Belief Beat

Belief Beat


Stephen Hawking’s Not-God Conclusion & the Religious Response

posted by Nicole Neroulias

Hope everyone had a good Labor Day weekend. What better way to start off a short week with a big religion news question: what does Stephen Hawking mean, writing that God is “not necessary” to explain the Big Bang?

My hunch is that the God focus is more a (highly successful) marketing ploy to get folks excited about The Grand Design, Hawking’s new book about the origin of the universe, rather than the genius physicist officially throwing his hat into the atheist-provacateur ring with Christopher Hitchens and Co. What do you think?

Here are five links to the religious reactions:

Share your thoughts in the Comments section below.

*Click here to subscribe to Belief Beat and click here to follow Belief Beat on Twitter.


Advertisement
Comments read comments(56)
post a comment
Henkle110936

posted September 7, 2010 at 10:49 am


Hawkins is physically confined and retarded in body. This abnormal existence (confinement of the mind) prohibits him from from seeing and experiencing the Reality of God in his daily life. As his intellectual and perceptual world,like all of ours,is confined to what we are capable of experiencing in a cultural motif;it is not a time for ridiculing Hawkins for his understandable human act of denial of his creator, but to love him, pray for him, and understand with sympathetic hearts his lack of opportunity to experience the Reality of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit Not even Job was subject to such efforts by Satan to destroy a mans mind, body, and spirit. We must not judge Hawkins. Who among us could tolerate a similar situation as Hawkins endures every day. Is there a message to all of us from God? I believe that it is and is clearly visible to those with spiritual eyes.



report abuse
 

James Crawford

posted September 7, 2010 at 11:02 am


You aren’t really suggesting that Prof. Hawkins’ intellect and perception are hindered by his physical condition such that he cannot see what is obvious to you, are you?
The man is brilliant. He spends plenty of time thinking and exercising his staggeringly potent intellect. His conclusions are derived from careful and critical examination, not slavish devotion.



report abuse
 

rj1smith

posted September 7, 2010 at 11:23 am


* “You aren’t really suggesting that Prof. Hawkins’ intellect and perception are hindered by his physical condition such that he cannot see what is obvious to you, are you?” *
I don’t know about the other contributer, but as for me, I would say Hawking is CERTAINLY having his thinking and perceptions changed, or hindered by his physical condition – just as anyone is…
This is not neccessarily bad or good – just a fact.



report abuse
 

Bill

posted September 7, 2010 at 11:25 am


Is Mr. Hawking’s opinion more relevant than mine as a Christian?



report abuse
 

Joe Gonzalez

posted September 7, 2010 at 11:48 am


Some of this might be purely speculative, and seeing that there are plenty of atheists around, and that – for a brief period in my personal development – i considered myself one, i really don’t give Mr. Hawking’s personal and scientific position regarding his belief or lack of it in God much importance. In my personal development, there were times when the very painful realities that life posed, personal or otherwise, made me rebel mightily against God, and it was expedient for me to rule Him out. Also, when I was re-born a Christian, the very painful also weight of some personal crosses, had me blaspheming God…though now I believed. It has taken time, and prayer, and walking steadfastly the Way for me to see God now as an always Loving God. What we humans do with that Love is an altogether different question. Now, i speculate that, given Mr. Hawkings very serious limitations, which have been alleviated mainly by medicine and technology of the highest degree, he hasn’t had a true chance to experience God first-hand. And of course, there’s that huge remnant of recrimination and rebellion he, in his personal situation must harbor, as we all do, until God shows us the why of the pain and the Cross. Since he’s obviously not interested in investigating these matters ( he’s too deeply engrossed in other ” more important ” questions [ like the child who has parents who don’t deserve the name, but engrosses himself in his studies in an effort at useful escapism ] ) he just crosses them out. We have had geniuses in one field who have proven utterly inept in other fields all through history. Few truly Renaissance men. So, let the man give what he can… it’s not for us to judge him anyway.



report abuse
 

Jerome McCollom

posted September 7, 2010 at 1:05 pm


Hawking is absolutely right. The universe is a product of natural forces. Anyway, if some unnatural or supernatural force is the cause, what caused this force or deity? If it does not need a cause, why, other then the pleadings of those with devout religious belief? If a god doesn’t need a cause, but the universe does? Who determines this, othen then again the special pleadings of the religious devout who strongly wish for their belief to be true. The fact is, we know for a fact that not only the universe exists (but passed on numerous evidence) that a big bang happened 14.6 billion years ago. No evidence exists or is necessary for this deity other then the wishes of its’ believers.



report abuse
 

James Crawford

posted September 7, 2010 at 1:05 pm


@rj1smith:
The OP’s suggestion that Hawkins’ denial of the necessity of a god to explain the big bang is because of his inability to see outside his own experience and limitations is a weak postulate, as this is what he does every day for a living. He is celebrated the world over by our age’s greatest minds for his ability to do exactly that.
You can argue his conclusion, and none should deny you the right, but to argue his ability to assess the problem is not only wrong, it’s pretentious.



report abuse
 

Jester

posted September 7, 2010 at 1:30 pm


I’m actually shocked to find out that Dr. Hawking actually DID believe in God at one time. I’ve always assumed that he (along with 99% of the scientific community) was always an atheist.



report abuse
 

John

posted September 7, 2010 at 1:37 pm


Jerome – study philosophy and Christian apologetics for answers to your questions.
Read about the Kalam cosmological argument. Then know this – if something created the universe, that something created space AND TIME ITSELF. Thus, that something is essentially TIMELESS and therefore always was, is and ever will be and does not NEED a cause.
Read William Lane Craig – he has several books that touch on this subject.



report abuse
 

Kevin

posted September 7, 2010 at 2:40 pm


So I told my 12 year old Patrick, that one of the smartest scientists in the world said, “Given the laws of gravity, the universe could create itself” [without God having to do it].
He immediately said, “who created the laws of gravity? How did they get there. Had to be God!
Absolutely hilarious how everyone seems to think Dr. Hawking’s statement is a correct logic scientific statement ABOUT GOD – when the premise is flawed so bad that a 12 year old could spot it immediately.



report abuse
 

James Crawford

posted September 7, 2010 at 2:55 pm


@Kevin
If he had answered “who created the laws of gravity? How did they get there. Had to be Kishar, the Babylonian father of the earth!” would he have been as correct? Would you have found the argument as easily refuted? Would you be so quick to accept a 12 year old’s circular logic as obvious?
Your premise is flawed so bad that a 44 year old could spot it immediately.



report abuse
 

Jodi

posted September 7, 2010 at 3:52 pm


@ James-
God the Father is the Creator, no matter what name you give Him. Kevin’s 12 year old is correct.



report abuse
 

Kevin

posted September 7, 2010 at 3:54 pm


James, Kishar would also have been a more logical answer than Dr. Hawking’s. The idea Patrick instintively was getting at was – something can not be created out of nothing. Gravity must have been created. Then the universe created itself.
Dr. Hawking is excluding God by not including the creation of gravity as the starting point of the creation of the universe. For Christians, this doe snot diprove that God created the starting point of the creation of the universe. Hawkings is talking about a step of the process.
What we do know for sure scientifically is that the laws of gravity and the creation of the universe were ordered and methodical and could not have been created from chaos. Some entity had to order gravity so as to be the creator. Nowhere in nature does chaos result in order. In fact, the mathematical odds of believing chaos creating order is actually greater than believing a single entity ordered the creation (or gravity). For Jews, Christians, and Muslims, that entity if God.



report abuse
 

DeafJeff

posted September 7, 2010 at 3:58 pm


To the atheists: you’ve convinced me, and I no longer believe in God. To the creationists: you’ve convinced me, and I’ve accepted Jesus as my Savior. Oh, and Mohammed. And Shiva. And Siddh?rtha Gautama(my main man Buddha!). And Joseph Smith. And Marcus Garvey.



report abuse
 

James Crawford

posted September 7, 2010 at 4:04 pm


@Jodi
Following your logic, his name is up to interpretation. How about his teachings? How about which holy book is correct? How do you reconcile the vast differences in, for instance, Shinto and Muslim tenets, ethics, and even creation myths?
If religion is dropping the claim to certainty about details like which is the true god and how the world came about, let me know. I’ll drink to that all night. If not, your statement is specious and meaningless.



report abuse
 

JRgsp

posted September 7, 2010 at 4:09 pm


@ Henkle
Your comment shows how ignorant you are to both Christianity and human life. According to your logic Hawking’s physical and mental condition are keeping him from “the Reality of God” (not sure what that is exactly, checked my concordance, couldn’t find it in the bible either) However, I have read the sermon on the mount and what it says about the meek and the weak and all that inheriting the earth stuff. I guess your version of the Bible reads “And those that are physically and mentally retarded will be excluded from the Reality of God for they are handicapped and sha’ll burn in hell”.
HERE IS THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR THOUGHTS AND CHRISTIANITY IN GENERAL:
GOD created people like Stephen Hawking and TRILLIONS of others that experience a truely terrible human existence that then die and BURN IN HELL FOR ETERNITY. God created Lucifer, who in turn created hell. God knew all of this would happen and trillions would suffer through life only to burn in the pits for eternity (he is omnipresent and omnipotent remember? so he knew on the first day all of this would happen)
I refuse to worship or respect a deity whose actions are similar to Hitler or Stalin’s, just on a greater scale.
And if you notice, I have not tried to argue at all about the existence of God. I have given a reason to not respect and worship a God that behaves like a genocidal dictator.



report abuse
 

James Crawford

posted September 7, 2010 at 4:14 pm


@Kevin
“What we do know for sure scientifically is that the laws of gravity and the creation of the universe were ordered and methodical and could not have been created from chaos.”
I’m not sure what scientists are telling you they know this for sure, but you could line up nine times as many who will tell you they don’t know this for sure, and in fact suspect that it’s not the case.
One recent theory is that universes spring forth from the other side of black holes, and that reality is similar to a sheet of bubble wrap, with multiple universes popping up everywhere. Some speculate that the laws of physics are different in each of these bubble universes, and that the conditions we live in are the only ones that could have produced us.
Regardless, it’s all speculation, and I’m glad we’re suddenly in agreement on that.



report abuse
 

Kevin

posted September 7, 2010 at 4:19 pm


James,
“Nowhere in nature does chaos result in order. In fact, the mathematical odds of believing chaos creating order is actually greater than believing a single entity ordered the creation (or gravity).” Reply?



report abuse
 

mike leffler

posted September 7, 2010 at 4:20 pm


Maybe we should ask Glen Beck……isn’t he God’s messenger?



report abuse
 

James Crawford

posted September 7, 2010 at 4:42 pm


@Kevin
Sure. Your definition of order is likely too broad, and is one you share with most of humanity (I say likely because I don’t lay claim to any special knowledge, just theories). Your statement that chaos doesn’t result in order is, in my opinion, absolutely true, but not in the sense you mean it. Your perceived “order” is, in my opinion, orderly only because you view or imagine it on a small timeline.
When we look at our environment and view it as an end that everything has worked to produce, it seems a very orderly process. When we abandon the pretense that we are an end result, and view ourselves and our environment as a link in a chain that will likely continue long after everything we view as “orderly” has ceased to exist, the innumerable possibilities of the course of reality, awareness, the universe, and everything seems to support chaos theory.



report abuse
 

finitejester

posted September 7, 2010 at 6:14 pm


It’s obvious that humans aren’t capable of understanding the true nature of an ultimate creator, if one exists. We can’t understand the concept of eternity, because if we did, we would have to face the conclusion that everything that is happening right now has already happened before. Not only has it happened before, it has happened an infinite number of times. In fact, every permutation of every event that has ever happened, has happened before and has happened an infinite number of times. Every particle has occupied every position that is possible – an infinite number of times. These are the logical conclusions derived from the notion of eternity. How do these conclusions affect our understanding of free will? How can free will coexist with an omniscent “God”?



report abuse
 

James Crawford

posted September 7, 2010 at 6:22 pm


You sound like Kilgore Trout :)



report abuse
 

John Bohannon

posted September 7, 2010 at 6:28 pm


Science is the answer. The Big Bang is a proven fact. Creationism is an un proven fantasy.



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted September 7, 2010 at 6:42 pm


The Big bang is still just a theory, as is most of the rest of astrophysics.



report abuse
 

Sean

posted September 7, 2010 at 8:45 pm


This “something simply can’t come from nothing” argument is arrogant and very similar to someone from centuries ago making claims about the feasibility of communicating over a mile-long strand of copper. Impossible, right? Well, it’s common practice now. Consider how little you know about how the Large Hadron Collider accelerates protons around a 17-mile loop !! and into a final collision within a detector. Impossible! It was only yesterday we even accepted that what we see around us is made of elementary particles. Impossible!
Advancements in our understanding should be based on evidence and critical thinking rather than discarding ideas and evidence in attempts to maintain a belief system that conveniently promises a much-desired ticket to the afterlife. If you can’t or won’t understand science, it’s ok to admit it. Please don’t discount these ideas based on a high school understanding of physics.
@Kevin: If god CREATED and MAINTAINS the laws of the universe, who created god? I’m curious how Patrick would respond… and yes, it’s an old, tired question but still relevant when people state that it’s simple logic without recognizing that it opens up a whole new can of worms.



report abuse
 

Ken

posted September 7, 2010 at 9:18 pm


Sean in response to your post. Quite simply you have proven how possible it is to cause something to happen with intervention (your hadron collider. Now go back in time and show me the hands that set forth the big bang. It’s like the guy who believes that God created the heavens and the universe and all it’s complexities, but can’t seem to understand how Noah built an ark carrying the varying degrees of animals to safety. It’s amazing how much faith you put into man, but have a hard time understanding God. By the way God was, is and forever shall be. God was not created. have a little faith–ask and you shall receive.
Peace and God Bless



report abuse
 

Ron Krumpos

posted September 7, 2010 at 9:48 pm


In “The Grand Design” Stephen Hawking postulates that the M-theory may be the Holy Grail of physics…the Grand Unified Theory which Einstein had tried to formulate and later abandoned. It expands on quantum mechanics and string theories.
In my e-book on comparative mysticism is a quote by Albert Einstein: “…most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and most radiant beauty – which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive form – this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of all religion.”
Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity is probably the best known scientific equation. I revised it to help better understand the relationship between divine Essence (Spirit), matter (mass/energy: visible/dark) and consciousness (fx raised to its greatest power). Unlike the speed of light, which is a constant, there are no exact measurements for consciousness. In this hypothetical formula, basic consciousness may be of insects, to the second power of animals and to the third power the rational mind of humans. The fourth power is suprarational consciousness of mystics, when they intuit the divine essence in perceived matter. This was a convenient analogy, but there cannot be a divine formula.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted September 7, 2010 at 11:38 pm


Those of you who postulate a god try, but fail, to get around the question “Where did God come from?” And if you postulate a creature outside time that still doesn’t get around that simple, obvious question. “Where did God come from?”
The fact is, a universe with a rule or a few simple rules, out of which emerges our incredible universe, is a lot less amazing than a universe with an intelligent being capable of knowing how to create that universe and also capable of doing it.
And if you “have faith” in any particular god, fine you can do that but you should realize the odds of you being right are infinitesimal. Not only is there the lack of need for any god, there’s also the incredible number of gods people have worshipped or might worship, many of which has as much claim on existence as your god’s.



report abuse
 

BPERFECT

posted September 7, 2010 at 11:57 pm


Man always has a guilt riding him.
Perhaps it’s easier for hawkings to disbelieve
God and make money on it.
That’s one of the worst kind.
Giving money for this crap is giving money to hell.
GO TO HELL HAWKING!*



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted September 8, 2010 at 12:16 am


Without God morality is arbitrary, there is no good or evil, laws are subjective and everything is permissable.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted September 8, 2010 at 12:36 am


RC that’s often been the case with Christians in control. It’s men (and women) who decide what’s moral and what’s immoral. And what we accept changes over time. When times are brutish we may be brutish to our fellow men and women. When times are better we may show a better side.
And of course with all the different gods, morality would vary depending on the nature of the gods of the people in charge. But of course the nature of the gods usually closely reflects the nature of the people who believe in them.



report abuse
 

Charles Cosimano

posted September 8, 2010 at 12:40 am


It seems that the reason religious folk are upset at Hawking is very simple. He terrifies them! After all, the fundamental difference between a scientist and theologian is that the scientist actually has some idea of what he is talking about.
The fear Hawking because, to paraphrase the old campaign ad, “In their hearts they know he’s right.”



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted September 8, 2010 at 12:12 pm


Sorry nnmns, not only Christians, ( your prejudice is showing ). What you describe is the morality of the moment, the mores du jour, based on the geo-political currents of the day. However, the ‘concept’ of God always existed, and good and evil, even though the demarcation might have been cloudy, was understood. Without God, there is no demarcation line. There is no “We”. What was once evil now becomes acceptably good. What was once good, evil. Where Hitler was the personification of evil, without an all loving creator, he would be the personification of the norm. But then agin we have already seen the “God is Dead” movement come and go. And when Hawking, Hitchins, and the rest of the faddists meet their eternal reward, there will still be men who revere the divine.



report abuse
 

Scott

posted September 8, 2010 at 1:11 pm


Science is a series of useful approximations. Truth is from God.



report abuse
 

James Bucholtz

posted September 8, 2010 at 1:48 pm


Hawking does not dispute that there is a God but rather that the world could have been formed without God’s intervention. The problem is not with his science but with the conclusion he draws. We know that order springs from Chaos and that all complex systems follow rules, however the fact that we can devine these rules says nothing about who put these rules in effect. The set of rules that govern the universe, Kawking would argue,inevitably leads to life as we know it, but it stands to reason that they did not spring from nothing anymore than a car can spring from nothing, despite the fact that the laws governing the auto making process are well known.
But Hawking’s biggest oversight deals with the Big Bang. Every physicist, including Hawking, knows that we can only know what we can observe. We can make hypothesis about how the big bang occured by experimenting using large particle reactors on a small scale but Mr. Hawking what can you or any physicist tell me about what existed just prior to the Big Bang? The answer is nothing and there will never be an answer for the very reason I described. So if God does exist and created the universe he would have vested all the wonderful rules that we so cleverly devined into the Big Bang and set it into motion.
Now lets revisit Hawking’s comment. Once God initiated the Big bang, infused with these natural laws, then Hawking is correct that it would inevitably lead to the creation of the Universe and life as surely as the process to build an auto if followed to its conclusion will lead to a brand new car. The brightest scientists of all time including, Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Neils Borr, Heisenberg, Pierre La Place, Irwin Schroedenger all believed that science can never prove nor disprove the existance of God and all of these men believed in religion of some sort of mysticism. Quo Erat Demonstratum



report abuse
 

James Crawford

posted September 8, 2010 at 3:12 pm


I would think sooner or later you folks would abandon the “god of the gaps” arguments and fall back to Scott’s style of pronouncement. Every time you attempt to incorporate science into your theistic explanations, you demand proof for science’s conclusions, and require none for the theistic explanation. The idea that god exists in some deistic “unknowable force” sense is unassailable for the religious apologist, but the theist then makes unexplainable leaps to conclusions about god’s will, his unprovable but unassailable involvement in human affairs, his divine pronouncements regarding morality, the veracity of holy books, and whether and when people should insert their penises into each other.
“Every physicist, including Hawking, knows that we can only know what we can observe.” says James Bucholtz in order to establish Hawking’s inability to offer explanations for what came before the big bang (a premise that I do not accept, as scientists have several hypotheses).
James then goes on to assert things about god that he cannot observe in any clear sense, but rather gleans from signs and faith like a palm reader or vodun witch doctor making pronouncements about the creation of the universe after poking entrails around with a stick.
Sincerely, have it one way or the other, but not both. Your best argument is from faith.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted September 8, 2010 at 3:36 pm


As some people here correctly point out, science cannot prove there is no god. But science can go a long way to eliminate the perceived need for a god. I understand people used to think it was “God” who held up any rock that was thrown, then Newton discovered momentum and the laws of motion and no god was needed to keep the rocks or cannon balls in the air. Now no god is needed to start the universe, or to generate it from nothing.
And let’s remember that religions started back when there seemed to be a need for intelligent forces to keep the world going, and offer protection.
It’s a reasonable question to ask where the rules came from, and a matter of faith to choose between a set of rules existing before the Big Bang or a god capable of setting off the Big Bang and guiding the universe into what we see existing before the Big Bang. Either would need an explanation, but the set of rules would not require as involved an explanation as the god capable of doing things Christians and others imagine. Of course some could consider that set of rules, whatever it turns out to be, to be their god. Which would be useful in gaining admission to a “Y”, for instance.



report abuse
 

Billie

posted September 9, 2010 at 3:00 pm


In his new book “The Grand Design,” Britain’s most famous scientist says that given the existence of gravity, “the universe can and will create itself from nothing,” according to an excerpt published in The Times of London.



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted September 9, 2010 at 3:56 pm


Speaking of Newton, a greater mind by far than Hawking, his view has of the existence of God is quite clear. He “invoked God as a special physical cause to keep the planets in orbits.He warned against using the law of gravity to view the universe as a mere machine, like a great clock.”
He said:
“ Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done. This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. […] This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called “Lord God” ??????????? [pantokrat?r], or “Universal Ruler”. […] The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect.”
Sometimes our elders happen to be right.



report abuse
 

James Crawford

posted September 9, 2010 at 4:31 pm


Issac Newton was also an alchemist. He was a brilliant man, no argument there, but he died almost 300 years ago. His understanding of the world was limited by what information was available to him, just as ours is.
The problem with this line of argument (the “god of the gaps” I mentioned in a post above) is that it weakens as we learn more and more about our universe and how it operates. Certainly, it will allow you to fight a continuing theological withdrawing action (as has been happening for centuries now), claiming less and less for your god as time goes on. If this is satisfactory for you, then who am I to say otherwise? I hope your faith gives you genuine comfort and enriches your life.
I will continue to argue the point, however, when the religious insist on trying to refute scientific inquiry with wishful thinking. If you claim that your god created the universe, particularly in a scientific discussion, you should back up the claim. Show how creation “could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being”. (hint: Not being able to think of anything else is not a sound answer). Then, unless your argument stops at the deist level, show how you can claim that it was your god that performed this amazing feat, instead of Zeus, or Amaterasu, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted September 9, 2010 at 7:29 pm


Pishposh. Neither you nor I can ‘prove’ anything. However Itzhak Bentov lays it out quite nicely in his engaging book “A Brief Tour of Higher Consciousness: A Cosmic Book on the Mechanics of Creation” also known as Stalking the Wild Pendulum. I believe Hawking ‘borrowed’ from him. Bentov posits there is indeed a creator.
Now go have a beer.



report abuse
 

James Crawford

posted September 9, 2010 at 8:08 pm


I believe I will, thanks :) “Neither you nor I can ‘prove’ anything” is exactly the reasonable response I was waiting for.



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted September 10, 2010 at 4:08 am


That is why it is called Faith.



report abuse
 

James Crawford

posted September 10, 2010 at 10:33 am


I have faith that a giant, multi-phallic purple ogre is violating your house pet in unspeakable ways when no one is watching. No one can disprove this is happening. You’d best run home before it’s too late.
I have faith that a ninja is in your house. You’ve never seen him? Well, ninjas are sneaky. That just proves there is a ninja in your house.
Since science can not disprove these “unassailable truths”, only help show how they are extremely unlikely, science is of little use and we should totally lean on faith.
Of course, I’ll use science when it’s conveniently backing up my assertion that a ninja lives in your house…



report abuse
 

Charles Stevens

posted September 10, 2010 at 11:10 am


The simple fact is that Professor Hawking should return to the black hole that god made for him since he advances no argument beyond those offered many years ago by the fakers Laplace and Lagrange. For the uninformed mathematical physicists, those who don’t know up from down (and these are the vast majority), “god” is the nickname among mathematicians for one Kurt Gödel .
(See discussion on “Is it possible that black holes do not exist? ” on Physics Forums
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=421491 for relevant citations.)
In any case all rational scientific discourse has been effectively banned since the illegal shutdown of the first international scientific association and journal in 1837 by the Duke of Clarence, Ernest Augustus. See Percy Byssh Shelley’s Mask of Anarchy for a pertinent depiction of the Duke of Clarence, the face behind Castlereagh. A simple google search for “(“magnetic union” OR “Magnetischer Verein”) AND (“Göttingen Seven” OR “Göttinger Sieben”) gauss weber” shows that there has been no serious discussion of that action on the subsequent development of scientific practice.
We must assume therefore that the concurrent and congruent Augustin-Louis Cauchy scientific method of theft, assassination, plagiarize at leisure remains hegemonic. Chuck Stevens 571-252-0451 stevens_c@yahoo.com



report abuse
 

James Crawford

posted September 10, 2010 at 12:13 pm


So many simple facts in this thread…you people should all publish.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted September 10, 2010 at 6:42 pm


Jeez ruin the spirit why don’t you. That’s not faith that is puerile sarcasm. Another five year old who has too have it his way. nice



report abuse
 

bodiddly

posted September 11, 2010 at 11:55 pm


This is Hillarious to the people that ask a very tired and old question that wreaks of a logical contradiction. God is the first Cause. Ill try to keep it simple for you. The first cause is a logical proof.
Here is a debate between an atheist and a former atheist that turned believer from logic alone. The first 5 pages explains warpspeedpeteys stance perfectly and they also show how the atheist is cornered logically and trys to dodge and evade the subject by changing it. It all boils down to you either believe in a first cause that always was there and started it all (all contingent beings came from him) or you believe in an infinite regression of contingent beings which is not only rediculous but a logical contradiction). It seems to me that atheists believe in magic so that means it takes a heck of a whole lot more faith to be an atheist than a theist.



report abuse
 

bodiddly

posted September 12, 2010 at 12:22 am


Kames this is a typical atheistic crackerjack box response lol. Your comparing the prime mover to soe sex violating ninja. Im sure next you will start bringing out the “could god create a rock that is too heavy for him to life” question right?
My grandfather was once saved from being buried alive by 7 people, and he was saved by saint joseph. YOu probably asked how could we know it was saint joseph and not some alien that decided to intervene?
My grandfathers aunt prophetically told him that she had a dream that saint joseph would save him from death. Can you put that experience in a laboratory and make it happen again? Probably not, can scientists duplicate the miracle of Fatima again? Probably not,.
I have encountered these amateurish statements many times before so its nothing new and it shows how desperate modern day atheists have become.
Atheists should study up more on magic because basically they believe in magical things such as infinite regressions and things popping up out of nothing:)



report abuse
 

James Crawford

posted September 12, 2010 at 12:41 am


*yawn* Yeah, you’ve got me on the run alright. I can’t begin to handle the false dilemma of your either/or infinite regression.
Have fun with the thread, I’m bored.



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted September 12, 2010 at 9:57 am


“boring” is more apt.



report abuse
 

Steve Cornell

posted September 15, 2010 at 10:02 pm


Hawking’s view is something like saying, “Since we hold the winning Lotto ticket of universes, there must be billions of Lotto tickets out there–thus explaining why there is at least one winner: us.”
See: http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2010/09/08/why-god-did-not-create-the-universe/
Steve Cornell
Senior pastor
Millersville Bible Church
58 West Frederick Street
Millersville, PA. 17551



report abuse
 

Troy

posted September 21, 2010 at 3:21 pm


Observational evidence is so much more convincing than fairy tales.



report abuse
 

Jeremy

posted September 22, 2010 at 10:35 pm


@Troy–
Would be nice to have some observational evidence of the multiverse. As such, multiverse theory is just supernaturalism for atheists.



report abuse
 

Tato Sugiarto

posted August 24, 2011 at 6:15 am


TORTOISE (Hinduism) and DRAGON (Taoism) are symbols for ENERGY or WAVE, both are analog with MAGEN DAVID (Judaism). “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” is the metaphor, also Thawaf seven times circling around the Ka’ba and Sa’i oscillating along “the sinus” Marwah-Shafa during rituals of the Hajj (Abraham).
“A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME – From the Big Bang to Black Hole” by Stephen W. Hawking is the best scientific interpretation of AL QUR’AN by a non believer. It is also a “genuine bridge stone” for comprehensive study of Theology. Surprise, this paradox is a miracle and blessing in disguise as well. So, it should be very wise and challenging for Moslem scholars to verify my discovery.
NeoSUFI visionary strategic thinking.



report abuse
 

Pingback: Fearless Faith « Take Two

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More Blogs To Enjoy!
Thank you for visiting Belief Beat. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy:   Beliefnet News   Good News Happy Reading!  

posted 4:57:28pm Feb. 14, 2012 | read full post »

Fun Friday: Atheist Temple Planned for UK's Nonbelievers
Author Alain de Botton has announced plans to build an Atheist temple in the United Kingdom, presumably so nonbelievers have a place to gather and share their philosophies. Um... isn't that what Starbucks is for? Also, I can't wait to see how the architect will handle this kind of project. May

posted 2:53:42pm Jan. 27, 2012 | read full post »

Alaska Airlines: High Payers No Longer Offered Sky Prayers
Alaska Airlines, now the country's seventh-largest airline, has announced it will stop offering prayer cards with its in-flight meals. (It's just raining religion news in the great unchurched Pacific Northwest lately.) I've flown Alaska several times since moving to Seattle, but I confess that I'

posted 11:07:56am Jan. 26, 2012 | read full post »

Washington's Gay Marriage Debate: Clergy vs. Clergy
I reported for Reuters at the Washington state Capitol yesterday, covering the public hearings on a gay marriage bill -- and in between, the breaking news that the state Senate now has enough votes to pass the bill. (The House already had enough votes.) It now appears that Washington's lawmakers wi

posted 11:24:39am Jan. 24, 2012 | read full post »

What Israel's Domestic Policy & Santorum Supporters Have in Common
Hope everyone had an introspective Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day, whether observed as a faith-related holiday, a nice break from the work week or something else entirely. Check out this story from Religion & Ethics Newsweekly about how mandatory sentencing for drug crimes and non-violent offens

posted 1:32:44pm Jan. 18, 2012 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.