• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe

Saintshroomie said:
I don't follow you. I agree that it is perfectly plausible that science could just be explaining the way god has made things, but that assumes god exists in the first place. What I find illogical is the idea of god. This thread is about the idea of creation from nothing, something many people say is impossible (unless your god of course), so then the question follows "If god is something, and something can't come from nothing, than what did god come from?".
Click to expand...

Here is what I believe. I don't believe that God is actually PART of this universe. I believe he has power over it, but I don't believe he is PART of it.

I don't believe that God is effected by time ("before Abraham was born, I am")

I don't believe that we can currently understand the state/dimension/whatever that God exists.

Saintshroomie said:
The point is that an omnipotent god can't really be bound by logic, because then he would cease to be omnipotent. So if you could expand a little on how you think your God is logically explainable, I would appreciate it.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that God is beyond our ability to understand. I don't believe his motives, or his means are beyond our ability to understand. I don't believe God is beyond the ability of science to one day understand (caveat: I don't know that we, as a race, will be around long enough to gain that much knowledge).

I don't see how being subject to our logic (logic is how we reason and think) would make God not omnipotent.
 
byteware said:
Here is what I believe. I don't believe that God is actually PART of this universe. I believe he has power over it, but I don't believe he is PART of it.

I don't believe that God is effected by time ("before Abraham was born, I am")

I don't believe that we can currently understand the state/dimension/whatever that God exists.



I don't believe that God is beyond our ability to understand. I don't believe his motives, or his means are beyond our ability to understand. I don't believe God is beyond the ability of science to one day understand (caveat: I don't know that we, as a race, will be around long enough to gain that much knowledge).

I don't see how being subject to our logic (logic is how we reason and think) would make God not omnipotent.
Click to expand...

I agree. With matters of faith, believing is seeing. :)
 
byteware said:
Here is what I believe. I don't believe that God is actually PART of this universe. I believe he has power over it, but I don't believe he is PART of it.

I don't believe that God is effected by time ("before Abraham was born, I am")

I don't believe that we can currently understand the state/dimension/whatever that God exists.



I don't believe that God is beyond our ability to understand. I don't believe his motives, or his means are beyond our ability to understand. I don't believe God is beyond the ability of science to one day understand (caveat: I don't know that we, as a race, will be around long enough to gain that much knowledge).

I don't see how being subject to our logic (logic is how we reason and think) would make God not omnipotent.
Click to expand...

To say that an omnipotent god can be explained logically would be to say that he cannot defy logic. If he cannot do something then he is clearly not omnipotent. If he can defy logic then he clearly cannot be explained logically.
 
Saintshroomie said:
To say that an omnipotent god can be explained logically would be to say that he cannot defy logic. If he cannot do something then he is clearly not omnipotent. If he can defy logic then he clearly cannot be explained logically.
Click to expand...


cannot and does not are entirely different things......... to say that an omnipotent god can be explained logically does not mean he cannot defy logic...... it means he does not defy logic....

edit: didnt really want to jump in on this thread since these arguments never go anywhere..... but since I did I might as well point out something thats always bugged me when Hawking gets into this subject...... none of his theories have ever been and probably never will be proven either......so technically speaking.... to believe anything he says would be doing exactly what so many people denegrate christians for doing........ faithfully believing in something with no proof that can be offered...... one could argue that science isnt there yet but will eventually get there to prove his theories...... but couldnt the exact same argument be said about religion?
 
copestag said:
cannot and does not are entirely different things......... to say that an omnipotent god can be explained logically does not mean he cannot defy logic...... it means he does not defy logic....
Click to expand...

You are missing the point of the argument. We’re basing this around the fact that he does not defy logic, that is a given, and that he is omnipotent. In saying that he does not defy logic, you imply one of two things:


1. He does not defy logic because he cannot defy logic.
2. He does not defy logic because he chooses not too.


Each of these says something about god, and neither one conforms to the idea of an omnipotent and logically explainable god. If you believe the first conclusion, then you agree that he cannot do something, which wouldn’t be the case if he were omnipotent. If you believe the second conclusion then you imply that he has the power to defy logic, which is by definition not logical. So the way I see it, you have a choice to make about what you believe about god. Either he is omnipotent and can not be explained by logic, or he can be explained by logic and can’t be omnipotent, take your pick. If you see a third route, please elaborate.

copestag said:
edit: didnt really want to jump in on this thread since these arguments never go anywhere..... but since I did I might as well point out something thats always bugged me when Hawking gets into this subject...... none of his theories have ever been and probably never will be proven either......so technically speaking.... to believe anything he says would be doing exactly what so many people denegrate christians for doing........ faithfully believing in something with no proof that can be offered...... one could argue that science isnt there yet but will eventually get there to prove his theories...... but couldnt the exact same argument be said about religion?
Click to expand...


As far as Hawking is concerned, you’re right, anything he puts forth is unproven, and therefore shouldn’t be taken on faith alone. Hawking has an advantage though in that he backs his theories up with mathematical evidence (I’m not saying that his evidence isn’t flawed, just that it is something we can work with). Religious believers on the other hand presuppose the existence of God without any concrete evidence to do so. It’s generally agreed that the universe exists, and came into existence at some point because something happened. That’s about as far as anyone can logically take it though, anything else beyond that is just conjecture. It is just as likely to say that a magical omnipotent pony did it as to say that a god did it. I’ll admit that it’s a possibility, but I don’t see any reason to give the idea more credence than Mr. Hawking’s theory.
 
gruss said:
Nor any less....I'm glad you finally admit that anyway that neither is FACT, as most of your posts are fairly condescending to anyone with "religious" beliefs. I'm not sure how someone can admit that Hawkings theories are beyond their understanding but blindly follow and defend, yet not see the similarity of what they are doing to "religion"? Seems to me if you don't understand it you must have "faith" that he is correct, no?
Click to expand...
gruss said:
Oh well the book looks like a good read, but as with all things of this nature it will never be proven in our lifetimes.
Click to expand...

First off, I apologize if I have offended you in my analysis of the subject. I mean not to offend anyone but to discuss honestly about the subject. I should like to know where in my post that I indicate I subscribe to Mr. Hawking’s theory.

I didn’t really defend the rightness of Mr. Hawking’s theory (in fact if you read my earlier posts, I said it didn’t really make sense to me), what I did was defend the possibility that his theory could be right. I further stated that he has an advantage in that he attempts to support it with evidence based in physics, a science that has proven itself. This is something that many religions make no attempt at, as Steven58 said “believing is seeing”. I make no admission that I think he is right, just that he could be right. I make the same assertion to the existence of a god, but I believe that there is little or no evidence to support that. That is why faith is so heavily engrained in religion.

As far as blindly agreeing with Hawking's, your right, it is no different from those that believe in a God based on faith alone.
 
Saintshroomie said:
To say that an omnipotent god can be explained logically would be to say that he cannot defy logic. If he cannot do something then he is clearly not omnipotent. If he can defy logic then he clearly cannot be explained logically.
Click to expand...

That's like saying that if he cannot create a boulder so heavy that he cannot move it, then he is not omnipotent.

It's a useless logical fallacy.
 
God? Is he real? All up to the individual,

[deleted]

has he helped me in my life? Nope. Was he affected my life is some way that I notice him? Nope.
 
It's interesting how some religious people think a supreme Mind exists uncaused in a vacuum. But if you tell them that simple matter came from nothing, they insist that that's impossible!
 
ZDroid1 said:
It's interesting how some religious people think a supreme Mind exists uncaused in a vacuum. But if you tell them that simple matter came from nothing, they insist that that's impossible!
Click to expand...

Very good point.

I find another amusement in that notion that scientists imply when they say "out of nothing, the universe," that notion being that the universe is itself eternal if we're to include its potential existence as a portion of its existence: something can't happen unless that thing is getting ready to happen.

There are absurdities leaping around in the background of all sides of the existence issue. Pick one. Believe in it. Form a church or a scientific, theoretical data base. Have fun, life is short.

Or is it?
 
haha you said sperm......

But yes there are large gaping holes on both sides of the fence, I love discussing different viewpoints but typically they devolve into "your stupid if you believe XXXXx ftw! /close thread" type arguments.

Only thing that really caught my eye on this is the title, Hawking flat says he is correct? (I'll pass final judgment when I actually read it) I know he's smart but is he really so arrogant he can make a claim like that with something he knows is going to be untestable? smells like dogma to me.
 
But yes there are large gaping holes on both sides of the fence, I love discussing different viewpoints but typically they devolve into "your stupid if you believe XXXXx ftw! /close thread" type arguments.
Click to expand...

I'm willing to entertain any serious theory from any side even with insufficient evidence. But there are proposals that are clearly idiotic and not worthy of anyone's time, including giant turtles, flying horses, talking snakes, and sea-splitting magic wands.

Only thing that really caught my eye on this is the title, Hawking flat says he is correct? (I'll pass final judgment when I actually read it) I know he's smart but is he really so arrogant he can make a claim like that with something he knows is going to be untestable? smells like dogma to me.
Click to expand...

Why is saying that there is no God arrogant but saying that there is a god not arrogance?

Why can't both views just be opinions?
 
They are both opinions, or beliefs, stating flatly you are correct when you can't truly prove is arrogant. Regardless of which side of the fence your on.
 
shadowninty said:
Someone slept during one too many physics classes :P
Click to expand...


Hmm...

I am sorry but i am with TheBeardedMan on this 1.... i don't mean to be offensive to any1 but...

Only a little if not almost nothing is known about gravity... they (Bill Nye the science guy....and others) have coined the term "Graviton" this is what people believe "keeps us glued to the ground" however this is only "speculation" because there is no concrete evidence filled with good, genuine facts about how do they work?...when do they work?.... except all we have as of now is we can "feel" gravity.... and "see" it work in action but DO NOT have a single shred of evidence of HOW it works....

Here is Graviton from Wikipedia: Graviton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and here is very a cool guy :) Bill Nye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and no one has been able to prove the concept of the Graviton.... so sadly therefore....it is only a theory and therefore has not been proven (Yet) so you.... can see it working.... but we don't understand HOW it works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom