BTW, you don't need God to create a Universe - Stephen Hawking

[cklover]

Jesus Christ, what is this Goddamned thread doing on this site?

 

[helgaleena]

Jesus Christ, what is this Goddamned thread doing on this site?

I guess all large penis owners don't use it to think with. :rofl: And they don't all ask Jesus Christ what a thread is doing in the 'etc.' section.

 

[D_Tully Tunnelrat]

^ Hawking and his theories... proves we're a cosmic joke.

Or accident.

I was always more of an egg man myself.

Since science is a mode of inquiry, I suspect we will know about more about M theory, theoretical still, or proven, later. In the meantime enjoy being. It's a given.

 

[bigbull29]

Jesus Christ, what is this Goddamned thread doing on this site?

I wander myself. People LOVE TO ARGUE on here. If you could dispute the color of the sky, there'd be zillions of threads on here where folks would rip each other apart into a zillion pieces over what color it truly was.:biggrin1:

When I first joined 4 years ago, I thought it'd be all about the penis. What a sad surprise!

 

[JustAsking]

Hawkings message is not that disturbing to a theist such as myself. His concept of God was more like Einstein's concept, which might be stated as "Spinoza's God".

Hawking seemed to be filling in God in those areas where he was still without an intuition about what happened. His god was the god of his gaps of understanding. I think he has come to see a bit further back in time before the Planck Epoch and although he has nothing falsifiable, he has an intuition that we will figure out what caused the Big Bang. So he no longer has a need to fill in gaps with god on that question.

For most of mainstream Christianity there is no conflict between science and doctrine. We accept the findings and theories of modern science for the same reasons scientists do.

The Big Bang theory was even conceived of and developed to acceptance by a Catholic Priest/cosmologist who was awarded a position on the Pope's science council as a result.

I can sympathize with Hawking's dropping his God of his gaps, though. It is a very weak theology that finds god only in what we don't understand. The rest of us mainline Christians find God in what we do understand, and that includes modern science.

One thing we need to remember is that science becomes speculative as we run into areas where we have no falsifiable findings or falsifiable hypotheses. We are not even sure if the singularity of the Big Bang was the beginning of something or merely step #n out of m steps in a long natural process. The BB does describe the unfolding of most of the properties of the universe today, but it can say nothing about what occured before the Planck Epoch so far.

So it is correct to say that the universe as we know it began during the BB. But it is speculative to simply conclude that it wasn't part of a series of processes.

 

[JustAsking]

No matter if it's based on "science" it's still a "belief system". It might seem logical and "based on scientific evidence" (whatever that means), but a "belief" in "non belief" remains a "belief". There's a great quote about "believing is seeing" not "seeing is believing". Theories remain an issue of belief, not truth.

Perth,
I don't know where you went to Sunday School but the last time I was there we did not talk about the requirements for falsifiability in findings and the predictions of hypotheses. We also didn't talk about multiple independent documented verification of those falsifiable findings and predictions either.

I must be in the wrong denomination, because in mine we call that stuff science. And we call the rest of what we believe in with no findings and no falsifaible predictions, "faith".

In fact, Cal already pointed out that even scientists do not "believe" in theories. They simply accept the fact that certain findings and theories have accumulated a very large record of accuracy when it comes to verifying them over and over again against the natural world.

And even then, we only accept them provisionally, knowing that they will run into trouble eventually and we will have to either modify or replace them with something that has superior predictive power.

So the correct epistemology would be, "I accept that theory A is the best explanation so far based on its documented ability to make more accurate falsifiable predictions than its competitors."

I don't hear those words spoken in Bible class very often.

 

[B_hijack]

even scientists do not "believe" in theories. They simply accept the fact that certain findings and theories have accumulated a very large record of accuracy when it comes to verifying them over and over again against the natural world.

Testify!

 

[superbot]

Stephen Hawking is just re-hashing stuff he's said a thousand times before.anyone would think he was selling a book or something.

 

[Drifterwood]

For most of mainstream Christianity there is no conflict between science and doctrine. We accept the findings and theories of modern science for the same reasons scientists do.

Really?

I see enormous denial. You can see it in this thread already. You know the stats about the creationists in your country better than me.

I would observe that since the reformation the CC has been fighting an open battle to defend doctrines which they had previously been able to enforce.

I wouldn't disagree that faith exists on a wholly different level to modern science, but that has not always been the case. Much of faith was dependent upon a god or gods who explained the natural world from the human perspective. As we learnt that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe let alone the Solar System, some churches have fought tooth and nail against knowledge that did not fit with their doctrine, and many still do. Many of your fellow christians are in complete denial of the science of geology.

Science too has had its own issues with moving away or apart from the human perspective. Understanding things from their own perspective is hard for many.

 

[JustAsking]

Really?

I see enormous denial. You can see it in this thread already. You know the stats about the creationists in your country better than me.

I would observe that since the reformation the CC has been fighting an open battle to defend doctrines which they had previously been able to enforce.

I wouldn't disagree that faith exists on a wholly different level to modern science, but that has not always been the case. Much of faith was dependent upon a god or gods who explained the natural world from the human perspective. As we learnt that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe let alone the Solar System, some churches have fought tooth and nail against knowledge that did not fit with their doctrine, and many still do. Many of your fellow christians are in complete denial of the science of geology.

Science too has had its own issues with moving away or apart from the human perspective. Understanding things from their own perspective is hard for many.

Oh sure, I don't deny any of that. The history of science and Christianity ranges from rank animosity to some periods of time when the church was the driving force behind science. One cannot say anything about the subject without oversimplifying it. Thats for damn sure.

My point was that today doctrines of the mainline denominations that represent about 1.8 billion out of 2 billion Christians worldwide accept the findings of modern science. They all have formal social statements to that effect. I am referring to Roman Catholicism, Episcopalian/Anglican, Presbyterian, UCC Congregationalist, United Methodist, ELCA Lutheran, and even the Nazarenes.

Some denominations have even gone as far as formally condemning Intelligent Design as pseudo science and recommend against teaching it in public school (Methodists).

A typical social statement looks like this:
Science, Technology and Faith

Now, that being said, in America there is a big part of the population that have various beliefs about creation that are in direct conflict with science. This seems to be a largely political/cultural conflict since that population cuts across the denominational spectrum.

In any given mainline denomination you will find about 20% of the congregation believing like YEC or OEC Creationists and disbelieving the theory of evolution.

I make no defense about that. It is a disgraceful state of affairs in the USA.

But you will also find that the rest of their personal theology is not in line with their denomination either.

So you have this odd state of affairs where such theories as The Big Bang come from Catholic Priest/cosmologists who are then awarded positions on Vatican science academies, but some Catholics in the USA are Young Earth Creationists.

 

[JustAsking]

Let me also add that the alarming amout of science denial in the USA us largely a cultural/political phenomenon, but one that is wrapped up in a kind of Christanity that is also inseparable from that cultural/political force.

I am not saying this to defend Christianity any more than it deserves. I am saying this to clarify the point.

Consider that there is pending legislation or movements to affect the policy of state boards of education in some 22 states at anyone time to alter the public school science curriculum. The proposals are all in regard to either introducing creationism or compromising the teaching of evolution.

The proponents of that are all conservative Republicans. The interesting thing is that evolution is now just one of the targets. The proposals usually target evolution, global warming, and stem cell research..

Most of the impetus and material for this effort comes from a Seattle based lobbying/PR firm called The Discovery Institute. They are the "sponsors" of the Intelligent Design movement which is basically a tarted up pseudo-scientific version of Paleyism from the early 1800s.

They are the people who brought us all the books ranging from the patently ridiculous "Of Pandas and People" all the way to the lofty but pseudo scientific books by PhDs such as Behe and Dembski about Irreducible Complexity and "information theoretic" approaches to refuting evolution.

They are funded mostly by a group of Christian Dominionists who seek to have the American government be based on Biblical principals.

The Discovery Institute is so intellectually dishonest in its approach that even the Templeton Foundation, which usually funds research about faith and science pulled out their support in embarassment.

This is a very culturally complex subject in the USA, and I would say that to declare it as a religious phenomenon is too simplistic.

One indicator is the rise of very similar organizations who lobby in the same way against public policy towards global warming mitigation. For example, The Heartland Institute.

Democracy is the worst form of government there is, except for all the others.

 

[AquaEyes11010]

No matter if it's based on "science" it's still a "belief system". It might seem logical and "based on scientific evidence" (whatever that means), but a "belief" in "non belief" remains a "belief". There's a great quote about "believing is seeing" not "seeing is believing". Theories remain an issue of belief, not truth.

Sure, they are both beliefs, just as if I am standing outside and feel droplets of water falling upon me from above, with dark clouds in the sky and a feeling of humidity in the air, I will believe that it is raining because the maximum amount of moisture the air can hold at the current temperature has been reached and the excess has condensed and fallen from clouds.

Another person, hoping for rain to aid the growth of his crops after a long drought, has prayed every night for two weeks for rain to fall. Now, finally, rain is falling, and he believes it is because he remained vigilant in his nightly prayers.

Both are beliefs. Which do you believe?

 

[Boobalaa]

:firedevil:alright shoot me and fry me in hell for saying this..but..:rocketwhore:c'mon..would you believe in God if you were in his shoes?..:biggrin1::biggrin1:

 

[Drifterwood]

:firedevil:alright shoot me and fry me in hell for saying this..but..:rocketwhore:c'mon..would you believe in God if you were in his shoes?..:biggrin1::biggrin1:

Many consider the development of religious escapism to be based upon the conception of life being one type of suffering after another.

Your "joke" rather backfires because Professor Hawking has clearly rejected this route.

 

[Lucky_Boy]

right because hawkings is the only scientist proposing this theory.

the debate is over!

 

[Drifterwood]

This is a very culturally complex subject in the USA, and I would say that to declare it as a religious phenomenon is too simplistic.

Democracy is the worst form of government there is, except for all the others.

Until they hold the balance of power.

Can we start to scrub out the bits of the Bible then that are clearly wrong and put them in a separate allegorical section?

I'm not trying to be funny, the Bible has been edited many many times, would it not be wise to update it for our own times?

 

[Smaccoms]

OMG this is totally gonna be one of those threads with blindly passionate dumb people professing idiotic single-minded thughts till the end of time until a total genius comes in after 20 pages and totally SHUTS THEM DOWN in one or two impressive Posts IM TOTALLY GETTING IN ON THIS (when I have time later, I'm starving at the moment, and I'm not really sure what to do after that so maybe then, peace yall)

 

[helgaleena]

Until they hold the balance of power.

Can we start to scrub out the bits of the Bible then that are clearly wrong and put them in a separate allegorical section?

I'm not trying to be funny, the Bible has been edited many many times, would it not be wise to update it for our own times?

There are lots of versions of the Bible already, and it's only the 'fundies' who insist on one or another-- usually the King James-- as literal truth. Clerics get to interpret the relevance of whatever they read from to the congregation they service.

Growing up we regularly got bombarded with 'street cred' versions of the Word, the gang Gospel, It's Me God, etc., whatever was in fashion for hip Lutherans.

Slightly off topic-- does anyone know how well Stephen Hawking fills out his trousers, since some earlier posts wondered if this topic should be allowed in here :tongue:

 

[Calboner]

:firedevil:alright shoot me and fry me in hell for saying this..but..:rocketwhore:c'mon..would you believe in God if you were in his shoes?..:biggrin1::biggrin1:

Many consider the development of religious escapism to be based upon the conception of life being one type of suffering after another.

Your "joke" rather backfires because Professor Hawking has clearly rejected this route.

So the word "his" in Boobala's rhetorical question "would you believe in God if you were in his shoes?" referred to Stephen Hawking? I thought that it referred to God, which made the joke rather obscure to me.

 

[Drifterwood]

OMG this is totally gonna be one of those threads with blindly passionate dumb people professing idiotic single-minded thughts

Why?

It is about one of the world's most eminent scientists who has changed his position from that in the work that brought him worldwide fame in which he allowed for the possibility of a creator god (filling in the gaps, as has been said. You could read the thread) to one which does not allow for the need for a god to create.

He also states that philosophy is history and incapable of adding to human understanding. Science is the new Rock and Roll. I think that he has a point.