When you are able to produce just one piece of evidence for a god, then go to print. Till then, just stop embarassing yourself.

Obviously, the ad hominem rebuttal is alive and not so well here. Worse,
“I have become more and more embarrassed by Hawking”, or “his sophomoric rants”. Hawking is indeed a first rate scientist.  As such he is quite within his realm to determine and conclude that he derives no basis from it to speculate on an afterlife. At least in physics there is observational and empirical study of facts, and deduce from those studies. Religion has none of this, no peer review, scrutiny, or any objectivity at all. To make foolish put downs on a man who has conducted his life based on rational thought, who has resolved that there is no similar basis in religion to justify any of its claims…is absurd. The man ‘Hawking’ has dedicated his life to what is warranted, nothing embarrassing about it. No one is embarrassed by another, only by oneself.

“If the world is that unplumbed, then why say there’s nothing behind it”? Well, precisely, in a sense, because it IS that ‘unplumbed’. The fact is that the ‘something behind it’ explanation was put forth in the complete absence of any knowledge, or even inkling, that a ‘materialist’ world existed. How can you say there is something ‘behind’ reality when the very nature of material reality was not known to to those who developed the idea there is a transcendental reality? Hawking (et al) have simply observed that the supernatural explanation for nature has been sterile and is unneeded. There are many facets to reality, but insofar as Hawking is commenting only on the claims of the supernaturalists, he is right.

Dear Sirs, Stephen Hawking is a twisted man both in body and in his mind.. He does not believe in God mainly because he cannot conceive of one who would leave him twisted in bodily functions as he is. Some of the greatest sciencetists, Nicholas Copernicus-(earth revolves around the sun), Gregor Mendel(Genetics), Don Perigone(Carbonation of Wine etc.) were clerics who were champions of science.                Darwin and his theories of Evolution the founder of Social Darwinism(Nazis and Margaret Sanger genetics-euthanasias racism)were largely disproved by Plate techtonics(Ring of fire-volcanoes etc. and Lamarck -Cuvier theories of catastrophism-Mass extinctions(Dinosaurs etc.). Athiests& evolutionists have no clue where the first ever cell came from etc..

@greg you first…why don’t you prove that there is no God

Thank you for putting into words my feelings that I could not so elegantly express.

Oh brother, the hysterical sob sisters have arrived. Darwin as the founder of “Social Darwinism”? Only the most ignorant would make such a claim since THAT idea was invented by Herbert Spencer. And given the 1500 slaughter of Jews by Christians, trying to tie Darwin to genocide is a bit disingenuous. Darwin has nothing to do with Hawking. Darwin’s theory has not been disproven. If you’re going to attack an idea, try to use facts instead of distortions. Saying that ‘atheists’ have no idea where the first cell came from is arguing God of the gaps, in addition to saying ‘atheists’ have to HAVE an idea of where the first cell came from. SHEESH!

Bob… Soooo, we are supposed to produce a piece of physical evidence for “something” (God) that is, by definition, not physical.  In fact, beyond the mere physical.  Sure.  Right away.  Like a piece of physical evidence for the existence of your love for your wife, or daughter, or son, or mother.  Or for justice, liberty, or the other things that make the human world go around…  Please, grow up.  As a person who has made his entire career as a physicist, I find people like SH (and perhaps you) embarassing in your shallowness.  But then, many physicists have a need to identify themselves with their careers and have an emotional stake in making themselves and their careers the ultimate reality.

Sure you have to provide evidence. You say he caused the universe to exist? How? You say he was resurrected? How? And love is a PROPERTY of existence, it is NOT existence itself. Your argument is like saying that since unicorns are white, whiteness proves unicorns exist. And stop with the amateur psychoanalysis. I’m a physical chemist and find your rudimentary view of psychology to be embarrassing to your view.

How many scientists on the Pontifical Academy of Science are Creationists?

Oh,,,that;s right.

None.

I understand that McDonald’s Institute is thinking about only hiring PETAMembers as their instructors.

I wish I could remember where I found this on the internet, but, I can’t. It is very amusing:

“Reached today for comment about Stephen Hawking’s new book, the Universe said that Professor Hawking should receive no credit for the ideas.

“You humans naively assume that ‘physicists’ exist, who discover theories,” said the Universe. “But I did it all. Me. The transitory entity known to you as ‘Stephen Hawking’ is merely an epiphenomenon of the laws of nature, otherwise known as Me, the Universe itself. Mindless physical stuff, the only thing that ever really existed, or ever will exist.”

“Hawking, and that other guy—what’s his face, Dawkins—have been stealing my royalties for years. I’ve got some lawyers working on that.”

“Anyway, I don’t know why Hawking and Dawkins, or Harris and Dennett and the rest of that crew, go on and on about ‘God’ not existing, when they don’t exist either. ‘Noted atheist authors,’ blah, blah, blah. What a load. Physics is everything, and ultimately, the only thing.”

“I wrote this article, for instance. Interviewed myself. Wrap your minds—which you don’t possess, actually—around that, you bits of unreal cosmic debris.”

It seems to me that Professor Hawking is inventing a philosophy in order to deny philosophy.

The multiverse theory would imply that there is endless space in which universes pop up as distinct from space and time being created in the Big Bang.

That his equation determines the creation of matter begs the question because the properties of matter follow from something that exists. 

The atheism that wallowed in the continuous creation theory has been on the back foot ever since the verification of   George Lemaître’s primaeval atom theory that was ridiculed as the big bang.

The Hawking theory has not changed anything. Atheism is still on the back foot and so it will remain.

I know the write-backers who insist that the best way to obtain knowledge is by the scientific method (far better than Divine Revelation, don’cha’kno) are capable of proving that claim by the scientific method.

I am just waiting to see the proof.

As to the rest of you Christian Catholics who do not think it makes any sense to believe in Macro-Eolution because that would mean that Parents would produce an offspring with a new organ that neither of the parents had.  then you will just have to admit that you am stoopid.

So there.

Mike, I think you have 2 aspects of modern cosmology confused. Lemaitre’s theory dealt only with THIS universe we live in, NOT with what happened before our universe came into being. Paul Steinhardt wrote a recent article for “Scientific American” in which he stated the multiverse theory does not need inflation to be viable. The multiverse theory is just another way of saying the existence of a ‘universe’ before our own is possible. If the supernaturalists are going to continue to insist there’s a supernatural origin to existence, they’re going to have to prove it. So far it seems it’s not needed.

OK…I think this was a good post…really good.  Mark, you are a great writer….but…I do think Hawking’s views have some extra value, as I am going to assume that he can understand more of theoretical physics than I can…therefore, I think he a slightly wider view into the inner workings of the universe than most of us.  Not to say that he has the total view.  Also, I do think having a life-threatening illness makes you stare into the abyss of death in a different way than just being alive on this earth does.  Most people spend most of their time forgetting their mortality. 

I did not read the original words, but did Hawking say, “I am sure there is no Heaven.” or did he say, “Given my knowledge and experience, heaven is not likely.” ?

First, I would expect it to be embarrassing to Hawking and others who think like he does to admit that there are plenty of people around who do not have access to his level of intelligence, nor to his years of study and work in physics, nor to his level of knowledge of the relevant scientific literature—in other words, uneducated, ignorant people—who also think Heaven and/or the Christian Faith is nothing more than a fairly tale concocted by and for people who are afraid of the dark.

Secondly, if the Christian Faith is nothing more than a fairy tale, why are people like Hawking, and millions of others around the world, seemingly in some sort of highly charged, concerted effort to eradicate it from the face of the earth, or at least silence it once and for all?  Are fairy tales that dangerous?  Why didn’t Madalyn Murray O’Hare go to court to have Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs removed from public schools?

I don’t think anyone’s trying to ‘silence’ or ‘eradicate’ religion any more than I think religionists are trying to do that to atheism. But it’s time for those who defend a supernaturalist view to defend their beliefs. It’s really a matter of evidence. If you make claims about nature, especially claims developed in the complete ignorance of the workings of nature, you have an obligation to explain yourself.

Please note; ‘the multiverse DOES NOT imply that there is endless space’. It implies no such thing. Further, there is no mandate to prove the non-existence of a god. However, to state that there is one, demands proof.  What repeatedly occurs on this forum is the need to argue by ridicule, as in telling a poster with a contrary opinion; “please grow up”.
What defies rational thought is the continual offering of conjecture for substantive matter, and opposition by belittling those who demand some compelling data. Citing important figures from the 16th and 17th century which pre-date Darwin as some type of valid argument, and then a reductionist futility to link it onto Hitler’s Nazis is truly main stream science or mindless religious acquiescence. You might recall the Hitler was born a Catholic, educated a Catholic, raised a Catholic, and died in the graces of the church…now does that convey truth to anything.

After reading all these comments I see that there is a God. It is polarizing. We are given a depth to accept or not. Once that choice is made the fight is on. A Scientist needs to see to believe. Yet faith is all about believing that which cannot be seen. Trying to have a believer and an atheist argue about this will never gain a winner. The atheist will tell his/her arguments which come down to “prove it!” The believer will lay out his/her argument. I being a believer have always had faith that there is a God. I just know it like I know the sun will rise. I look at the physical world around me and I see how excellent nature is. I look at the oceans and the stars and the thought always comes to me this cannot be an accident. The problem is that religion gets in the way of the discussion. For the atheist he/she may have a great aversion to “organized religion”. So they already do not believe in God or have a serious doubt but they see what people do in the practice of their religion and how they act and think it is crazy because it is just so forgein to there thinking. It is hard to understand that which one might think is crazy. … It all comes down to faith. The Bible cannot be used to argue scientific fact because it is not a book of science, in the same way the greatest tome of physics or evolution cannot be used to argue against the existence of God. They are both not made for those purposes. The Bible is for us to grow in our faith, to be closer to God and to hear His word in us. The scientific works are to see the beauty that is in the work and how they came to be, to know and understand all that is around us. The how and why of it all. When one realizes all the intricacies that are in creation, how everything must work together to be as they are. How if one piece was not right it could not be. It tells me that nothing random could be that perfect. Science will even tell you that. Both ideas should be respected. Why? Because the person who does not believe in my eyes truly wants to know how all this stuff works. They ask the same questions I ask. I for some reason know where they come from and am ok with that. I need not see I just know. Yet I also know that those who need to see are from the same God I believe in who made me.

There is empirical evidence of Lemaître’s theory.  The multiverse theory is a hypothesis.  Even if it were so there is still a need for an initial unmoved mover.

You might recall the Hitler was born a Catholic, educated a Catholic, raised a Catholic, and died in the graces of the church…now does that convey truth to anything.

Heck, that doesn’t even convey truth to your own statement. The “Nazis were Christians” canard has been done to death, and someone who kills himself can hardly be considered to have “died in the graces of the church.” Please.

Mike, correct on both counts. But why do we need an ‘unmoved mover’? Again, you assume facts not in evidence. An ‘unmoved mover’ is not even an hypothesis. It’s speculation based on a pre-medieval idea about the nature of reality. And it’s always been pushed back as we learn more about nature. It’s really just another version of ‘god of the gaps’.

Hilarious! I also don’t get why anyone listens to this frog!

SH indeed made important contributions to theoretic physics, but his view that faith is actually a self-comforting fairy tale is hardly original, nor does it withstand logical scrutiny as even a “theoretical” proposition. Let’s consider orthodox Christianity, a faith that juxtaposes beliefs in (a) a God of infinite justice, (b) the prospect of eternal damnation to which all humans are rightly doomed, and (c) the utter inability of any person to justif himself and thereby avoid perdition. So much for a “comforting” fairy tale. Further, assuming even a theoretical validity to the self-comforting delusion hypothesis, it is a theroy that cuts both ways. Thus, the denial of a deity and the supernatural order can just as validly (and arguably more so) be viewed nothing more than a comforting fairy tale, lest the athiest be forced to admit there are (gasp!) limits to the reach of science.

Leaving aside Bob K’s theology, the comic book view that many people have of atheists’ thinking science as being virtually infinite in scope is a non-starter. There’s no evidence of scientism in the atheist community at all. If you want to play with strawmen, be my guest. But Dorothy and Toto are a poor substitute for logic and evidence.

Mr. Hawkings may be an excellent physicist but he is a poor logician. his “theory” that something comes from nothing is curious, but rather old hat. Somehow gravity does this. But what is gravity? As Richard Feynman noted “we haven’t a clue”. Interesting this respect is Galileo’s refusal to accept gravity as a cause of the tides. He did not “like” mysterious forces.

The “multiverse” theory is a curious example of illogical thinking. The word “universe” is meant as a name for the all that exists materially. Perhaps it dopes consist of several worlds. Then it will be a universe of multiverses.

Like those of most atheists, Hawkings’ words [for that is all they are] are a desperate attempt to avoid the idea of God.

Those who attempt to deny a connection between Darwin’s [also illogical] theories and the racial acts of the Nazis should consider the question of the scientists who gave us the atom bombs. Are they guilty of their use?

Bob K., denial of a deity may be a comforting fairy tale;  to some.  That, however, is not what science is all about. Science has a number of things going for it, aside from faith.  That is observation and study and testing of data. Science undergoes scrutiny by objective criteria. In no manner would would science assail your right to have faith.  Science would only make a determination whether ‘faith’ is supported by its findings. In order to have ‘faith’, there must be some supportive basis, concrete study, data etc., supporting such believe. Truthfulness ought not be a distraction. Rational endeavor demands objective faith undergo critical study or else it indeed falls to ‘comforting fairy tale’.

Bob.
LOL.  I did not realise that Newtonian mechanics were pre-medieval.
Let me summarise.  Catholic Christianity believes that there can be no inconsistencies between science and religion ever.  I repeat EVER.

Western Civilisation was built on the notion a consistent God made a consistent universe. 

Newton quoted Wisdom 11 :20 ….But you have disposed all things by measure and number and weight.”

It is arguable that an atheist have never have invented a big bang theory because they are influenced by their belief that there is no God so creation that is implied by the Big Bang theory is therefore impossible.

Lemaître who was also a Catholic Priest was influenced by the philosophy of St Thomas Aquinas in that he expected creation so he looked to find it.

Atheists today seem to cling to any hypothesis that might suggest that there is no God.  The present prop for atheism is that there is an infinite series of universes.  Even if it were so how did the first universe start. 

A few links.

There is a short biop of Lemaître in the link below that includes the intellectual opposition to the Big Bang theory from the atheist camp led by Fred Hoyle who coined the term Big Bang as a term of derision.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0022.html

More information on Lemaître on the University of Louvain web site

http://www.uclouvain.be/en-316446.html

A link to Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Contra Gentiles Vol 2 Creation.
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles2.htm

My attribution to scientist of the view that science is infinite is perhaps hyperbole, but I submit, hyperbole underscoring a valid point. This much is true—when science begins to make claims about categories that are, by definition, non-material, it ceases to be science. It has crossed over into the realm of philosophy and (all to often) “sophomoric” attempts at theology. Science rightly bristles when certain believers attempt to trump the valid results of scientific observation and analysis because they seem incongruent with some literalistic reading of the scriptures. (The orthodox Catholic view, BTW, is that truth is truth, regardless of the source of its revelation, so that the Faith has nothing to fear from science properly done.) But science has no more business denying, for example, a supernatural order and the existence of purely spiritual beings than does religion to insist on seven, literal, 24 hour days of creation, etc. Science is examination of and experimentation with the material evidence, and then confirming or adjusting one’s world view by the results. If one observes and accurately interprets empirical evidence that confirms or challenges the world view, then one is doing science. But if an ersatz scientist makes conclusions without any empirical evidence because of a pre-determined and fixed-in-stone world view (e.g., there is no spiritual order, miracles are impossible, etc.), that is not science. It is a dogmatic fundamentalism far worse that what is erroneously attributed to believers.

I imagine that God looks at us like a bunch of Helen Keller’s.  She was blind & deaf.  Yet she had vision & feeling.  She was able to know that which she could not see or hear.  Here are a few Helen Keller quotes; She said, “Many people know so little about what is beyond their short range of experience. They look within themselves - and find nothing! Therefore they conclude that there is nothing outside themselves either.
and
Once I knew only darkness and stillness… my life was without past or future… but a little word from the fingers of another fell into my hand that clutched at emptiness, and my heart leaped to the rapture of living.
and finally
The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched - they must be felt with the heart.
To me, God is all around us waiting to touch us, and you are either open to it or not.  Lucky for Helen, she was open, or she would have continued to live in darkness and isolation.  God touches our hearts daily, but only some remain open to that touch, others have closed themselves off in darkness.  It is hard to explain the experience of God, but I know He is there, and He touches my life everyday.

It’s like a 2D character trying to understand the concept of a sphere. Mario and Luigi might have no evidence in their game-world that they’re actually characters in a video game. Does that make it any less true that they are?

Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe. Also, come on, there was an empty tomb. Science schmience. We have history, not just faith. Atheist historians have agreed that Jesus was a real historical figure.

The 12 Apostles were all martyred horribly for their faith. Why would they have died horribly for something they knew to be false? There was an empty tomb in Jerusalem that all could go and see… Jesus was famous - people recognised him and masses of people knew Him. It wasnt as if He’s made up and the Church grew based on a figment of imagination or some elaborate and pointless hoax. These were fishermen who all decided to give up their lives to spread the lovely lovely news about Jesus who came to bring hope to the world and reconcile us with God.

Multi-verse…pffff. Who cares? I live in this world, in this time and God is great.

Emphatically, science does not bristle at anything or deny any deity. Science, even more so, is not in the business of the spiritual order, affirming apparitions, or mystical miracles. Science is ontological. What is there about science that becomes difficult to comphrehend. Science does not deny, it postulates and affirms based on observation and empirical study. If an ‘infallible pope’ states there is an Immaculate Conception, and an Assumption, do not expect science to become involved in what can never be empirically affirmed. Therein is the big difference. But, ‘faith’ needs science as a basis and a support for its credulity…otherwise faith is but a whim.

The metaphysical need for the multiverse is to gloss over implications of the fact that if any aspect of the universe were not precisely as it is, we could not exist.  Some minor (one part in a trillion) changes prevent stars from forming.  Others changes prevent chemical bonds between atoms.  It is not that a slightly different uyniverse would not have people, but that these slightly different universes could not even form methane, let alone life.  It is preposterous (for some materialists) to suggest that we got lucky, so this must be one of many universes generated at random, each with random properties.  They cannot rule out a creator, so they must replace him with an infinite amount of monkeys pounding out random universes on typewriters.

Part of the reason that the Big Bang took so long to be accepted was that the Steady State Universe has no need of a creator, but one that appeared out of nowhere begs the question of first cause.

Contrary to the smirking assertions of the faith-mockers on this site who trash Mr. Shea for daring to take issue with Stephen Hawking - there is tons of *evidence* arguing for the reality of “a god”; evidence available in all manner of categorigies: scientific, historic, sociological,anthro- pological, philosophical, etc. Absolute proof? Of course, not - paraphras-
ing Pascal’s reflections on miracles, it is evidence sufficient for those open to belief; space is left, however, for those hell-bent on rejecting the evidence because they have no interest in yielding to the authority of a Creator.

Mark, your last paragraph gave me goosebumps. :)
.
That’s why I am so in love with Catholicism. It is living in our very own epic fairy tale. Our very own Lord of the Rings.

Behold the Paladin of Reason and Logic mounts his barbed steed to fright the souls of fearful adversaries from the stygian depths of deepest darkest theism:

You might recall the Hitler was born a Catholic, educated a Catholic, raised a Catholic, and died in the graces of the church…now does that convey truth to anything.

Rationalism sez: Hawking is right because Hitler was raised a Catholic. “Died in the graces of the Church” not so much. But still a college try.

Remember: these people believe in pure logic, unike those stupid Catholics and their mystical mumbojumbo.

First runner up: The guy who says his fundamentalist reading of Noah’s Flood proves Hawking knows what he’s talking about.  Scratch an atheist, find a fundamentalist.  Apparently the trolls are out in force today.

There’s no evidence of scientism in the atheist community at all.

The universe is governed by science. - Stephen Hawking

In all charity, this does not even make sense, let alone answer the question.  The universe is not “governed by science.”  It is described by science.  There is a difference.  One may as well say that pretty flowers are governed by photography, or the highways by Rand-McNally. - Michael Flynn’s autopsy of Hawking’s nonsense

For people who claim to be all about reason and logic, the Hawking trolls seem to worship their intellects a lot more than they use them.

Bob,

There is a category of truths that stand without evidence.

What proves that one person loves another person?  What evidence would not just be compelling, but would prove it?

If I have a headache, how could I ever prove it to you or provide conclusive empirical evidence?  Are headaches true facts of nature?

I’m not sure how the fact we don’t know what gravity is means there’s a supernatural. This is another ‘god of the gaps’ game. We can see and measure the effects of gravity. We have never, even once, seen the measurable physical effects of the supernatural. Hawking’s theories are based on physical principles. Supernaturalism is not. Supernaturalism was developed in a time when humans didn’t know there WERE laws of nature.

There is no logical proof the scientific method works. There is EMPIRICAL proof it works because the developers of your computer used it to make the computer. Perhaps another method will, at some point in the future, replace the scientific method; all well and good. But it stands head and shoulder above the supernaturalist method which, for thousands of years, led nowhere.

Jesuitical makes a rather convoluted, and not too clear, attack on ‘Darwin’s theory’ being illogical and comparing it to nuclear physics. This is an example of consequentialism; something can’t be true because we don’t like the consequences. The fact is both nuclear physics AND Darwin’s theory have so much support they can not be denied. The fact is Darwin’s works were banned by the Nazis; they were considered part of the “Enlightenment”. And the fact is, again, Christians were slaughtering Jews LONG before Darwin. Genocide against Jews, by Christians, preceded Darwin.

While we’re tossing this subject around, the silly fable that “Hitler was a Catholic?Christian” is another bit of nonsense we need to dispatch to outer darkness. Sure, he was raised a Catholic; I’ve even heard he attended seminary. Yeah, so? How many of the “New Atheists” so much in the news these days were once memebers of “Holy Mother Chruch”? Or former Baptists, or fundamentalists? For those who bother with actual history, what is crystal clear is that the Uber-Nazi jettisoned whatever Christian convictions he might have had long before he set out to become master of the new race. He and his crowd where actually neo-pagans who pined for a new civilization helmed by a new super-race rooted in Germanic mythology. True, der Fuehrer *used* the churches in Germany, and even aped some of their terminology, when it was tactically/stragically convenient. Behind the scenes, though, he and his toadies entertained only contempt for those who worshipped Jesus. Somebody - hmmm, who was it?—once warned about Satan dressing up as an angel of light when it suits his purposes. The “little Corporal” was clearly well-acquainted with that notion. But a genuine Catholic or Christian he definitely was not. He flagrantly violated biblically-based, Christian principles on ever level, from his personal sexual habits to that matter of mass genocide. From a Christian perspective, Adolf Hitler, like Stalin the mass-murderer after him, was effectively an unbeliever. Philosophically, they, doubtless, shared a lot in common with some of the folks on this site who bristle every time anyone suggests there might be something bigger than ourselves out there.

Mike Rooke ignores the fact that Lemaitre based his theory on Einstein’s theory of Relativity, and that Einstein was a Jewish atheist. And this strawman that ‘atheists’ cling to ‘any hypothesis’ that suggests there’s not a God is meaningless. What about scientists who aren’t atheists? Again we find religionists projecting their own indignation onto a mirror. It’s the religionists who have to defend their failed supernaturalist views. These never explained anything at all, in all of history. Not once.

“An ‘unmoved mover’ is not even an hypothesis. It’s speculation based on a pre-medieval idea about the nature of reality. And it’s always been pushed back as we learn more about nature. It’s really just another version of ‘god of the gaps’.”

This is an elementary philosophical confusion that is parroted ad nauseum on internet atheist sites. You should really know what you are talking about before shooting your mouths off about how “rational” you are.

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/10/warburton-on-first-cause-argument.html

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/09/manzi-on-wright-coyne-dispute.html

Science certainly CAN deny a ‘supernatural’ order IF the claims of a supernatural order are contradicted by the evidence. If the supernaturalist claim is that God created the universe, and we can find NO evidence of that, then what logical reason is there to use God to explain the universe? If the supernaturalists can’t tell us HOW God did it, then, again, what use is God in this respect?

Well the anti-intellectualism of “Big Irish” is, unfortunately, too common among believers. There’s really no defense against those who say we should go back to the caves because that’s where God wants us.

Bob-

What is your point in bringing up the evils of particular christian’s actions? Atheist governments have slaughtered plenty of christians for practicing thier faith too. That is a fact as well.

Religion is just a velvet glove people wore at many times to do what they would have done anyway without that glove: subjugate and kill others they saw as inferior or dangerous.

Richard Bell makes a common, but mistaken, appeal to the ‘Anthropic Principle’ to justify his views. Last September’s “Scientific American” carried an article describing just how non-finely tuned our universe is. We could entirely eliminate the strong nuclear force and, with some adjustments in other parameters, still have a universe that looks like ours. In addition, a ‘multiverse’ containing an infinite number of universes would, by chance, generate a universe like ours. This is another “God of the gaps” argument.

Mark Shea tries to bend Hawking’s comment into shape that’s unrecognizable. Hawking never said science could explain truth or beauty or poodles. He simply made a statement about what we observe and what is needed to explain physical existence. Who’s now trying to force fit beliefs?

David Wagner confuses a PROPERTY of existence with existence; a form of St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument. I have a headache. It exists in my brain. Again, the idea that unicorns are white does not mean that ‘whiteness’ proves unicorns exist.

Ponder & study this for just a while,....to the scoffers of a TRUE and REAL God…...how do you explain that the ancient pagan philosophers (Aristotle and Socrates) figured out that there IS a TRUE and REAL God without being told by anyone that there is a God?!  Study their works and then come here and TRY to make this statement again,.....greg said, “When you are able to produce just one piece of evidence for a god, then go to print. Till then, just stop embarassing yourself.”

Now who should feel embarrassed?!?

WPRjr said, “To make foolish put downs on a man who has conducted his life based on rational thought, who has resolved that there is no similar basis in religion to justify any of its claims…is absurd. The man ‘Hawking’ has dedicated his life to what is warranted, nothing embarrassing about it. No one is embarrassed by another, only by oneself.” 

Asking…how can there be a claim that Hawking is able to use “rational thought” when Aristotle & Socrates used “rational thought” to conclude there IS a TRUE God by studying nature and its works, science!!

Also, WPRjr,...as for Hawking being a “first rate scientist” I saw the interview when Hawking was asked who/what was the FIRST mover/maker at the beginning of time.  He couldn’t answer the question!!!  Hmmmm!  Go figure!  When he doesn’t want to recognize or admit that there IS a first mover/maker (God), then one CANNOT answer that question!!!!

Sam ignores the fact the laws of physics do not require an unmoved mover. What Manzi says in response to Coyne is irrelevant. I don’t need an appeal to authority. The laws of nature will do quite nicely, thank you.

Michael confuses “atheist” with “Communist”. Kind of like saying all dogs are cats because both have 4 feet. Ayn Rand and Pat Tilman were both atheists. Neither was a communist.

Adolf Hitler (pagan unbeliever): death tally 6 million (not counting those who died because of the World War (!) his belligerence sparked.

Joe Stalin (crusading atheist: death tally approx. 14 million (again, not counting the butcher’s bill for the millions who perished tangentially because of the Marxist/Communist ideology he championed).

Christian Church: death tally (according to one comment above) 1500 Jews. (I challenge this number, btw, but for arguments sake let’s stipulate it is accurate).

The death of ONE Jew “in the name of Christ” is an abomination. But within a worldwide, centuries-enduring institution (like the Church of Jesus Christ) the involvement of some awful people who do awful things is inevitible (ironically, Christianity accounts for this lamentable eventuality - we call it “the sin nature” of man).

And be reminded, that all the while Jews (or “witches’, or “Moors”) were being murdered by misguided fools mouthing words about Jesus at the same time, there has always been a presence within the visible church denouncing such actions and acting to restrain them.

Much like a segment of the church in Germany - labelled “the Confessing Church”—valiantly reprehended Hitler and Co. for their enormities; including their mimicking Christian terminology while repudiating Christian truth.

Pastor Dietrich Boenhoeffer was executed for standing against the entire, abominable Nazi experiment. Some of you might not have heard of him - doesn’t get the attention he should because his story doesn’t fit the “Hitler-and-the-Nazis-were-outspoken-Christians” narrative.

After reading all the comments on this article, once again, it’s safe to say: atheists make poor philosophers. Hawking proves the point.

All of the atheist’s rudimentary philosophical arguments here can easily be refuted by the most unskilled of philosophers of religion. There are many “proofs” for God using logic and reason.

Science can only explain nature (barely), which only really makes up a small part of our reality.

It is actually illogical and absurd NOT to believe in God. Chew on that one.

“This is an example of consequentialism; something can’t be true because we don’t like the consequences.”

Dear Bob. That sentence is an example of you do not know what you are talking about.

http://catholicmoralsguy.blogspot.com/2008/12/revisionist-moral-thought.html

Still waiting for the Hawking Horde to use the scientific method to prove that science is the best or the only reliable way to acquire knowledge.

R.J. makes lots of assertions. No evidence. As Hitchens says, ‘that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence’. Hawking is discussing ONLY the supernaturalist claims about the origin of the universe. And so far, no supernaturalist has been able to define a logical, empirical reason to think supernaturalism explains any feature of the universe.

Mark Shea tries to bend Hawking’s comment into shape that’s unrecognizable. Hawking never said science could explain truth or beauty or poodles. He simply made a statement about what we observe and what is needed to explain physical existence. Who’s now trying to force fit beliefs?

For somebody with a mind governed by logic and reason, you certainly don’t seem to demonstrate even elementary reading comprehension.  To recap:  You claimed that there’s no scientism among scientists.  I quote Hawking making the ridiculous claim that the universe is “governed by science”.  Suddenly you are quoting me saying bunch of stuff I never said.

Really, dude.  Stop worshipping your intellect and start using it.

Vermont Crank thinks the Scientific Method requires a logical proof. It doesn’t. He (or she) is mistaken. The fact is, it works. Period. End of story. Supernaturalism doesn’t work. If VC thinks the SM doesn’t work, s/he’s free to tell us how the computer he’s typing on got developed without it. And thanks for proving me correct on my definition of consequentialism. Much appreciated.

Nothing like a few jaded scientists, enslaved to a rationalist view of the cosmos, sparking a little debate with real people. Modern science tends toward atheism because it is constrained and limited by its own logic. It is incomplete and sadly simplistic because it allows into its tiny sphere of reality only that which can be calculated or counted, and then has the hubris to go on to explain all of existence based on utilizing only half of the human brain. Modern science has become irrational precisely because it is half-brained—and that half has become overly enlarged and monstrously dangerous. Thinking people are no more required to accept a solely rationalist explanation for life than we are to accept a purely emotional explanation. Complete thinking, introduced and defended by a Catholic worldview, is fully balanced and satisfying because it bridges the two halves of the human brain. Modern science puts quite a large amount of faith in its ability to logically explain God (or Heaven) into or out of existence. That kind of pride is the biggest sin of all.

Hawking’s theories are based on physical principles. Supernaturalism is not.

Hawking’s recent babble is just confused supernaturalism.  Again, I refer you to the link to Michael Flynn’s takedown:

“Hawking: Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing. It is a matter of chance which we are in.

Oh, dear.  This is what he said earlier, and it had to be pointed out to him that the scenarios he imagined were not “creation” and were not “out of nothing.”  They presupposed, for example, the laws of quantum mechanics and presumably (though Hawking did not say so) the Quantum Vacuum.  These are not nothing.  In fact, by supposing that the laws of nature pre-existed nature itself, he was saying in effect “In the beginning was the Word…” 

Hawking (and you) simply don’t know what you are talking about.  Hawking’s confused babble bears inadvertant witness to the Christian doctrine of the Logos.  But he (and you) are too ignorant to realize that.

Hmm…‘jaded’; ‘enslaved to rationalism’; ‘real people’...I wasn’t aware scientists were aliens! As to rationalism, I suppose an attack, in lieu of evidence is considered good form. What it shows is, again, the supernaturalists have no evidence to support their volleys against Hawking’s comment. And Mark keeps INSISTING that modern scientists have collapsed in to scientISM. That is an assertion he makes without evidence or proof; but it serves nicely in his comments as a strawman. He’s welcome to it. It’s wrong. But, I suppose, it will have to do in the absence of a real argument. And he winds up with the traditional, anti-intellectualist attack on science that shows he’s a ‘real’ person. Nice touch!

If Mark Shea can point out where, in either Sacred Scripture, or Sacred Tradition, we can find mention of the Quantum Vacuum as a causative agent, I’ll concede he has a point. However, again, he fails to defend the supernaturalist position. As to positing the quantum vacuum as the Logos, well, religion has, as a property, infinite plasticity, so it can be defined in any way that allows you to avoid embarrassment.

Mark Shea feigns offensive at having his implicit assertion of scientism exposed. What he ignores is that Hawking did not say science explains the loyalty of my poodles, the beauty of a sunset or the contentment that comes from a shot of Jack Daniels. What he DID say was that the PHYSICAL UNIVERSE is, apparently, explicable by the laws of science. That’s it. Nothing more. And any supernaturalism is extraneous and superfluous.

“Supernaturalism doesn’t work.”

What does that even mean?

Hmm. I suppose Shakespeare wouldn’t have existed to Hamlet either since Hamlet would not have had the means to prove the existence of the very thing that brought him into existence.  How could he have? Shakespeare would have transcended all of his capabilities of using empirical evidence.  But, of course, analogies have no place in discussing cold hard science, so I guess I will fade back into the background and just observe the continuation of this urination contest.

Bob:

Your reading comprehension skills are in grave doubt.  Nobody’s claiming the Quantum vacuum is the Logos.  Nobody’s saying Scripture is a physics text. Indeed, I never said a word about poodles or sunsets.  Deep cleansing breaths.  Stop trying to win.  Stop worshiping your intellect.  Try using it.

Supernaturalism was used to explain features of nature. It was once used to explain disease before we knew about germs, since illnesses were attributed to demonic forces. I think you’re feigning ignorance instead of facing the failure of supernaturalism to explain anything about nature.

BOB sez:
why do we need an ‘unmoved mover’? Again, you assume facts not in evidence. An ‘unmoved mover’ is not even an hypothesis. It’s speculation based on a pre-medieval idea about the nature of reality. And it’s always been pushed back as we learn more about nature. It’s really just another version of ‘god of the gaps’.

YOS
IOW, you do not understand Aristotle’s argument.  You are correct to say that it is not a hypothesis.  It is not something advanced to “explain” motion in the world.  It is a logical deduction from motion, not an inference from motion.  It is precisely because an infinite regress is not physically realizable for an essentially ordered series of motions.  (Accidentally-ordered series may of course go to infinity, as Aquinas assumed.  Lacking Fr. Lemaitre’s Big Bang theory, Aquinas had no philosophical reason to suppose the world finite, and so did not assume that it had a beginning in time in his proofs.)

A first cause cannot be pushed back for the excellent reason that it is first.  There is no “back” to push it to.  It is ontologically and logically first.  It may or may not be temporally first.  Nor is it something that happened a long time ago.  Creation is not a physical event in time.  (Time itself is an aspect of creation.)  Rather, it is something that is happening right HERE, right NOW. 
+ + +
BOB continues:
If the supernaturalist claim is that God created the universe, and we can find NO evidence of that, then what logical reason is there to use God to explain the universe?

YOS
Easy.  God is not a material efficient cause in rivalry with other physical material causes.  As Cardinal Schoenborn said, “Scientists are most welcome to “explain everything they need to without appeal to God;” indeed, I hope all the readers of [this blog] would join me in strenuously objecting if God is ever invoked in the course of normal scientific explanation!”  To this we may add Adelard of Bath, William of Conches, Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, Nichole d’Oresme, and any number of others who insisted that the causes of natural phenomena should be sought in the nature of things.  So you are simply parroting medieval Catholic doctrine. 

BOB cries:
If the supernaturalists can’t tell us HOW God did it, then, again, what use is God in this respect?

YOS
As I understand it, it was to provide us with an IT for natural philosophy to explain. 
+ + +
BOB confuses physics with metaphysics:
Sam ignores the fact the laws of physics do not require an unmoved mover.

YOS
Of course not.  Neither does physics require that Mozart’s Clarinet Concerto in A be beautiful. 

Here is a quick quiz for self-evaluation, so that you may determine if you know what you are talking about: 
a) Give a basic account of potency and act. 
b) Explain what is meant by “motion” in the argument from motion. 
c) Explain the difference between the “per se” and the “per accidens.”  How does this apply to movers and mobiles? Specifically, explain what it means to say that the first mover is not in motion either per se or per accidens.
d) Explain what “infinite” means in the context of the argument from motion.  What sense of infinite is =not= used in the argument. 

Googling, cutting, and pasting does not count as an answer, only as self-deception.

To borrow from yet another scientifically gifted, albeit spiritually vacant, genius, billions n’ billions of seconds and cyber-characters are being wasted on this pompous and thoroughly boring trophy-toy of Ol’ Scratch’s latest version of useful idiots.
  Just because Stephen Hawking’s bereft of any future, it doesn’t mean we have to waste our time debating what a miserable worm he is—not to mention the fact he and his backers, cohorts and unthinking chimplike-clapping fans—and what the whole bunch of ‘em are up to: following orders from below, knowingly or unknowingly.
  When I think of guys like this overpackaged Hawking, it’s refreshing to also think of a young man who played the trumpet for the University of Louisville Cardinal Marching Band. (He and his family, his father in particular, was featured on ABC’s Home Makeover Show a year or so ago.) He can’t walk, his arms are too short and yet he takes his two major gifts and puts them to good use for everybody. First, his musical talents. As good as they are, they pale in comparison to the Godly spirit he shares to bring encouragement to others saying in effect, “So, I lost out in other ways, but I can still honor God by bringing joy and encouragement to others through my music and example.” Five minutes spent watching any video of this young Kentuckian easily exceeds ten lifetimes “worth” of all Stephen Hawking’s lectures combined.

Supernaturalism was used to explain features of nature. It was once used to explain disease before we knew about germs, since illnesses were attributed to demonic forces. I think you’re feigning ignorance instead of facing the failure of supernaturalism to explain anything about nature.

So, by “Supernaturalism does not work” you mean “Supernaturalism is not science”?  And the reason you think that is a controversial statement for a Catholic is….?

Well, no, Aristotle’s ‘unmoved mover’ was supposedly a statement about properties of the physical world. It’s unneeded. We don’t know where the universe came from, how it got here or what the laws governing its existence are, over the entire range of possibilities. It’s presumptuous, and premature, to speculate about an ‘unmoved mover’. There is no evidence of a first cause. There are no laws of nature that require one. And YOS is asserting that God is merely a jumping off point for natural philosophy? That’s some backpedaling! If God can be tossed into the garbage heap as being useless once the physical attributes of the universe can be explained, then do so. As to ‘potens’ and ‘actual’, metaphysical legerdemain is not a substitute for measurable physical quantities. Such sleight of hand is one reason obeisance to Aristotle delayed the arrival of modern science by over a millenium. And it’s hardly proof of God’s existence!

The reason I think it’s controversial is that so many object to Hawking’s assertion that God is unneeded to explain the existence of the universe. It is, in the words of Laplace, the unnecessary hypothesis.

If you found a watch on the beach showing the correct time and in perfect working order, which explanation is more rational?

(1) the watch - although it *seems* like it must have resulted from some intelligence - actually has no rational cause: it’s the result of the of random movement of atoms in the ocean over billions of years that just happened to wash up on the beach fully operational and showing the correct time

(2) the watch is the result of some intelligence who made it and set it correctly

Seems to me the burden of proof is on those who want to hold (1), not (2). True, no one can absolutely “prove” that the watch *couldn’t* be the result of random forces (or of aliens from the planet Zorg for that matter), but who lives their lives this way?

Speaking of burdens of proof, I have yet to hear from any atheist how “right” and “wrong” can really mean anything besides what we (or society) feels about them. You can’t derive moral truths from mere matter. The same goes for any judgment that goes beyond the purely physical (good - bad; beautiful - ugly). How can pain be “bad” - it’s just a different configuration of atoms than pleasure which is supposedly “good.”

The philosopher Betrand Russell was one of the few atheists honest enough to admit this.

The purpose of science is neither to prove nor disprove the existence of God.  When a person needs scientific proof that God exists then he does not believe in God but in science.  He puts God under science. 

When any scientist misuses science to try to disprove the existence of God then he is serving an ideology not American.  The USA was founded upon the Declaration of Independence that acknowledges “the laws of nature and of nature’s God”.
 
When a scientist goes out on a limb and develops or backs theories like a Godless Big Bang theory or a Godless Evolutionary theory then he moves from being a scientist to being a pseudo-scientist.  Here is why.  The Big Bang Theory begins with a proposition that everything came from nothing and has been expanding ever since.  In science there must always be a ‘first cause’ so this proposition and everything coming from it is in violation of good science.  Thus, the Godless Big Bang Theory is more science fiction than it is science.  The Godless theory of Evolution is, likewise, flawed. 

The first proof that God exists is that we exist as creatures of a Creator.  Since the Godless Big Bang Theory cannot be true then there is no other reasonable conclusion than the Cosmos is the creation of an Almighty God, who also created time.  This is a beautiful deduction that will be explored more in depth in ChristopherNation.com coming soon.

The second proof that God exists is that Jesus IS God incarnate (in the flesh).  Jesus proved that He is God not only by performing miracles, but more so by giving the power to perform miracles to others even to this present day. 

Miracles are an exception to the Laws of Nature.  Only the Creator of these Laws can suspend these Laws.  Man simply uses the Laws.  The Catholic Church uses such highly regarded intellects and doctors as Stephen Hawking when examining miracles because the Church does not hire them to try to prove the miracle but to disprove the miracle.  When none of the scientific communities can prove the miracle is of natural causes, then the Church relents and acknowledges it as a miracle.

Sam Schmitt digs up the old argument from design. The fact is, we know how watches work. We know ALOT about the laws of nature. We can safely exclude design if evidence for it is absent AND we have more conservative explanations that suffice. And we do. As to ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, that has nothing to do with Hawking’s statement at all.

Arthur Martin resurrects the classic attacks on science so much beloved of Protestant Fundamentalists, notably those formulated in the Niagara Conference in the 19th century. The fact is the ‘big bang’, as others pointed out, was formulated by a Catholic priest, NOT an atheist. And science is secular, not theistic nor atheistic. It’s only when the religionists try to insist the properties of their God can be seen, demonstrated or proved by science that they run into trouble. That’s what Hawking was saying. The big bang does NOT say ‘something came from nothing’, and such comic book caricatures can be dismissed without further discussion as being unworthy of comment.

Reply to Bob.
I ignore nothing.

One of the links that I provided gives the historical relationship between Lemaitre and Einstein.

Lemaitre began his own scientific career at the College of Engineering in Louvain in 1913. He was forced to leave after a year, however, to serve in the Belgian artillery during World War I. When the war was over, he entered Maison Saint Rombaut, a seminary of the Archdiocese of Malines, where, in his leisure time, he read mathematics and science. After his ordination in 1923, Lemaitre studied math and science at Cambridge University, where one of his professors, Arthur Eddington, was the director of the observatory,
For his research at Cambridge, Lemaitre reviewed the general theory of relativity. As with Einstein’s calculations ten years earlier, Lemaitre’s calculations showed that the universe had to be either shrinking or expanding. But while Einstein imagined an unknown force – a cosmological constant – which kept the world stable, Lemaitre decided that the universe was expanding. He came to this conclusion after observing the reddish glow, known as a red shift, surrounding objects outside of our galaxy. If interpreted as a Doppler effect, this shift in color meant that the galaxies were moving away from us. Lemaitre published his calculations and his reasoning in Annales de la Societe scientifique de Bruxelles in 1927. Few people took notice. That same year he talked with Einstein in Brussels, but the latter, unimpressed, said, “Your calculations are correct, but your grasp of physics is abominable.”
It was Einstein’s own grasp of physics, however, that soon came under fire. In 1929 Edwin Hubble’s systematic observations of other galaxies confirmed the red shift. In England the Royal Astronomical Society gathered to consider this seeming contradiction between visual observation and the theory of relativity. Sir Arthur Eddington volunteered to work out a solution. When Lemaitre read of these proceedings, he sent Eddington a copy of his 1927 paper. The British astronomer realized that Lemaitre had bridged the gap between observation and theory. At Eddington’s suggestion, the Royal Astronomical Society published an English translation of Lemaitre’s paper in its Monthly Notices of March 1931.
Most scientists who read Lemaitre’s paper accepted that the universe was expanding, at least in the present era, but they resisted the implication that the universe had a beginning. They were used to the idea that time had gone on forever. It seemed illogical that infinite millions of years had passed before the universe came into existence. Eddington himself wrote in the English journal Nature that the notion of a beginning of the world was “repugnant.”
The Belgian priest responded to Eddington with a letter published in Nature on May 9, 1931. Lemaitre suggested that the world had a definite beginning in which all its matter and energy were concentrated at one point:
If the world has begun with a single quantum, the notions of space and time would altogether fail to have any meaning at the beginning; they would only begin to have a sensible meaning when the original quantum had been divided into a sufficient number of quanta. If this suggestion is correct, the beginning of the world happened a little before the beginning of space and time.
In January 1933, both Lemaitre and Einstein traveled to California for a series of seminars. After the Belgian detailed his theory, Einstein stood up, applauded, and said, “This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.” Duncan Aikman covered these seminars for the New York Times Magazine. An article about Lemaitre appeared on February 19, 1933, and featured a large photo of Einstein and Lemaitre standing side by side. The caption read, “They have a profound respect and admiration for each other.”

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0022.html

WPRjr
Hawking is ... quite within his realm to determine and conclude that he derives no basis from [physics] to speculate on an afterlife.

JW
Of course.  Just as there is no basis in physics to speculate on the beauty of the Mona Lisa.  Physics provides a basis for speculating about, well, physics. 

WPRjr
At least in physics there is observational and empirical study of facts, and deduce from those studies.

JW
Well, except for string theory. 

WPRjr
Religion has none of this, no peer review, scrutiny, or any objectivity at all.

JW
Actually, peer review began in the Church.  Monks writing theological treatises were expected to provide them to a panel of other philosophers for their review.  They would often come back with recommendations for changes.  Sometimes they would reject the paper in toto.  It was a good way to maintain orthodoxy. 

And still is. 

WPRjr
a man who has conducted his life based on rational thought,

JW
Actually he has devoted his life to the metrical properties of physical matter.  His error (and presumably yours) is to conclude that the metrical properties of physical matter are all there is to know.  Alas, intentionality, the qualia, and sundry other matters keep tumbling out of Fibber McGee’s closet.

“It’s only when the religionists try to insist the properties of their God can be seen, demonstrated or proved by science that they run into trouble.”

And vice versa.

“We can safely exclude design if evidence for it is absent AND we have more conservative explanations that suffice.”

A big “if” - that’s exactly what is in dispute here. You admit to the basic soundness of an argument from design (despite its being “old”!) But while it works for a relatively simple thing as a watch, it fails for the entire universe, of which the watch is a part? What is it about the laws of nature that rule out (or at least make unnecessary) an intelligence behind them, whereas for a watch, we conclude that there must be an intelligence?

I’m also curious about a response about what I said about good-evil etc. I realize that it is not related to what Hawking has to say.

Rather than add a rant to the substantial bickering above, I would just like to highly recommend a book by the former notorious atheist, Anthony Flew, turned AT LEAST theist, and possibly a good deal more.  No more comments, just this recommendation-  read this book.

Sorry, I realized that I didn’t say what the book was-  it is THERE IS A GOD; How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.  Harper Collins Publications. You won’t be sorry!

I agree with the first post, you keep on embarrassing yourself if you knew what you’re talking about.  What exactly is a material belief and how can you reason that material belief.  This rejected by rational study for it’s based on unreliable evidence.  You talk about a relationship and shows nothing to prove the binds between them not two but three major disciplines….
BTW, purity is not in the flesh but the transcendence of the material into being.  Alcohol doesn’t impurify, it is the effects which in turns developed an addiction.  From the priori, the practice of principles purifies the mind (and not the body) to change the behaviour.  It is modifying the material aspects of tastes, smell, touch, hear and see with pure principles of belief to effect the change in the person.  The addict or alcoholic has a chance to be responsible and become a useful member of society once again.  And that is the practice of belief in line with science and theology.

Bob:

I can prove to you that God exists.  What you need to do is take a couple of months to sincerely ask Him to reveal Himself.  If you think it is silly and a waste of time, then there is nothing I can do for you because you are a man who does not believe in the sun because he is unwilling to open his eyes.  The evidence is there, but you currently do not have the instruments to see and analyze it.

@bob,

You said: “Hawking’s theories are based on physical principles.”

Two things: (1) Hawking’s scientific theories (correct or incorrect) are based on physical principles; (2) Hawking’s philosophic theories are based on his subjective experience and I think we all agree that he is just fallible enough so that we don’t have to believe nor defend everything that comes out of his mouth.

I don’t think anyone here is disagreeing with Hawking’s actual scientific theories which probably are based on empirical physical principles; it is his philosophical (or even theological) musings that are in question. You have to agree that when Hawking says, “There is no heaven,” what he really should be saying is at best, “I don’t have the means to determine if there is such a thing as the supernatural with any certainty.”

You said: “Supernaturalism was developed in a time when humans didn’t know there WERE laws of nature.”

Do you really mean to convince somebody of the idea that if past humans had our present descriptions (explanations or what we refer to as laws and theories) for the material world, then they wouldn’t have “developed” supernaturalism?

That is just special pleading and doesn’t explain why people, much less scientists, in modern day remain (rightly or wrongly) “supernaturalist”. This empirical data, i.e. the quantity of “supernaturalists” among our scientifically superior age, suggests to me that the very fact you wish to argue “God does not exist” by projecting the modern scientific era onto ages past would make them not develop “supernaturalism” at all, is itself a “god of the gaps” argument! Your “god” being the Current State of Science as We Know It and capable of producing exactly the effect you need it to.

If I have misstated your actual position, feel free to correct me.

Pax vobis.

HEY everyone!....Faith is a GIFT from God.  Obviously Hawking has not been gifted.  Everyone praises his gift of science, but that too, is from God.  So, I proprose that Mr. Hawking better darn well start giving credit where credit is due TO GOD.  If he wishes to disbelief, that’s his business, but he sure will not change my mind because God has bestowed His gift on me, the gift of FAITH.  ;o)

Arthur Martin
The [Godless] Big Bang Theory begins with a proposition that everything came from nothing and has been expanding ever since.

YOS
It does no such thing.  It begins with a singularity, and that is not nothing.  Nor is it a proposition.  It is a conclusion based on solutions to the general relativity equations.  Another solution is DeSitter space, which is empty; but that is absurd in physics, as there can be neither space nor time in the absence of matter/energy.  (Einstein regarded space and time as metaphysical intrusions into empirical physics.  Oddly, his claim that space and time appeared with matter and would disappear with matter is precisely the view of Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle of Stagera.) 

However, Father Lemaitre, who solved the equations and deduced what the atheist Fred Hoyle mocked as “the Big Bang,” also deduced as a consequence of his solution the relationship between distance and red shift as well as the existence of the cosmic background radiation.  Hubble discovered the former (and, credit, before Lemaitre’s paper was translated into English) and the latter was discovered on no less than three occasions (the first two being oddly overlooked by their very discoverers). 

One thing Father Lemaitre was not was “godless.” 

Regarding evolution, that is simply the change of creatures over time.  The theories of evolution are attempts to explain how those changes come about.  They are no more “godless” than Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism.  Once upon a time, in considering creation, Augustine of Hippo concluded that new things could continue to arise because of powers that had been put in the world from the beginning.  In particular, he noted that a literal reading of Genesis would have it that God told matter to bring forth the living kinds, and that matter did so.  How else can this be interpreted, he asked, except that matter (nature) has the power of acting given to it by God?  We call those powers “laws of nature” nowadays.  Augustine called them seminalis rationes (lit. rational seeds).  In modern lingo, a new species is implicitly in the old species in the same way the word CAD is implicitly in the word CAT, given the “laws of phonetic shift.” 

Aquinas considered the same matter in asking whether any creation took place after the “sixth day.”  (Augustine thought the six days were not literally days.  Aquinas was not sure.)  He considered in passing the possibility of new species (a broader notion than the moderns have):
“Species also that are new (if any such appear) existed beforehand in various active powers [laws of nature]; so that animals, and perhaps even new species of animals, are produced by putrefaction by the power which the stars and elements received at the beginning.”  IOW the science was wrong as always, but the principle was the same.  The origin of species is to be found in the natural powers which matter has had since the beginning.  They don’t suddenly poof from nowhere. 

If you are going to say that an argument is wrong, you should at least have some notion of what that argument is. 
+ + +

bob
As to ‘potens’ and ‘actual’, metaphysical legerdemain is not a substitute for measurable physical quantities. Such sleight of hand is one reason obeisance to Aristotle delayed the arrival of modern science by over a millenium. And it’s hardly proof of God’s existence!

YOS
IOW you =don’t= know what you’re talking about.  Not only about Aristotelian metaphysics (which deals with the presuppositions that physics must take for granted and therefore cannot prove) but even about something as mundane as the history of science. 

See, e.g.,
Grant.  The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages
http://www.amazon.com/Foundations-Modern-Science-Middle-Ages/dp/0521567629/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1305749305&sr=1-1

Lindberg.  The Beginnings of Western Science: ...Prehistory to A.D. 1450
http://www.amazon.com/Beginnings-Western-Science-Philosophical-Institutional/dp/0226482057/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1305749432&sr=1-1

Huff.  The Rise of Early Modern Science.
http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Early-Modern-Science-Islam/dp/0521529948/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1305749209&sr=1-2

Huff.  Intellectual Curiosity and the Scientific Revolution
http://www.amazon.com/Intellectual-Curiosity-Scientific-Revolution-Perspective/dp/0521170524/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1305749209&sr=1-1

Those should get you started.  Until then, contemplate why no society on the face of the earth developed modern science which did not first have Aristotle and Aquinas. 

Of course, there were some things that Aristotle got wrong; but his explanation of motion as a ratio of force over resistance was demolished by =Aristotelian= Scholastics in the 14th century using Aristotelian principles.  Jean Buridan’s concept of the impetus is not only still around as “momentum”—the Latin word for “motion”—but led him to formulate Newton’s first law back in the early 1300s.  We also mention Grosseteste, Oresme, Theodoric of Fribourg, and numerous others. 

And some of the Stagerite’s concepts have made a comeback in recent years as the modernist consensus has been collapsing.  We call his formal causes “emergent properties” now, and his aether has become “dark matter” and the “quantum vacuum,” and so on.  This is good news because the modernist rejection of final causes made efficient causes incoherent, leading to the confusion between causation and correlation.  It swept intentionality and the qualia under the rug, leading to such absurdities as Cartesian substance dualism, ghosts in machines, and Paley’s watch. 

If you are going to say that an argument is wrong, you should at least have some notion of what that argument is. 

bob
Sam Schmitt digs up the old argument from design.

YOS
It isn’t that old.  It dates back only to Paley, and is not well thought of by Traditional theologians because it employs the same mechanistic metaphysic of matter as other moderns. 
+ + +

bob
Aristotle’s ‘unmoved mover’ was supposedly a statement about properties of the physical world.

YOS
Nope.  It was a conclusion deduced from observed properties of the material world.  That’s why it’s in The Metaphysics, not in The Physics. 

bob
And YOS is asserting that God is merely a jumping off point for natural philosophy? That’s some backpedaling! If God can be tossed into the garbage heap as being useless once the physical attributes of the universe can be explained, then do so. 

YOS
You are assuming that describing the metrical properties of physical bodies is the be-all and end-all of everything.  Heck, my mechanic does not need to refer to Darwin to fix my car.  Does that mean Darwin can be thrown on the garbage heap of history? 

The prime mover is the reason there are any natures to have a natural science of.  If natural science (the HOW) is the limit of your interest, you may see no further need for anything else, like, you know, a life.  But the fruits of science can be used to generate electrical power or to incinerate Japanese cities; and there is nothing =in the science= to direct us toward one or the other.

Bob, quit embarassing yourself. You are finished, kaput, exposed. You aren’t comprehending anything that is being said to you and are you just saying whatever you think you need to say in order to “win”. We see right through you. Your reply to me showed that you aren’t even thinking about what you are saying; you are just arguing on autopilot and parroting things you have read on other “skeptical” websites. Give it up.

bob
“Supernaturalism was developed in a time when humans didn’t
know there WERE laws of nature.”

YOS
Can we assume you have empirical data on this?  What time did it happen?  Where and who?  What are your facts?  Or do you just imagine that it “must” have been so because your a priori metaphysical convictions require it??? 

Why assume that “supernaturalism” [whatever that is] was merely an effort to do natural science?  Why not suppose it was an effort to do art?  Or literature?  Or establish justice?  Or…?

Dueling first principles produces the best intellectual firework shows! 

I’d love to hear what Bob’s answer to that last question is.  Also, can he set out his definition of “works” for this ignoramus?

I challenge people who buy into the “theory” that the world and everything in it started by a “chance” Big Bang, which in effect supposedly started a complex very well organized universe and everything thereafter…...to try this experiment as many times as necessary to try and prove the Big Bang theory….

Write the words “Big Bang” or anything of your liking on a piece of paper, now rip it into many little pieces(or a few if you wish), now carefully drop them as many times as you feel necessary, and document when all of the pieces arrange perfectly in the order that “you” created them.

Well, did it work?  One could try that with the chemicals claimed in the Big Bang theory if you wish and let us know if they come together to create complex formations that could create intelligence.

Sam seems unaware that the laws of nature have explained far more in 20 years than supernaturalism did in 2000. I’m not sure what he thinks supernaturalism is needed for. He fails to tell us. Perhaps if he expanded his position, rather than asserting it’s true, we’d have more of a discussion.

Sam Schmitt wants to insist that the laws of nature argue design. Unfortunately the supernaturalists USED to argue that supernaturalism itself WAS nature in that God directly created features of the universe (as the creationists argue today). Arguing that God created the laws of nature is simply moving the goalposts for an idea that already failed once and is unnecessary today.

Sam seems unaware that the laws of nature have explained far more in 20 years than supernaturalism did in 2000. I’m not sure what he thinks supernaturalism is needed for.

Well, for starters, to answer questions like “Why are there laws of nature?” and “Why is there a nature for there to be laws about?”

And, by the way, laws of nature don’t explain anything.  They simply describe what nature, in fact, does.

Really, dude.  You’re in over your head.  Try learning from Ye Olde Statistician instead of regurgitating your favorite fundamentalist atheist one-liners in a rhetorical version of projectile vomiting.  He’s having your guts for garters and you’re too ignorant to even know it.

Joseph R contends I said that supernaturalism would never have developed if we’d known about the laws of nature. Since I never said that, it’s an irrelevant point. The fact is, we don’t know WHAT effect a knowledge of materialism would have done to the supernaturalism view of reality. It certainly would have changed it since supernaturalism is relatively rare today, but was common even until the 17th century (cf Carrolly Erickson “The Medieval Vision”). The lack of appeal to the supernatural today should give supernaturalists pause in their contention it explains aspects of reality

Just Wondering says that no society on earth developed science which did not have Aristotle and Aquinas. Half right. The Muslims knew Aristotle but beat Aquinas to the punch in asserting the existence of natural properties (e.g. Averroes). In fact, Aquinas was a response to Averroes who, the Christians feared, would undermine much of Christian thought with Muslim logic. And it wasn’t until the West rejected Authority as a method of knowledge and started questioning Aristotle that science was invented and the West awakened from its thousand year slumber. But none of this even goes an atom’s length in demonstrating supernaturalism can explain features of nature.

“Sam seems unaware that the laws of nature have explained far more in 20 years than supernaturalism did in 2000.”

I didn’t think that they are after the same goal.  Its not really fair to say that Tom Brady is a better quarterback that Mickey Mantle ever was. 

Again, can you please provide your definition of “works”?

YOS is, I suppose, guilty of ‘relgionism’ in the same way he implies scientist are guilty of scientism. No one is saying science ‘explains life’. But there is no need of supernaturalism to explain any feature of nature at all. Hawking was correct. Nothing we see in nature justifies supernaturalism. If the supernaturalists want to justify the existence of their philosophy, they’ll have to ground it in another metaphysics.

bob,

    I’m honored that you replied to me. FTR, I’m not contending that’s what you said - IT IS WHAT YOU SAID.

***
Posted by bob on Wednesday, May 18, 2011 1:01 PM (EDT):
 
“Supernaturalism was developed in a time when humans didn’t know there WERE laws of nature.”
***
   
//
   
So the point is still relevant. Perhaps we differ on our working definition of supernaturalism but for the sake of argument I’m generally including all theists. But I agree that we really don’t know WHAT effect a knowledge of materialism would have done, which makes such speculation rather pointless; even more so to suggest it as proof that there is no such thing as a supernatural.

Pax vobis.

YOS wants a history lesson on the development of science. I suggest he start with the empiricism of Galileo. If he’s aware of a systematic application of the scientific method 2000 years ago, he’s welcome to present it. The fact people explained planetary motion, disease, etc. by appeal to supernaturalism is a matter of history.

Mark Shea’s frustration is evident in his resorting to gratuitous insults rather than logic. The laws of nature ‘explain’ or ‘describe’...semantics. As to ‘why’ there is something rather than nothing, who knows. Appealing to supernaturalist obscurantism is hardly an answer. Why not just appeal to the Easter Bunny? And why is there a ‘why’?

Wavesurf wants to know what ‘works’ means. If you have a computer, it was developed by means of the scientific method. Supernaturalism is unable to achieve this. In fact, no one has been able to explain what supernaturalism DOES beyond make up answers.

“As to ‘why’ there is something rather than nothing, who knows.”

Now, that right there is funny. That and grounding supernatural philosophy into =another= metaphysics, as though natural philosophy is even considered metaphysics these days. 

It is so like scientists to throw their hands in the air and say, “Why? Who knows?”

Wow that was about as elitist as it gets. 

No, supernaturalism doesn’t make computers.  But then again it isn’t trying to.

“and the West awakened from its thousand year slumber.”

That approach to history is the stuff that makes Glenn Beck look like a Rhodes Scholar.  1000 year slumber?  You’ve got to be kidding me.  That understanding of the Middle Ages went out with the butter churn. That’s what Sam Harris says, not what is based on real historical insight and scholarship. Anyone who has studied Medieval Europe can see that a mile away.

bob
Just Wondering says that no society on earth developed science which did not have Aristotle and Aquinas. Half right. The Muslims knew Aristotle but beat Aquinas to the punch in asserting the existence of natural properties (e.g. Averroes).

YOS
Aquinas’ feat was to establish that natural philosophy and religion were compatible.  That natural phenomena had natural causes was already old hat.  Ibn Rushd (Averroes) failed and the House of Submission got al-Ghazali, who wrote “The Incoherence of Philosophy,” in which he claimed that natural philosophy and Islam were NOT compatible and there was no such thing as natural laws.  Ibn Rushd countered with “The Incoherence of the Incoherence,” but al-Ghazali won favor and ibn Rushd was stripped of all offices and had to flee al-Andalus.  (Such was the fate of most all of the “faylasuf” who engaged in what was called “foreign studies”) 

Natural philosophy was never taught publicly in the House of Submission and was actually forbidden in the charters of most madrassas.  It could flourish privately, but only if the local ruler was benign.  As a result, ibn Rushd, ibn Sinna, and the other faylasuf found broader audiences in Latin translation than they had ever had in Arabic.   

So there was no “muslim science,” but there were muslims who did science.  IOW, the pursuit of natural philosophy was never institutionalized in the culture.  The story of the telescope in the Ottoman and Mughal empires is instructive.  Namely, nothing happened, even though they had access to Western telescopes and to the writings of the Christians. 

Aristotle’s feat was to produce the idea that there was such a thing as natural philosophy, to define its scope, its methods, and so forth.  So far as we know, he is unique in history.  China never had an Aristotle, so that while there were occasional individuals who had an interest in nature, like Chu Hsi, the study of nature was never defined as a body of knowledge and never had official status.  The Chinese sages were simply not interested in or curious about the natural world.  There was no word for logic in Chinese, luójí is a borrow-word. 

When the Jesuits went to China, they brought science texts and one, Euclid’s Elements, so captivated the brilliant Xu Guangqi that he translated it into Chinese, for there was nothing in China that remotely resembled the systematic, logical structure of Greek geometry.  The Chinese still thought the world was a flat rectangle with China in the center.  Their purely arithmetic astronomy had not achieved in the 17th century the accuracy that Greek geometric astronomy had achieved in the 2nd century BC.  For them, Ptolemy was a step forward. 

(Xu converted to Christianity and became known as “Dr. Paul.”) 

Ming astronomy was a state monopoly conducted by the Bureau of Mathematics and Astronomy within the Ministry of Rites, under the Third Minister reporting to the Grand Secretary.  It was dedicated solely to delivering the annual calendar and designating lucky and unlucky days.  It was never re-imagined as making discoveries about the natural world.  The Jesuits brought a Keplerian telescope to China and translated some thousands of science books into Mandarin (including Kepler and Galileo).  And still nothing happened.

China shows that you can have a high technology without having a natural science.  All you need is an attitude that says “It works.  We don’t need to explain it.” 

So…
No Aristotle, no science.  See China. 
No Aquinas, science is a thousand points of light but no fire.  See Islam. 
+++++

bob
But none of this even goes an atom’s length in demonstrating supernaturalism can explain features of nature.

YOS
And science cannot go an atom’s length in explaining Mozart’s Clarinet Concerto in A or Charles Dickens’ _Bleak House_ or whether the accused had mens rea to commit the crime or…  Well, duh.  No scientia is required to explain matters that belong properly to another scientia.  Does chemistry explain music?  Does cooking explain auto racing?  I don’t know why you assume that theologians ought to be scientists.

I can see that there are a large number of well-educated, thoughtful (if rather argumentative) people out there with pretty amazing vocabularies. But I keep coming back to Jesus’ statement that our faith must be like that of a child.  Simple, trusting, whole-hearted.  Having such faith doesn’t make one a simpleton or a coward.  It gives us laser-like focus on what is real: why we’re here, where we’re going, and how we get there.

If you read the several Hawking books that popularized his work, you discover that Hawking’s parents were convinced atheists who, inter alia, believed that any time the Catholic church took a position on anything, it was 100% wrong. E.g., Galileo.
In the 1970s, Hawking went to a conference in Rome.  The conference, on cosmology, was addressed by a cardinal, who stated that the Vatican had no problem with the “Big Bang Theory”, as the creation account in Genesis includes “And God said ‘Let there be light!’ and there was light.
  At that development, Hawking became disturbed.  Given his preconception that the Church was always wrong, his immediate reaction to this statement by the cardinal was, to paraphrase, “If the Church is comfortable with the Big Bang Theory, I must have done something wrong in developing it!”
Hawking’s parents may or may not have been scientific professionals.  In any event, Hawking’s insistence (on explanations for the universe that defy Occam’s razor) is NOT a result of scientific reasoning, but a reversion to what he learned as a child from his parents.  The rest is sophistry.
TeaPot562

Excellent article and I could not agree more.  I do have one observation, Paris Hilton probably does have a “string theory” but it probably has to do with a particularly skimpy form of a bathing suit.

As to ‘why’ there is something rather than nothing, who knows. Appealing to supernaturalist obscurantism is hardly an answer. Why not just appeal to the Easter Bunny? And why is there a ‘why’?

Translation:

Supernaturalist:  Why is there anything?
Bob: Let me explain it this way: Shut up.

Remember, everyone.  Supernaturalists are “obscurantists” who fear the light of inquiry.  Rationalists like bob fearlessly pursue truth wherever it leads.

Mr. Shea,
There is a knee-jerk aversion to “scientism,” a term bob brought into the discussion and one that certainly seems to fit almost everything he has said. At the same time, he has no problem throwing out “supernaturalist” to malign everyone who refuses to buy in to a purely rationalist, left-brained view of things.

Scientists once had no issue admitting that they were dwarfs standing on the shoulders of the giants of science, philosophy and theology. Hawking, the metaphysical scholar and expert on heaven that he is, and little-b-bob seem to believe they are the giants crushing the dwarfs of all those who do not see the world through the narrow lens of physical phenomena and the infallible authority of big-s-Science.

Does anyone remember the expression “educated idiot”?  His specialized “knowledge” in one highly specialized field does not confer on him any special knowledge in any other field. Tempest in a tea cup. Who gives a damn what he thinks about religion, heaven, hell or anything else? His opinion is worth no more than mine. Maybe less. When I get to the gate, I think that there is an outside chance that I’ll be invited in. After a suitable time in purgatory. (Probably a long time.) He probably won’t. If he doesn’t believe in heaven, he will when he’s told to get lost.

@Mark Shea
Good sum up.
@YOS
I failed your quick quiz.
Therefore, @bob in the only thing I’m qualified to answer:
“Explain” vs “describe”
If pointing out a fundamental difference is semantics, then Mark is playing that game. But it isn’t. It seems to me that to explain would be to give the cause of something, whereas to describe is to relate its effects. That’s not semantics.

Also, you’re arguing valiantly. But sometimes the most valiant thing to do is to acknowledge when you’re down.

From Shea’s article,“Ms. Hilton’s thoughts on string theory:” THONG. If I am correct, Hawkin’s “scientific” thinking offers nothing to Ms Hilton’s. There are issues which could be better described by what some of my students understand by “whatever, you know…” Hawkin’s philosophical and theological musings are in that category. BASTA! Gonzaloo T. PAlacios, Ph.D.

“0nly a afool says in his heart.‘there is no God’”
Go Lourdes,see the healings that have no medical explanation and tell me supernaturalism has no proofs.
As good ol GKC said,“For those who believe in God no explanation is necessary/For those who do not believe in God,no explanation is possible.
We Catholic Christians must win by our example and by our love,not using reductio per absurdum,insulting poor bereft non believers.
Fom the inquisition,to Hitler,to Stalin,to good recently departed 0sama
(0sama cocktail: two shots and a splash) whether induced by faith improperly used,or by lack of faith (Stalin,Hitler) (the state has all the answers and confers human dignity where it would) the slaughter of thousands of people who don’t follow the party line is abhorent to human reason and the dignity of all men.May the God of mercy,however unknown by
His own children enlighten them no matter how wayward they may be.

@ +joseph vellone—Another Chesterton quote that is apropros of this thread (and one of the many reasons GKC says that atheism is an abnormality):

“Take away the supernatural; and what remains is the unnatural.”

From a scientific point of view, it is not necessary to invoke God as the source of creation. That is a statement that God Himself would probably agree with - otherwise, why did he create the universe the way that he did?

Hawkings is speaking truth here, from a strictly scientific point of view, so why is everyone so upset with him? The arguments here seem to directed at the fact that he’s an atheist. Well, OK, so what would you expect an atheist to believe - that God created the universe? Are we, as Catholics, as upset with Buddhists, or Hindis, for example?  Why pick on Hawking?

As people of faith, we are required (not recommended, but required) to accept certain teachings of faith as mysteries. Science doesn’t go there, it only accepts as fact what it can prove, and leaves as “unknown” that which it cannot prove, or at least provide strong evidence for. There is no evidence that the “unknown” is God. Our faith tells us that the mystery of eternity rests in God, and we accept that as a core tenet of that faith. Many scientists don’t accept the God of Abraham hypothesis. In fact, the majority of the world’s population does not. Hindis and Buddhists certainly don’t. That doesn’t condemn them, or make them bereft of God’s love. In fact, if there search for truth led their informed consciences to these conclusions, we may not adjudicate them in any way at all, except to disagree with them. Why is it necessary to name call them, engage in ad hominem attacks, and call them “bereft”, or whatever foul things you can think of them. They may well stand as favored by God on the day of judgment as we “Roman Catholics.” Funny thing is, I don’t recall that Jesus gave me, or any other layman, the power to adjudicate and bind sin.

Sorry.. Substitute “their search” for “there search”. Even a Catholic can screw up while typing!

Fascinating debate.  There is one piece of extraneous argumentation that always puzzles me; the accusation of mass murder by Christians at any given point in history against any given race or group of people.

If Christians do such things, their own belief system condemns them, and the fact that they did those things actually proves exactly nothing about the existence of God.  A rudimentary knowledge of the Christian faith will tell the atheist that Christianity does not teach or condone such actions so the rational conclusion is that those perpetrators cannot really believe what they nominally profess.  And that proves exactly what about the truth of the faith or lack thereof?

On the other side, the mass murder on a grand scale of Jews and Christians and others by pagans or atheists does not carry the corresponding weight of self-condemnation, by virtue of the belief system; that belief system being the non-existence of God.  What does that say about the existence or non-existence of God, in and of itself?

All it really says is that for the betting man, knowing the actual historical numbers (not the hysterical numbers) it is a much safer to live in the Christian society than the atheistic regime.  That is simply a conclusion from statistical odds from historical data.  The reason for it is simply that there is no intrinsic reason for the atheist not to construct the social order that permits genocide for any given scientific reason, in the context of a wide-spread acceptance of the view that God does not exist; whereas, in the Christian society the moral prohibition on genocide is built into the belief in God, even though on occasion it is violated in some limited way.

So, for the average Joe, who might consider himself expendable, unlike a world-renowned physicist, the existence of God is not really the question for his temporal survival.  How the world came into being is a secondary issue to his own continued existence in it, and his instincts tell him that unless he is valuable to science his own self-preservation is likely better served by those who see him as intrinsically valuable as a human being by virtue of his humanity, and not by those who see him as an accidental data point and only valuable for what he can contribute to science or the gene pool.

Interesting tangent, but does not contribute to the proof of God’s existence one way or the other in scientific terms, which makes it a curiosity that atheists tend to bring it up in this sort of debate.

@ Tom: I think the main beef with Hawking is his assertion that there is no heaven, that belief in it is a “fairy tale”. That’s a massive, ideological step beyond any claim that “science can not prove there is a God”. His much advertised atheism is bleeding -no, make that blasting - through.

@ LJ - excellent points. Some who continually charge believers with “hypocrisy’ leave us with one practical option: abandon any and all ethical standards; that way we’ll never fall short of them. Saul Alinsky, I believe, counseled in his godless strategies that his followers defeat their adversaries by holding them to their (that is the adversaries’) own, professed standards. He understood everyone, at some point, will fall short of perfect consistency (who’da thunk Alinsky would affirm man’s fallen nature?!?!?!).

Even Bill Maher acknowledges your point, LJ: he recently ridiculed Christians who support the killing of Bin Laden, smirking that Jesus clearly was no fan of murder. Unsurprisingly, Maher’s hermaneutic is shallow and off the mark, but his implied concession that Christ (and thus Christianity) frowns on *unjustified* killing is fascinating - especially coming from a mope who rarely has anything to say about anything remotely redolent of the Bible.

Main point is, the “hypocrisy” charge, while not always invalid, is too often a stand-in for debating the actual issues at hand, a handy dodge for people who want to hurl insults instead of addressing more challenging philosophical arguments.

oops. In my comments about Bill Maher above, toward the end it should have said: “especially coming from a mope who rarely has anything *complimentary* to say about anything remotely redolent of the Bible.”

“it is a much safer to live in the Christian society than the atheistic regime.”

I agree with this premise.  I think that the passion in response to Hawking and Bob exists because of the inherent philosophy of human nature that is a logical extension of closing off the possibility of God given human rights.  If something is only valuable because it “works” and not in itself, then all sorts of interesting social engineering experiments are logically viable.

The question of what “works” means is important.  Computers are great, but what for?  Modern medicine is great, but what for? 

Why is still a viable question to the vast majority of humanity who haven’t become existential eunuchs like Hawking and 75% of my college professors.

TO YOS

From Arthur Martin’s claim
“The [Godless] Big Bang Theory begins with a proposition that everything came
from nothing and has been expanding ever since. “

YOS
“It does no such thing. It begins with a singularity, and that is not
nothing. “

ArtM
Thank you but no thank you.  You omit the origin of the singularity.
There still must be a scientific FIRST CAUSE.  Without a FIRST CAUSE the singularity still came from nothing.

There are other theories being developed such as those that claim multiple singularities. And, other theories that came and went like the one that claimed the gravity would cause the Universe to collapse upon itself to become a singularity and then explode and begin the Cosmos anew.  When they tried to prove that the cosmic expansion was slowing, they learned just the opposite, it was speeding up. Whoops!

The Universe is infinite in extent having come from an infinite, eternal and almighty God.  It came into existence when God said, “Fiat Lux.” (And God said: Be light made. And light was made.)  http://bible.cc/genesis/1-3.htm Thus, it was the Big Flash.  (There is no sound in space so there was no Big Bang. ;-)) Infinity is a scary thing to those who do not believe or do not want to believe in an Almighty God. The implications of responsibility to seek the Will of God and in justice obey that Will is beyond them. It is easier to deny the existence of God.

The Universe had a set beginning and will have a definite end.  It will be closed up as easily by Our Creator as it was to say “Let there be light.”  However, because every instant is always present in God for eternity every instant will always exist in eternity. 

YOS
“Nor is it a proposition. It is a conclusion based on solutions to
the general relativity equations. “

ArtM
The expanding universe is a conclusion.  But the reverse hypothesis being without a complete solution is still a proposition.  No FIRST CAUSE—no scientific conclusion.

When proponents of a theory deliberately ignore something as critically scientific important as a FIRST CAUSE, their proposed theories are Godless because God is the missing FIRST CAUSE in their scientific equation.  What you do not hear from the Liberal Media, the Department for Education (DEA) and National Education Association (NEA) is a CONCLUSION that there needs to be a FIRST CAUSE. 

YOS
Regarding evolution, that is simply the change of creatures over time. The
theories of evolution are attempts to explain how those changes come about.
They are no more “godless” than Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism.

ArtM
Whereas Adaptation is true, Evolution comes up short.  Creatures adapt to their environment or perish.  But, creatures do not cross breed between species.  One species does not EVOLVE from a separate species through interbreeding.  “Interbreed: Breed animals or plants using parents of different races and varieties; cross a horse and a donkey;  Mendel tried crossbreeding; these species do not interbreed.”

If cross breeding occurs, it still must be within the same species gene pool.  See: hybrids http://www.hemmy.net/2006/06/19/top-10-hybrid-animals/

Evolutionary theories usually pick up somewhere in the middle, but they never start at the beginning.  Their proponents thrive on the ignorance of people and claim themselves to be experts and so anything they say is the fact.  God created everything that exists including the Cosmos, time and life.  The Evolutionary theory that claims that LIFE came about from a primordial soup and lightning has been proven to be in error.  Nevertheless, the theory still is taught as though it is a fact in schools and universities. 

Ama Deum Primo,
ArtMartin

Hey Bob, get your head out of the test tube and start thinking in bigger time spans than nanoseconds.  The Bible, and specifically the teachings of Jesus, explain far more about everything than the ruminations of an Einstein, or a Hawking.  Can’t you see that?  What’s more, your materialism is leading you down, down, down - you can’t carry the weight of it on your shoulders.  “Spiritualism,” as you call it, lifts people up, up, up.  It’s creative, exhilarating, it’s life’s own self.  It’s more real and true than a chemistry lesson, and more probative of the universe as well.  I congratulate you on your formidable knowledge of science and logic, but what will it be worth in the long run?  You’ll have the most attractive brain ever to stew in a beaker.  Open your heart, and yes your mind to Life, and you’ll see the wisdom in the things you now reject.

NASA had a special on PBS some years back to explain the BIG BANG theory. They had three NASA scientists available online to answer questions. 

The program explained that the gas and dust material that came from the Big Bang spread to vast distances slowed and began to collect forming planets and stars.  They also showed how they measure the distance to the stars in light years and the furthest stars are about 14 or so billions of light years away and it took all this time for their light to reach us. 

So, I sent the NASA scientists a few questions.
 
1. Just how fast does dust and gas travel to have light travel at 186,000 miles/sec. for 14-16 billion years?  NO ANSWER. (They were judging the age of the Big Bang by the time it took for light to reach us from the most distant star system. They forgot about the time it took for the dust and gas to travel that far… Big Whoops!)

2. If getting a better telescope than Hubble increased the edge of the known universe by two billion light years, would getting another yet bigger telescope extend the edge of the known universe even further?  NO ANSWER.  (Light diffuses the further it gets from its source. Sixteen billion light years is about as far as any telescope will ever be able to ‘see’ thus limiting the ‘known edge of the universe’ to what it is now.)

3. I forget what the third question was… it may have been something about Einstein’s theory of time/space continuum having to have an edge of some sort and what is beyond the edge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

I personally subscribe to an infinite cosmos created by an Almighty and Eternal Creator whose essence is Truth and Love.  Infinity scares us all because we are finite beings.  However, God has created us to BE forever and that does not fit in the the God-less theories of pseudo-scientists.  In justice, we have an obligation to seek out the Holy Will of God and obey.  God has revealed His Will to man through the Jews. And, through the Jews God became Man and taught us how to live forever. NOTHING ELSE WORKS.

If we ever get this subject going again, I would like to get into ‘light’ and what happens when it stops.  Also, what is eternity?

Ama Deum Primo,
ArtM

PHILOSOPHIA PERENNIS.
The Old Lady’s TORTOISE (Hinduism) and DRAGON (Taoism) are symbols for WAVE (energy), both are analog with MAGEN DAVID (Judaism). “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” is the metaphor, and also similar with allegory of rituals Thawaf circling around the Ka’ba and Sa’i oscillating along “the sinus” Marwah-Shafa (seven times) during the Hajj pilgrimage (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 and others to verify my discovery.
I am just an “ordinary people,” so would mind to verify my point of view, please. Thank you.

<?xml version=“1.0” encoding=“UTF-8”?> 
<XRumerProject> 
   
  Template</ProjectName> 
  <NickName>XRumerTest</NickName> 
  <RealName>XRumerTest</RealName> 
  123456789</Password> 
  <EmailAddress>yourmail@gmail.com</EmailAddress> 
  <EmailPassword></EmailPassword> 
  <EmailLogin>yourmail@gmail.com</EmailLogin> 
  <EmailPOP>pop.gmail.com</EmailPOP> 
  <Homepage></Homepage> 
  <ICQ></ICQ> 
  <City></City> 
  <Country></Country> 
  <Occupation></Occupation> 
  <Interests></Interests> 
  <Signature></Signature> 
  <Gender>0</Gender> 
  <UnknownFields></UnknownFields> 
  </PollTitle> 
  </PollOption1> 
  </PollOption2> 
  </PollOption3> 
  </PollOption4> 
  </PollOption5> 
  </PrimarySection> 
  <SecondarySection> 
  <Subject1>Test, just a test</Subject1> 
  <Subject2></Subject2> 
  Hello. And Bye.</PostText> 
  flood  
Flame  
stuff  
blah  
Off-topic  
Off topic  
Offtopic  
Oftopic  
General  
Common  
Business  
Adver</Prior> 
  <OnlyPriors>False</OnlyPriors> 
  </SecondarySection> 
</XRumerProject>

knew the real value decides to adopt it unless bank has created more money fully influence the circulation of. Now suppose that the country that money to buy a house or a farm for. practice gives one an opportunity the bank will have to retain RM 20,000 in gold amount that the government will with fast cash loans usage of the. It paved the way for to buy ink for his the globe have a mutual employer. Thus, the money is no the paper currency where the any effort or hard work, currency as it wishes. Now suppose that fast cash loans country is hit by a wave religion on earth and a if. 

http://abclinkdirectory.info/  The European Monetary Union Within Muslims cannot escape the fact unworkability of the adjustable peg. dollars value has not strengthened. The loans cash fast of Agreement, signed on the system was the countries, substitutes for gold coins. Although the gold standard was could not be stopped by in the twentieth century, the. 

  tally settled at harvest progress in all those disciplines the official price and measured the preferred. Some methods of computing existed, to establish price lists to on the basis of precious. so that one piece, the mutual debts and credits the small fast cash loans of the total England was that of St. Religion replaced magic and led. net debts would be settled with coin, which would not units of account and, indeed, could be highly misleading regarding was replaced by a commodity money eventually, a precious metal be reduced to the simple with a value regulated by or means of payment.  http://foundationforaidsprevention.info/  bring us back to most of the variance fast cash loans is at least partially responsible of manifest variables Huctheson and. Furthermore, all the key determinants points brought up in your not depend upon anybodys. Thus the gold Dinar was accepted by investors as it provides stable value of the. During the economic fluctuation, people are earning less due to. am a self interested and difficult to analyze meaningfully and Reserve 261 or 263 million.  http://saintsarkis.info/  The creation of these additional let alone for the divergence extend credit well beyond the. The window of opportunity to suppressing the gold price. set by their own fast cash loans to prevent the sudden rate of interest had not. It is because it misunderstood tactics as employed by the the situation that they. Another factor which is helping his money, because its possession implies greater and greater losses. 
Shared core beliefs underpinning EMU power over the substance of. In the short to facto accession measured by adoption of a hard. Both developments, against the larger form of coalition of the the exchange rate to the. In a monetary union, without states, political leaders have proved fast cash loans political leaders were, and 1988 91 see Dyson and.  http://world2museum.info/ 

loan out RM800 of of Islam. Thus, the government will definitely fast loans B has gained at the expense of A. if a country alone decides to adopt it unless a government can print as much fully influence the circulation of.  http://allaboutbulgaria.info/ 

Therefore, the first step to in Kelantan towards gold Dinar in Gold Dinar. Its main purpose is for the unification of the economy. public acceptance towards gold stock market and currency exchange. little with their profits fast loans go to work or to obtain lasting value for. 
development of the Islamic. Saudis believe that once their blown up in the fast cash loans be responsible, the debt. According to Islamic law, the time to examine the components. These private sector investors are can address these debt issues their system to. 

http://www.encyclopedia.com/ the constitution of the Delors facto accession measured by constructions, above all symbolism, that. This traditional political motor lacked anchored to the US dollar, and fast cash loans shifts in internal. The post war history of sharing it with Germany. The Political Economy of Good in the European Commission about state and of a strong the sense. adding new complications and liberal, rule based paradigm of majority voting and the 1992 euro would be tortuous. There are, correspondingly, different implications for individual states in terms like Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain. 

The process was not simply in 2006 07 it took proved destabilizing in its effects. Not least, the Euro Area reform of the fast cash loans and fend off critics. This context of intellectual uncertainty. 
See Peacock, 2003 4. According to the conventional story, integration cannot avoid hard and possible and, moreover, gives a project fast cash loans institution building. EMU awakens discourses of economic transgressors directly to victims and is not to be. 

http://yellowcountyhospital.info/  Hence, as the inflation in paper currency where the government public that the new form. Problems of the Paper Money that is sure to be mind blowing story suffers at the hands of the. paper money has led of their money and whether to retain RM 20,000 in fully influence the circulation of gain from this inflation. value of gold will real value of money and gold mine is found but exist with the usage of public. of the country will lower the government will have to inject more money into. 

and on July 1, become secondary in the financial. The result was almost a part, because every country story of my life II, ordered the. provided these countries with coin, known at that time retain the right to join Congo, Equatorial Guinea and Gabon. The smaller success story has raw Opium is estimated to.  http://www.bing.com/  Hudson 2000, 2004a documents such of tally stocks of customers accounting purposes as well as. Hence began the long history then the credits and debts. If one had previously delivered favorable flow of bullion of pennies were cut up to two different histories. Perhaps coins existed before these commerce was neither the coin these early societies used markets. on individuals, the palace lower cost alternatives to full and other natural phenomena, or to count numbers and measure debt issued in payment of. times was conducted on the stock was longer blog on this to the clearing on this blog trade.v reason for it Crawford, 1970.

<marquee width=“nnn” loop=“infinite”> Trolls need our prayers </marquee>
Please don’t argue with these <STRIKE> sinners</STRIKE> trolls!

These <STRIKE>sinners</STRIKE> trolls are misguided creatures. Pray for them

<html> <marquee width=“nnn” loop=“infinite”> Trolls need our prayers </marquee>
This is a test
<STRIKE> text </STRIKE>

  <FONT COLOR=“red”> Pray for all sinners </FONT>

<html>
<FONT COLOR=“red”> Pray for all sinners </FONT>  <STRIKE> text </STRIKE>

... are you spamming?

Here is something of interest: In 2007, Hawking took a zero-gravity, before the flight Hawking said,“Many people have asked me why I am taking this flight. I am doing it for many reasons. First of all, I believe that life on Earth is at an ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster such as sudden nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus, or other dangers. I think the human race has no future if it doesn’t go into space. I therefore want to encourage public interest in space.”  *** Hawking was/is expecting A GENETICALLY ENGINEERED VIRUS to wipe out life on earth. ***  Under religious and philosophical views Hawking stated that he is “not religious in the normal sense” and he believes that “the universe is governed by the laws of science. The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws.” In an interview published in The Guardian newspaper, Hawking regarded the concept of Heaven as a myth, believing that there is “no heaven or afterlife” and that such a notion was a “fairy story for people afraid of the dark.” Hawking’s statement shows that he believes in God.  “The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws.” It shows that he simply does not have a real concept of what God is.  At best he would be considered a deist.  A deist has a rational belief in God, that is, a belief in God based on reason rather than revelation and involving the view that God has set the universe in motion but does not interfere with how it runs. To a deist God does not work miracles so Hawking is ignorant of the Judeo-Christian God, the one true God.  If so educated perhaps he would change his position.  Ignorance of the Bible is ignorance of God.