up with a cat experiment to show the limitations of quantum theory, but some respected scientists will tell you that a cat can be both dead and alive simultaneously. Now nothing exists until you measure it is the mantra. At the same time every possibility exists somewhere. This latter is, of course, their mathematical answer to free will. If there is no God, then genocide is a viable and acceptable option for curing global warming and suspected other ills. Genetic engineering for creating a species that can traverse the galactic voids and avoid impending annihilation would be the most logical course of action. A God that predetermined everything must be as large as the universe, which is equivalent to saying that God is the universe. A God that can allow free will and structure amid chaos must be a God that can laugh and cry. If there exists no God, there exists no greater purpose for all of this; and all of this sound and fury signifies nothing. Proving there can be no God cannot stop humans from wanting there to be one – or for keeping our control freak government from trying to create one.

Re:But what created the law of gravity?

[hkmwbz]

First, I think it is a misconception that belief comes without evidence or reason. To the contrary, people believe in what makes sense to them, although one's reasoning or evidence may be faulty.

Faulty evidence and reason is as bad as no evidence or reason. Maybe worse, because you think you can actually justify false beliefs with evidence and reason.

If I am convinced by the evidence for God--and to be sure it is reason not credulity that frames my beliefs--then absolute morality is just a logical conclusion based upon my God hypothesis.

The problem, of course, is that there is no evidence for God.