Hawking to God: Your Services Are No Longer Needed; God to Hawking: You So Don't Get Who I Am.

[pgodbold]

Stephen Hawking ruling out God http://www.bioethicshawaii.org/s-bio-ethics/hawkings-book-can-not-rule-out-god-catholics-clear-physical/

is exactly like fundamentalists ruling out evolution http://creationmuseum.org/ .

I think Stephen stepped in just a little over his head. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/clay-naff/hawking-to-god-your-servi_1_b_705773.html

[redwitch]

1. "God is dead". - Nietzsche

"Nietzsche is dead." -God

[Warpy]

26. God is dead

and while I'm sure it comes as a shock to most of them, his believers didn't inherit his job.

What always amazes me about the fundie god is how much assisted living he requires, can't do the simplest things without orders from his fundies and without their help in enacting laws to prop him up.

The ones who most insist on shoving him down our throats have diminished him to such a point that he'd fit without even giving us a tickle as he passed the tonsils.

Honestly, this whole thing about Hawking is a tempest in a teapot. All Hawking said was that a god wasn't necessary to create the big bang, not that one wasn't present when it happened. Fundies have their undies in a wad over nothing.

[Orrex]

39. That might be the dirtiest post I've ever read on DU

Nicely done!

[blondeatlast]

55. (This Xtian rises to give Warpy a standing ovation.) EVERYTHING you said! nt

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

116. Nietzsche was wrong.

Only what once existed can be dead.

[ZombieHorde]

136. Nietzsche was not referring to a literal god when he wrote "God is dead."

Nietzsche was an atheist and therefor did not believe in god. Nietzsche's quote is about people's relationship with religion.

[struggle4progress]

137. I remember that as popular bathroom stall graffiti forty years ago, together with other

gems such as "Is there life after birth?"

Nietzsche was, I think, a sort of solipsistic libertarian nihilist, and no one seems much surprised nowadays that he finally went mad. It has not much helped his philosophical reputation that his sister sought funding for the Nietzsche Archive, which she controlled, by portraying her dead brother as a quintessential Nazi philosopher, or that she as an ardent Nazi herself carefully controlled Nietzsche Archive releases to support her views

Still, although I think Nietzsche was often quite wrong, some of his material is quite thought-provoking. The famous G-d is dead quote, for example, also says "And we ourselves have killed him!" In the old Christian story, G-d comes to our world in entirely human form and is judicially lynched by the religious and state authorities; and this execution of a poor homeless man became (in the standard reframing) "he died because of your sins" -- but this actually seems to say something much like Nietzsche's We ourselves have killed him! It is easy enough to think that Nietzsche is speaking from a skeptical nineteenth-century scientific culture that has finally come to doubt the old stories, as opposed to the ignorant and credulous views of first century folk, but this may culturally inaccurate: the Roman empire was a cosmopolitan clutter of peoples thrown together with different beliefs from different places, and a certain cynical skepticism about people's beliefs may have been quite common throughout the empire: the notion man has killed G-d may already have seemed modern and up-to-date two millennia ago

[Jim__]

171. I disagree with calling Nietzsche a nihilist.

Nietzsche's concern with the death of god was that it would lead to nihilism. He urged man to take god's death seriously and to become a god to avoid that.

[struggle4progress]

173. Maybe. I'm not a Nietzsche expert, though I have on and off read a fair amount of him,

and if you read enough you will eventually find a lot of very dark destructive stuff

I'm too lazy right now to go dredge him out of whatever cluttered high shelf I've stacked him on

[Orrex]

2. Except that Hawking's assertion is nothing at al like Fundamentalists' assertion

He is pointing out that physical laws--gravity in particular--are sufficient to explain the origin of the universe, and therefore a Creator is not necessary.

Fundamentalists, in stark contrast, have once again jammed their fingers in their ears and said "we don't understand this science stuff, so we've decided to say that God created it. And don't ask us where God came from because he was always here but the universe couldn't always be here because it needs God and no that's not a double standard and don't tell us about special pleading."

[malaise]

5. +1,000 n/t

[HughMoran]

9. Yep

God was made in our image to explain shit we couldn't understand at the time when man invented Him.

[SidDithers]

19. Yup...

:applause:

Sid

[RainDog]

43. thanks, Orrex, for pointing out the false equivalency

this is something religious people do constantly.

to pretend Hawkings' statement has anything to do with creationism - and the way people arrive at beliefs based upon creationism, demonstrates a total lack of understanding of two different modes of thought.

[frogmarch]

65. Excellent, Orrex!

Right on. :thumbsup:

[realisticphish]

69. +pi

[struggle4progress]

138. By definition, science does not appeal to supernaturalities: to claim such-and-such a phenomenon

has a supernatural explanation, would always be (by definition) a nonscientific claim: science is simply the study of natural phenomena

I do not see how science could possibly discover any supernaturality, since science must always seek natural explanations

I do see how science, by seeking natural explanations, could debunk some claims that certain phenomena are supernatural, simply by providing effective natural explanations for those allegedly supernatural phenomena. Science seems to be quite good at this, and we should (of course) be correspondingly grateful for this service, since many supernatural ideas seem to be correlated with mental illness: if, for example, I were to imagine that I could see into other people's minds through some wonderful ESP ability, I should expect my thought processes to become increasingly disoriented as I rely on this "ability." I conclude that, for purposes of mental health and effective action in the world, a scientific worldview is often a very good thing

But since science could not even recognize supernaturalities, it is very sloppy philosophy to pretend that science could disprove the existence of supernaturalities

[skepticscott]

140. Nothing is "supernatural"

you might try comprehending that simple concept first.

[struggle4progress]

141. I made a careful philosophical statement, about the nature of science. I made no claims whatsoever

about whether there are, or are not, any supernaturalities: I simply pointed out accurately that the scientific view by definition cannot recognize supernaturalities

This does not seem to me a very complicated point: it can be made without any ontological commitments, and it could be understood without any ontological commitments

[skepticscott]

144. Implicit in your

"careful philosophical statement" is the idea that the notion of the "supernatural" has any useful meaning whatsoever (it doesn't, btw), since that term is plastered all over your post with no qualification whatsoever. The fact that your post doesn't explicitly claim that it does is irrelevant, since you have obviously assumed it (otherwise your post makes no sense at all..well, come to think of it, that wouldn't be so unusual).

[struggle4progress]

145. My statement was simply about what science is and what it is not

You are completely free to dislike supernatural notions; as a general rule, I dislike them myself, for reasons I indicated clearly in my prior post

But every subject has its own methods. If you walk about to see what you can snag in a butterfly net, you will by definition never catch any infinite divisible abelian groups. You are, of course, free to say "I am not interested in jabber about infinite divisible abelian groups; I am only interested in what I can snag in a butterfly net," and you are even free to take the view that the whole subject "infinite divisible abelian groups" represents a gigantic waste of breath, being some abstract nonsense that you cannot really pin down and display. But if you say, "I have walked about with my butterfly net for fifty years, and I have never caught a glimpse of an infinite divisible abelian group," then of course you are jabbering idiocies: whether or not there are any infinite divisible abelian groups, you will certainly never catch one with a butterfly net

[trotsky]

155. What you "carefully" said was essentially:

"Science can't look at the things I say science can't look at."

[struggle4progress]

163. My alternatives in interpretting your response seem to be either (1) You don't understand what I say

or (2) You believe that supernaturalities CAN appear in scientific explanations

Since my long experience suggests we will go about in loud noisy pointless circles if I suggest "You don't understand what I say," I will avoid that view and instead assume "You believe that supernaturalities CAN appear in scientific explanations"

My posts have cycled round my view that supernaturalities simply CANNOT appear in scientific explanations. This view appears to me to be entirely obvious and indisputable, but if you DO wish to dispute the view, feel free to do so. I think it is obvious and indisputable that supernaturalities CANNOT appear in scientific explanations because by definition scientific explanations are attempts to explain natural phenomena by natural means: a scientist looking at a natural phenomenon should never (while acting as scientist) cognize a supernatural explanation of a natural phenomenon: it seems to me that there is only one proper scientific reaction to a supposedly supernatural event, and that is to seek a natural rather than a supernatural explanation. And I consider that an excellent discipline

Having said that, I now note there is a silly little philosophical error to avoid: To claim "science proves there are no supernaturalities" is a childish logical fallacy; it begs the question, because all scientific activity begins from the assumptions that only natural phenomena are studied and that only natural explanations for such phenomena can be accepted. History show that science has indeed provided good natural explanations for a number of phenomena that some people had previously regarded as irremediably supernatural; and we should all be grateful for this service. But it's still good mental practice to avoid childish logical fallacies. One can typically identify fallacies and avoid them, without any ontological commitments, and that is the case here also

[trotsky]

167. Naw, you lose again. I choose door #3.

The classification "supernatural" has ALWAYS been used just as you are using it now: to arbitrarily declare something off-limits to rational, investigative inquiry. It's a way to try and repackage the "god of the gaps" fallacy with a nice pretty bow and pretend it's a sophisticated, reasonable way of classifying something you don't want to think too hard about.

And that's exactly what you're doing.

[WinkyDink]

3. Um, no. And BTW, it's called "faith" and not "science" for a reason.

[pokercat999]

10. Religion the world's best "con". I get you to do something today

not for a payday tomorrow, next week or next year but AFTER YOU ARE DEAD! You gotta admire em, they get away with it and have conned hundreds of millions maybe billions of people world wide. At least enough to clean their pockets. So you can call it faith, if it makes you feel less gullible.

[WinkyDink]

41. You mis-read me completely. I am pointing out how "faith" is, by definition, adhering

to that which cannot be proven, and is therefore less than science.

I did not say I HAVE faith.

[old mark]

4. I am glad someone spoke out on the "god" bullshit, and I am -as usual-

apalled at how many adults defend the childish idea of magical spooks running the universe.

Grow up.


On that old god/Nietzsche thing, at least Nietzsche was real...


mark

[whistler162]

16. Sorry but Nietzche didn't exist..... I never met him

nor do I know anyone who has so he couldn't have eisted. His writings are likely from some lunatic's ramblings.

Grow up and face reality Nietzcshe never existed.

[Orrex]

37. So you're a solipsist, then?

[potassiumnitrate]

6. No it's not

For Christ's sake. (And I intend to pun).

There's no evidence of God. None whatsoever. And there never will be.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

8. never is a loong time.

[whistler162]

14. Well what you see as no evidence I see as evidence!

but that is your belief/religion!

[Cirque du So-What]

15. I see no evidence of your evidence

I don't even see what constitutes your 'evidence,' but I've been exposed to 'magical thinking' from an early age, so it's hardly surprising. Thank gawd I was able to outgrow it.

[whistler162]

17. Like I said that is your religious belief!

[Cirque du So-What]

28. Is that the rumbling of a latent RW talking point I hear?

That evolution or even atheism are in themselves 'religious beliefs?' It must be, as I've never EVER claimed anything resembling a traditional 'religious belief' on this board. The RW fundies have been making this claim for quite awhile:

http://www.creationists.org/evolutionism-is-a-religion.html

Please DO keep 'outing' yourself by calling evolution or atheism a 'religious belief.'

[whistler162]

32. Kinda knee jerk reaction there. Must have hit a sensitive point!

[Electric Monk]

34. Another thank you for outing yourself, whistler162. nt

[Cirque du So-What]

46. Yeah, I'm kinda sensitive about RW talking points being repeated on an ostensibly democratic board

But that's just me.

[cleanhippie]

87. Hardly a knee jerk reaction. Your innuendo leaves little to the imagination

and your agenda seems quite clear.


But then again, since you failed to elaborate on your talking points, you leave yourself some wiggle room to dance away from topics you don't want to discuss. How about just cut to the chase and lets get on with it?

[cleanhippie]

86. Wait, what?

What is a religious belief?

[Chicago dyke]

91. no, that's not how it works.

"not having any belief in religion at all, of any kind."

is NOT the same thing as

"holding a religious belief."

atheism means "no religion."

[rug]

30. Non video ergo non est.

[Orrex]

36. And it killed the radio star, too

[redwitch]

101. Thanks for the earworm!

:-)

[Cirque du So-What]

20. Intangible evidence is the best!

No pesky hypotheses to prove - just a bunch of flat statements and an unshakable feeling that one is right! Whatever floats the proverbial boat...

[SidDithers]

22. How does that even make sense?...

"what you see as no evidence I see as evidence"

There's nothing there, so it must be God? Something like that?

Sid

[whistler162]

33. Look at the world as a whole. Where someone sees no

evidence I see evidence of God.

SHRUG it is up to the individual to decide. Hawkings is wrong in this case but heack even Einstein made mistakes.

[Orrex]

38. What you're doing, in essence, is saying "don't bother to think; just believe"

And you're praising that kind of belief over rational thought. No matter how smart you might be, that's a hallmark of unsophisticated reasoning.


But I'm sure that you see it as evidence of sophisticated reasoning. More's the pity.

[OnyxCollie]

45. "What you're doing, in essence, is saying 'don't bother to think; just believe

And you're praising that kind of belief over rational thought. No matter how smart you might be, that's a hallmark of unsophisticated reasoning.


But I'm sure that you see it as evidence of sophisticated reasoning. More's the pity."


Were you talking about the President's most ardent supporters?

[RainDog]

51. what you're saying is that scientific, verifiable reproducible evidence

that supports one assertion over another is not different for you than looking out your window and saying "there is a god."

to claim this has the same level of evidence or warrants the same level of acceptance as a belief is why people get so outdone with religious arguments - they are based upon NOTHING but a desire to believe.

that you cannot see the difference is sad. Sad because this is why our govt. can hawk bullshit and make people think it's brownies.

[rhett o rick]

180. Is the god you see Zeus? nm

[rhett o rick]

179. I agree with your evidence. The sky is blue therefore there is a God.

Profound.

[Warren Stupidity]

47. besides which Hawking's assertion is about a requirement for god

not about the existence or lack thereof of supernatural beings. His point is that his theoretical view of the universe no longer requires an external actor for the creation of the universe itself. His theory no longer requires 'god'. God may or may not exist, that is beyond rational thought and scientific analysis, but according to Hawkins such an entity or agent is not required to explain, rationally and scientifically, the universe. Hawking is claiming that there is no 'gap' in cosomology into which the religionists can insert a need for a diety.

You can continue to believe in the man in the sky, Hawking is not threatening your belief.


Edit: catn spel h-a-w-k-i-n-g

[Canuckistanian]

7. Was that a direct quote from God?

Please cite your sources.

[Fuzz]

11. Me, he spoke to me directly in a vivid dream.

You can trust me. Send your donations to . . .

;)

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. No, not at all. What Hawking did was explain that a god was not necessary

for the creation of the universe. He didn't rule out the existence of a god -- he said only that the universe could have created itself without a god. Maybe a god who is not a "creator" could be floating around somewhere anyhow. Though I doubt it.

[USArmyParatrooper]

50. "not necessary" is pure conjecture.

[cleanhippie]

90. No, its based on sound reasoning and the scientific method.

Hardly conjecture.

[Cirque du So-What]

13. There is no equivalence whatsoever

between the willful pig-ignorance of religious fundamentalism & scientific methodology. I'd be very interested in seeing how the conclusion that they are 'exactly the same' was reached, although I suspect this fallacious argument was dropped off like a turd in the punchbowl - with no intention of returning to the mess that was made.

[elocs]

18. Again in the replies we read the ever popular DU anti-god, anti-religious attitude.

Forgetting that it is likely that thousands of fellow DUers likely sincerely believe in god and practice their religion. No, they are not like the fundamentalists that are used here as an example and excuse to ridicule all who are religious. The god-believing DUers likely give to the poor and support social causes, they give to Democrats and vote for them and support Democratic causes and issues. I'm sure it doesn't make them feel good to come here at DU and know that trashing belief in god and religion will be given a pass and that they will be lumped in with every other believer in god or religion.

DU believers in god are in good company though because last I heard President Obama not only believes in god, but he is a Christian as well although this undoubtedly causes non-believing DUers a lot of distress.

[potassiumnitrate]

23. Why are you taking it so personally?

[Orrex]

24. It's hard to feel bad for presecuted Christians in the US

Since, well, they aren't persecuted. They might be inconvenienced or they might be made to feel uncomfortable, but that's hardly the same thing.

Heck, they might even be put into the cruel position of having to think about their faith and its implications, and who in the name of God wants to do anything like that?

[ThomasQED]

73. Not persecuted, and in fact have succeeded in pushing their beliefs off on the rest of us

who can't do much in public life without running into the fantasy. Oaths of office, sporting events... even our money is religious.

[AlecBGreen]

166. +1

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=5af3e8a1-30ed-4726-9643-e04eec4e3879

"While the Romans threw Christians to the lions for sport, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom says North Korea's leaders settle for snap trials followed by firing squads or simply crushing the heads of underground church leaders under a steamroller."

Now THAT is persecution.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WinkyDink]

42. If you're so concerned, perhaps you'd like to capitalize God? You know, because it's a name?

[Cirque du So-What]

44. A little perspective...

Every time I hear echoes of an imaginary 'persecution complex,' I'm inclined to do a...

[Chicago dyke]

oh, thanks so much for that!

i love demotivators and i've not seen that one before. lol!

[Warren Stupidity]

48. The OP is an attack on atheism and equates

scientific rational thought with creationism. You can have your god beliefs, but when you assert that they are as rational as astro-physics, you are going to get ridiculed.

[JerseygirlCT]

60. It's quite predictable, isn't it? nt

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

77. I can see it. It's an old Z80, right?

Or a Pringles. I can't quite make it out from here.

But it's on your shoulder.

[NoPasaran]

21. Men have been ruling out the existence of God since at least the time of Voltaire

If Stephen Hawking wants to break new ground, he should refute the existence of Eric Clapton.

[Orrex]

27. Voltaire could totally kick Clapton's ass on guitar

[Electric Monk]

29. I'd like to see that

:-)

[Warren Stupidity]

49. Hawking made no such assertion.

His claim is that cosmology does not require 'god'.

[struggle4progress]

139. Treatise on Toleration (Voltaire | 1763)

... When men do not have healthy notions of the Divinity, false ideas supplant them, just as in bad times one uses counterfeit money when there is no good money ... We should not seek to nourish ourselves on acorns when God gives us bread. Superstition is to religion what astrology is to astronomy: the foolish daughter of a very wise mother ...

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_2/voltaire.html

[GeorgeGist]

31. Unlike God ...

Hawking can speak for himself.

[Orrex]

35. Well...

[Warren Stupidity]

40. Didn't do well on your SAT analogy section, huh? nt.

[Ezlivin]

52. Nothing retards and corrodes modern civilization more...

...than those who stubbornly cling to the belief that the ethics, values and knowledge possessed by nomadic Bronze Age desert tribes is normative for today.

[RainDog]

53. so beautiful I want to applaud

so I will.

:applause:

[FedUpWithIt All]

56. I disagree. I think nothing corrodes and retards more than hatred and self-centered intolerance n/t

[Ezlivin]

58. And I believe that that hatred and self-centered intolerance

stems from those ancient sources.

[FedUpWithIt All]

62. Not as evidenced right here

Non-spiritual folk are not immune from bigotry, intolerance and judgment.

Rooting for one's "own side" is very very easy and so common it becomes tiring. What is really difficult is trying to see things and really accept another person's point of view.

[Silent3]

159. You don't seem to accept the view of some of the posts you're responding to

And you're taking the side of being supposedly non-judgmental, but judging harshly those you think are, by your standards, judging too much.

[FedUpWithIt All]

162. I don't think i have belittled a person's choice of, or for lack of, a belief system

It would be against my own beliefs to do so. I do not even disagree with many of the points made countering the ideas advanced by the OP.

I have no issue discussing and debating theology and behavior. My issue here is with the blanket assumptions and prejudiced personal attacks against individuals because of their choice of faith. Intolerance and hatred breeds intolerance and hatred. I think that defending the rights of others to their personal faith (excepting when their is harmful behavior), or absence of, is necessary if we are ever going to create an environment where religious issues no longer cause strife. It has to begin somewhere.


While i personally try and avoid personal attacks on those i disagree with i am not trying to present myself as non-judgemental. I'm most certainly not. I have opinions about a lot of things. But bigotry, intolerance and judgment are often some of the behaviors listed to justify equally intolerant behavior in return. That is what i was trying to point out.

[Silent3]

169. I simply don't believe in special kid gloves treatment for religious or...

..."spiritual" beliefs. The entire range of methods of criticism employed when arguing tax policy, global warming, or the greatest band ever -- not only carefully diplomatic dispassionate reason, but satire and scorn as well -- should be on the table when discussing religious issues.

You keep bringing up the idea that someone somewhere is unfairly dismissing or condemning whole groups of people in some way, based on something that you apparently don't think should have such broad scope. If I'm reading that correctly, can you be more clear on that? Provide an example?

I personally think that belief in deities is irrational. Should I not think that? Not say it even if I do think it? Should I say it only in some especially cautious way to make sure no one thinks that I'm saying believers in gods are in every aspect of their being irrational because of the one thing they do which I think is irrational? Are you the one who is perhaps assuming blanket condemnation where there is none when you hear criticism of religion, because you have an expectation for some special degree of delicacy and concern where such issues are involved?

[FedUpWithIt All]

170. By all means, say if you think a belief in dieties is irrational.

You should have the right to express your thoughts/beliefs along those lines. That is the subject of the theology and it should be available for debate. And i don't believe there should be kid gloves used when you're stating your truth regarding the "Religious or spiritual beliefs"

I do think however that it is intolerance when it is stated on these forums that those who do believe in a deity should not express their beliefs. I also find it prejudiced when assumptions are made about the intellect, character or other personal qualities of an individual just because they are a believer. Those are personal attacks, which are often based on little more info than the person's faith. Now if the believer (or non-believers IMHO) is engaging in hurtful/harmful behavior the behavior, of course, should be condemned.

There are instances on DU when a believer is told to keep their beliefs to themselves, that the non-believers should not have to hear about it and that the expression of that faith should be kept under cover or only done in private. People have the right to discuss/express their faith in a manner consistent with their faith and preferences so long as their behavior is not breaking laws or causing harm. The theology is then open to free debate or even rejection if decided by other individuals.

[RainDog]

70. this person offers nothing but attacks against reason

I believe that monkeys fly out of your ass at night.

RESPECT ME!

[FedUpWithIt All]

80. I will respect your RIGHT to believe that.

And i will not make judgments on you as a person although i may feel a desire to counter your arguments.

And i am the one unable to deal with reason. Sigh.

[RainDog]

85. hyperbole : exaggeration for effect

if you want to defend someone's right to believe that monkeys fly out of others' butts - you most certainly may do so.

however, it not not necessary for a reasonable person to do so.

[RainDog]

88. I also do not respect a religion's "right" to believe that women are second-class citizens

or that homosexuality is a sin or disease of the mind.

or that blacks were from the "tribe of dan" and therefore were not granted blessings from god

ALL of these beliefs were part of literalist teachings in the United States (and some still are.)

I DO NOT RESPECT those beliefs and I find that ridicule is an effective tool to demonstrate how erroneous those beliefs are.

Acceptance of any and all "belief systems" is anathema to rational discourse. It's the equivalent of gibberish as a way to form a sentence to express a thought.

How can you rationally debate the rights of women to vote, for instance, when you have people who hold a belief that all women are inferior to men because of their religious tenets?

It is LUDICROUS to claim that all beliefs deserve the same level of respect.

[FedUpWithIt All]

98. Thought police?

They can BELIEVE what they will. It is a thought. You cannot change this through your ridicule, or others through violence or oppression. Thinking, like believing, is a human right. You have no respect for the rights of others to their beliefs because they have no respect for the rights of others?

I oppose those who would limit rights based on sexuality, gender, age, appearance, nationality, race AND belief systems.

I oppose hurtful behavior. I support the right to belief and thought.

[RainDog]

113. Oh please. How stupid.

It's the "thought police" to note that religious bigotry is ridiculous and does not deserve respect? LOL.

I would be more than happy to debate ANYONE who wants to make those claims. In order to debate those claims, however, people have to agree that things like empirical evidence matter more than their willful desire to believe things that are easily disproved.

Our entire system of law is based upon the idea that empirical evidence has more validity than someone's wish to believe something and this was demonstrated in the U.S. in the last decade, for instance, when the issue of "intelligent design" was on trial because creationsists wanted to teach mythology in the classroom.

They lost their case because, in our society, we accept that teaching scientific evidence is rational and useful in a scientific setting, while teaching religious beliefs are not - and the courts additional ruled that creationism does not rise to the level of scientific evidence on any measure.

So, is it "thought police" to expect science to be taught in science classrooms, even when it offends the ignorance of the willfully ignorant?

If this is "thought police" to you - then you have a problem with the very foundations of our nation - which, again, you may certainly disagree with as much as you like. The idea that reason is a valid foundation for government is the central tenet of democracy - that humans have the capacity for self-governance - and that's the opposite of the rationale for medieval serfdom and Saudi/Wahabbist theocracy - which contends, as you do, that religious belief has the same amount of validity as fact.

Obviously people can believe, in the privacy of their homes, anything they want - and do all the time. Just because someone holds a belief, however, does not mean that that belief deserves respect.

Noting the worthlessness of those beliefs based religious superstition reinforces support for the way in which our very society is organized - i.e. based upon the belief that humans are capable of making rational decisions, are capable of using reason to evaluate evidence vs claims based upon superstition - and is about as far from the idea of "thought police" as you can get.

In any case, you are extremely tiresome.

Believe whatever the fuck you want to believe, but also know that your beliefs are not above scrutiny and, if you don't like it, I don't give a fuck.

[Chicago dyke]

97. it's silly and ironic for believers

(not saying that's you) to claim that "tolerance" is part of their heritage or that they deserve it. it's sort of like slave owners saying they deserve to own slaves, because well, just because.

the vast majority of religions and belief systems mandate intolerance. "fear only this god" "kill the unbeliever" "make slaves of those who belong to different religions" "only people who worship this god are smart or right." tolerance is and always has been rooted in traditions which question religion, at the very least. hard core tolerance is mostly a product of an intellectual tradition that has nothing to do with religion at all. it's only recently in human history that religions have been reduced in power enough that they can't automatically slaughter and enslave nonbelievers, and that's not even true everywhere in the world, just the really civilized parts.

[FedUpWithIt All]

100. I agree that demanding tolerance when you have been intolerant is terribly ironic.

There are two issues, as i see it. One is prejudging the individual by the opinion of the group. The other is assuming that only certain groups are made up of individuals with a predisposition for negative and harmful behavior towards others who think differently than they themselves do. This is a human issue not necessarily a "religious" one.

Right now there are groups of people who believe that all Muslim people should be treated in a negative way because they associate the whole with the actions of a few. I reject this. In the same way, i reject the notion that all Christian people should be ridiculed for their beliefs because a number of members of the religion are narrow minded and self centered assholes.

[FedUpWithIt All]

54. As much as DU likes to fancy itself a defender of rights of all people to live, love and worship

as they will...it simply is not always true.

Many here feel that mockery of others over their spiritual beliefs is acceptable and interestingly, consider how often they invoke intelligence, they are completely unable to see the irony of their position. Intolerance is a big No-No....unless we don't like the thing you want us to be tolerant about. Why can't people see how closely related they can sometimes appear to those that they despise?

[gophates]

57. Go worship whatever you want.

I should not have to hear about it.

[FedUpWithIt All]

59. You haven't but if you review this thread you will see quite a bit of "belief" espoused.

Your advice applies to all equally? Or just to those who believe in things you disagree with?

[gophates]

61. A belief in rational thought over superstition is not a religious belief

It is a belief in fact and in science. I would like very much to hear about fact and science. Not superstition, however.

And I agree with Richard Dawkins that we cannot have a just society as long as we give respect to belief in make believe. Religion must be discredited across the board before we can move forward.

[msongs]

67. let's enforce all those bible rules ok? oh wait, what about those other non-bible gods' rules? nt

[FedUpWithIt All]

68. Oh, so it is just "religious belief" that you think should be suppressed?

That is very interesting. And sadly familiar. Is it ALL religious belief that is to be suppressed or only certain faiths? Is all spirituality included or only those who follow a religion?

[gophates]

71. I never said supressed.

Discredited. Done in private (as your book of myths promotes). Held up to extreme ridiculous as being stupid and harmful. Not suppressed.

[FedUpWithIt All]

75. You assume a lot.

Silence is not required in my belief system, thanks for your concern.

You did not say suppressed...i did in response to your request that i keep silent about the things you personally dislike.

[cleanhippie]

95. self delete

[FedUpWithIt All]

102. Would you like to share what belief system you think i follow?

I don't think i have clarified.

[cleanhippie]

105. My apologies

I misread your post and thought it said SCIENCE, but it says SILENCE. MY bad and you have my apologies.

[FedUpWithIt All]

108. Thank you. I appreciate this more than you know.

:hi:

[cleanhippie]

112. No worries. I can admit when I am wrong.

And am quite frequently.

[RainDog]

66. yet more demonstration of the inability to distinguish between religion and science

and how the two very different thought processes arrive at different conclusions.

if you want to make a claim that science is a "belief" with the same level of verifiable proof as religion, back up your statement.

Otherwise you're just contributing to the general ignorance.

[FedUpWithIt All]

72. Come now. You see nothing but science expressed in this thread?

No personal feeling or "belief" at all. Nice attempt to re-frame but...no. There is MUCH personal BELIEF in this thread. And if the suppression of belief is advocated than it should apply equally to all no? Otherwise, there is intolerance and prejudice.

[RainDog]

83. show the evidence you want to use to make your claim

I haven't read every post on this thread, most likely.

the problem with your statement is that you, like many people with literalist religious beliefs, make statements yet refuse to back them up with evidence - or people lie or willfully believe things that are demonstrably false.

people who are familiar with the scientific record on various issues may use shorthand to discuss those issues, but that does not mean the evidence does not exist. it does mean the evidence is readily available, reproducible, and corresponds to the body of knowledge that indicates those things that make it possible for our world to function as it does daily, yearly, over generations.

personal feeling and belief have jack shit nothing to do with Hawkings' statement or with statements about the scientific evidence that demonstrates no deity was required for humans to exist, or the universe to exist, etc.

if someone wants to believe a deity is behind the fact of existence, that's a person's right.

to try to claim that belief has the same level of validity as Hawkings' claim that gravity was sufficient for the production of the universe is bullshit.

[FedUpWithIt All]

94. You are capable of reading this thread. I would be calling others out to show you examples.

And that is not something i'm interested in doing. Seriously, the thread is not that long.

I agree with Hawking's statement completely. I do not disagree that all matter was formed in a very material way.

I reject blanket assumptions of individuals based on prejudices of groups.

[cleanhippie]

96. Thats a total cop out.

Weak sauce.....

[FedUpWithIt All]

103. No, those are the rules of the board. n/t

[cleanhippie]

111. Wrong. You can link to certain posts without calling someone out.

And using statements from others to prove a point is not calling someone. Or ask the mods, they will let you know.

[RainDog]

115. let me put it to you this way

the OP made a stupid statement about Hawkings' recent comment based upon the sort of religious beliefs that allow mythology to hold the same level of importance in scientific discourse as information derived from the scientific method for people who are ignorant about the differences - and do not, apparently, realize how stupid these statements are.

that is what people object to on this thread.

some of us have experience with religious beliefs and believers that tend to make us less than sympathetic toward them or their beliefs because they have harmed others by their beliefs and by their claim that such beliefs are equally valid as any other system of thought.

in order to prevent others from suffering from this same abuse, people will forcefully counter the statements that derive from such beliefs.

personally, again, I don't care if someone wants to believe in an idea of god. however, when someone wants to claim that this belief is in any way operational in the description of the material functioning of the universe, I have a problem with this and will object.

I see no reason to respect religion that places greater value on ignorance than thought.

[realisticphish]

63. "tolerance" doesn't mean that I can't criticize something

think about what you mean when you say "I tolerate" something. It doesn't mean, "I am nice, and never say anything bad, and keep my mouth shut."

I think religion is stupid. I think all belief in the supernatural in general is stupid. But nowhere in that statement did I say you couldn't believe what you want, or say what you want. I didn't say YOU were stupid, I said the idea was.

THAT is tolerance.

[FedUpWithIt All]

74. To imply that the person who's idea is being countered is not as intelligent or otherwise "less"

it bleeds into intolerance. Perhaps not YOU but people in this thread are not simply countering the idea, they are ridiculing the one who holds the idea and their right to it. This IS intolerant.

[ThomasQED]

99. self-delete

Didn't really address the poster's point.

[LAGC]

132. So nobody should criticize?

What's the point of debating and discussing things if no one can question another person's viewpoint?

[FedUpWithIt All]

135. What was happening here was a critique of the person not just critiques of the viewpoint

I have no issue with the critique or debate over "viewpoints", lifestyle or ideology. I do have issue with intolerant attitudes toward *people* who for one reason or another are different than ones self.

[LAGC]

147. That makes sense.

I guess I didn't really see it as an attack on the poster, just his silly ideology.

Of course, its easy to take things personally on Internet forums... we should all keep that in mind.

[RainDog]

64. maybe this is one big reason why

as stated by Thomas Jefferson -

"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose."
- to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814

This thread, btw, was started by someone to hawk a religious pov that, in doing so, perverts Hawkings' statement.

When religion is based upon obvious lies, tolerance is not a virtue. When Glenn Beck spouts bullshit under the guise of religious belief, are we all supposed to respect that, too? Or is it just the b.s. that appears on DU?

[FedUpWithIt All]

76. I am no fan of religion. But i respect the right of others to worship as they will.

And unless i "practice what i preach" (if you will) i have NO RIGHT to criticize others on this point.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

78. No, wait, let me guess. You are a "lifelong atheist but..."

[FedUpWithIt All]

81. I am none of the above.

But tell me, this matters to you somehow? My spiritual scrapbook is a determining factor in what? Your acceptance of me as a person? My right to speak here?

[ThomasQED]

84. I'm losing the respect for others to worship as they will

when it involves denying medical care to sick people, animal sacrifice, stoning people to death, using church resources to deny others' rights, and denying reality to the point that it hurts our country and people like Sarah Palin are seen as worthwhile options.

Why should I respect any of that criminal or damaging behavior?

[FedUpWithIt All]

89. A respect for other's rights to their personal belief does not mean always accepting their behavior.

PEOPLE do horrible things to each other. Not all Muslims blow up buildings. Not all Christians like Sarah Palin. Not all Atheists criticize others belief systems.

Some PEOPLE are cruel, limited and sick and they will and can use anything to hide behind. Because those who hurt others are usually cowards.

Suggesting whole groups of people, either because of gender, sexual preference, race, nationality, physical appearance, belief systems, education level...,are somehow all to be lumped together with no acknowledgment of the variety and diversity available under each heading is terribly small.

Reject the negative behavior of the individual. Respect human rights. And make efforts to avoid becoming what you despise in others. There is NO HARM in these things.

[ThomasQED]

93. That's where the "worship as they will" part comes in. (nt)

[FedUpWithIt All]

104. Fair enough if you mean "belief in action".

But do you agree that the "belief in action" of each individual, in any religion, varies?

[ThomasQED]

107. I don't know what you mean by "belief in action".

I believe people have the right to worship, but NOT "as they will".

[FedUpWithIt All]

110. I believe we agree then.

The right to individual worship as long as it is not causing harm or limiting the rights of others?

[LAGC]

133. Why do you list "belief systems" and "education level" along with unchangeable traits?

No one chooses their gender, sexual preference, race, nationality, or physical appearance. But "belief systems" and "education level" are very much changeable things, they aren't set in stone, outside of one's control. A person can decide whether or not to believe in a certain religious/political creed, and can choose whether or not to attend school to further their education. Why should criticism or debate of those issues be off limits?

[cleanhippie]

92. WHen did questioning the unreasonable become mockery?

[Warren Stupidity]

118. Y'all get mocked primarily when, as the OP did, you post something

downright stupid, insulting, and entirely mock-worthy.






(and then claim victim status of course)

[RainDog]

146. [phone] n/t

[FedUpWithIt All]

150. If i was mocked it wasn't sufficient enough to register on the radar. I didn't realize i had been.

Especially because i never claimed to agree with the OP. I simply feel that people, especially on a website which prides itself on it's high-mindedness, should be free to offer up their views and beliefs for debate without fear of childish and simplistic personal attacks. I neither feel like, or have cried victim over the attacks here regarding the ideology because i haven't shared my own and do not share those of the OP.

Have a nice evening.

[Warren Stupidity]

152. Are you the OP?

Or are you a sock puppet? Or perhaps the term 'OP' is one you are not familiar with?

The OP is being mocked in this thread for its stupid and mildly insulting essay. The OP is not a victim as the OP started the fight. The OP is merely a loser.

[FedUpWithIt All]

153. "y'all get mocked" Is speaking only of the OP?

Seems to me that Y'all is not the right term for an INDIVIDUAL.

[Warren Stupidity]

157. "y'all get mocked when as the OP did"

Yes that statement refers to the victim class you invented, the first part, and the OP that is being mocked, a mocking which you took umbrage to, the second part.

However I now concede your point and include this sub-thread as part of the mockery of the utter stupidity displayed on a regular basis by the defenders of the supposed victims of atheist persecution here.

p.s. when you intend to base an argument by an out of context edit job, it is best to not have the actual entire context directly upthread.

[FedUpWithIt All]

161. When i saw your post i assumed

you were grouping me personally with the OP. I see now that i was mistaken and misread. I apologize for that. Perhaps stupidity, perhaps the illness i am currently dealing with. I'll accept it could be either.

Regardless, it does not change my view that the theology and any detrimental behavior induced by that theology is what should be discussed without prejudiced personal attacks on the "believer".

[skepticscott]

142. And where on DU have you EVER

seen anyone, atheist or otherwise, say that Christians should NOT have the right to believe what they wish and worship as they wish? Where have you seen that anywhere??

Your notion of "intolerance" is nothing more than a fancy way of playing the victim when beliefs that you can't defend but can't let go of are exposed for what they are...irrational silliness.

[FedUpWithIt All]

149. First off, and this is getting old, the OP and i do not share "beliefs"

There are people here who are making derogatory remarks about the OP's *person*. They know nothing of the OP but the stated belief system. Disagree with the OP's ideology...fine. Debate it. But belittling the individual, and factors about them you know nothing about, simply because they believe something you don't? Intolerant and frankly prejudiced. Differentiate a little folks. Perhaps the concept of individual merit and rights are too complicated for some here to grasp. I'm done trying to explain it. The OP may affiliate himself with an out of favor ideology but the school yard name calling that results whenever someone dares step out of the hive mind is more a little dull. Good night.

[skepticscott]

151. You made an explicit claim

that DU as a community does not always defend the right of people to worship as they choose. I challenged you to show me where, on this thread, or anywhere on DU, ANYONE had ever said that people should not have the right to worship as they choose, or said that they were fine with that right being taken away when it did not interfere with the rights of others. That you failed to give even one example, and instead responded with this rambling BS tells me that your claim was just a self-righteous rant, and that you had no justification for slamming people here as you did.

Tolerance means allowing things you think are foolish or that you may disagree with or that may offend you to go on without interference as long as they don't harm others or restrict their freedoms. Tolerance does not mean allowing untruths to go unchallenged or evil and oppression to go unopposed.

I condemn fellow human beings who fly airplanes into buildings because of their religious beliefs. I condemn fellow human beings who blow up abortion clinics and murder doctors because of their religious beliefs. I condemn fellow human beings who hate homosexuals and Jews because of their religious beliefs. I condemn fellow human beings who try to forcibly convert others to their religion while at the same time claiming to "respect all faiths". I condemn fellow human beings who enact draconian public policy that restricts the rights and freedoms of others because of their religious beliefs. I condemn fellow human beings who try to force their religious beliefs into public school classrooms in denial of well-established scientific truth. I condemn fellow human beings who claim that condoms don't stop the spread of AIDS and condemn millions of people to a horrible death because of their religious beliefs. I don't "tolerate" any of those beliefs, not the actions that stem from them, nor will I speak about them deferentially because they presume to use the cloak of religion, faith or belief as a shield from criticism. I will feel free to call nonsense what it is, and to label dangerous delusions as what they are.

[FedUpWithIt All]

154. "Don't whip it out in public", "I shouldn't have to hear it"

You do not consider that intolerance?

in·tol·er·ance
   /ɪnˈtɒlərəns/ Show Spelled Show IPA
–noun
1.lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc.


2.incapacity or indisposition to bear or endure

Let's try these from Merriam.

a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters

The Free Dictionary...

in·tol·er·ant (n-tlr-nt)
adj.
Not tolerant, especially:
a. Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.
b. Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background.

I also think that making derogatory comments about a person's income level and intelligence, for example, instead of debating the merits or failings of the belief is an nothing more than an attack attempting to stifle oppositional views.

I condemn fellow human beings who fly airplanes into buildings because of their religious beliefs. I condemn fellow human beings who blow up abortion clinics and murder doctors because of their religious beliefs. I condemn fellow human beings who hate homosexuals and Jews because of their religious beliefs. I condemn fellow human beings who try to forcibly convert others to their religion while at the same time claiming to "respect all faiths". I condemn fellow human beings who enact draconian public policy that restricts the rights and freedoms of others because of their religious beliefs. I condemn fellow human beings who try to force their religious beliefs into public school classrooms in denial of well-established scientific truth. I condemn fellow human beings who claim that condoms don't stop the spread of AIDS and condemn millions of people to a horrible death because of their religious beliefs.

I absolutely condemn these BEHAVIORS as well. But i know that much of this negative behavior results from INTOLERANCE of others sexuality, beliefs, gender, cultures, races etc.. I know that I cannot be intolerant and also condemn intolerance. It is hypocrisy and it perpetuates that which i hate.

[skepticscott]

158. You made an EXPLICIT claim

that DU as a community does not always defend the right of people to worship as they choose. I challenged you to show me where, on this thread, or anywhere on DU, ANYONE had ever said that people should not have the right to worship as they choose, or said that they were fine with that right being taken away when it did not interfere with the rights of others.

Either back that claim up, or do what any fair-minded and honest person would do, and admit that your smear on the DU community as a whole, and whoever on this thread or board you had specifically in mind, was totally unjustified. You made a serious accusation, and I would hope that you had some evidence to support it (seems like you'd need quite a few examples to justify such a broad-brush smear, wouldn't you agree?). Do you or don't you? Stop ducking the question and ANSWER it.

[FedUpWithIt All]

160. I have already shown examples of an unwillingness by some here

to grant equal freedom of expression where some religions are concerned. The desire to actually deny this freedom of expression is limited and prevented by the rules of the board itself but that does not mean that the will is not expressed by some individuals here as my previous examples showed.

Many Christians feel that it is a Biblical order that they "spread the good news". This is what they believe they are required to do as members of the Christian faith. I have shown examples of individuals here suggesting that "believers" of one faith or another should not "share" their faith but should keep it hidden away. This is a desire by some members to have those of other faiths behave in a manner that is inconsistent with their beliefs. This supports my claim that DU, as a community, is "not always" a defender of the rights of others to worship as they will.

[skepticscott]

168. Hogwash

Saying that you're not interested in hearing what someone has to say, or that you find what they have to say silly or annoying, is not even remotely the same as trying or even wanting to deny them freedom of expression. And expressing your religious views on a public discussion board is about as close to "worship" as flying planes into buildings is.

If someone comes up to me on the street and wants to witness their faith to me, and I tell them I have no interest in hearing it and that I wish they'd go away, even though their religion demands this of them, am I being "intolerant"? Or if they knocked on my door, as required by their church, and tried to give me religious literature, and I shut the door on them, am I denying them "freedom or worship"?No sensible person would think so. Do you desire that Terry Jones and his brain-addled flock shouldn't torch Korans, even though that would be behaving "in a manner that is inconsistent with their beliefs"? Of course you do. So point the finger at yourself, and stop playing the victim.

It is the arrogant religionists who feel that their publicly trumpeted beliefs should be given every deference, and be completely immune from criticism of any kind, no matter how destructive or how at odds with the facts they are. It seems to be your intolerant point of view that the right of free speech of everyone on the board should give way to this. Don't hold your breath.

[PVnRT]

164. Please explain how mockery violates someone's rights or denies them the ability to worship & love

Are you similarly outraged when Republicans are mocked in other forums?

[Jim__]

79. Hawking's statement is that the laws of cosmology "suggest" the universe can appear spontaneously.

Obviously, I haven't read the book and don't know if he makes a stronger statement someplace else. But, the statement in this excerpt does not seem as strong to me as some people assume it is:

If one assumes that a few hundred million years in stable orbit is necessary for planetary life to evolve, the number of space dimensions is also fixed by our existence. That is because, according to the laws of gravity, it is only in three dimensions that stable elliptical orbits are possible. In any but three dimensions even a small disturbance, such as that produced by the pull of the other planets, would send a planet off its circular orbit, and cause it to spiral either into or away from the sun.

The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned. What can we make of these coincidences? Luck in the precise form and nature of fundamental physical law is a different kind of luck from the luck we find in environmental factors. It raises the natural question of why it is that way.

Many people would like us to use these coincidences as evidence of the work of God. The idea that the universe was designed to accommodate mankind appears in theologies and mythologies dating from thousands of years ago. In Western culture the Old Testament contains the idea of providential design, but the traditional Christian viewpoint was also greatly influenced by Aristotle, who believed "in an intelligent natural world that functions according to some deliberate design."

That is not the answer of modern science. As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.

[FedUpWithIt All]

82. I agree with Hawking 100% n/t

[Jim__]

106. I tend to agree with him too, with one big caveat.

My understanding is that string theory and multiverse theories have not yet been tested. Any ideas that we build on top of these are, at the very least, shaky, until there has been some verification through testing.

[ThomasQED]

109. They're working hard on that

on "The Big Bang Theory". I believe that's why Sheldon was sent to the North Pole!

[Jim__]

117. Some aspects of String Theory are supposedly testable in the lab.

Apparently String Theory makes some predictions about quantum entanglement that can be tested:

The idea of the “Theory of Everything” is enticing – that we could somehow explain all that is. String theory has been proposed since the 1960’s as a way to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity into such an explanation. However, the biggest criticism of String Theory is that it isn't testable. But now, a research team led by scientists from the Imperial College London unexpectedly discovered that that string theory also seems to predict the behavior of entangled quantum particles. As this prediction can be tested in the laboratory, the researchers say they can now test string theory.

"If experiments prove that our predictions about quantum entanglement are correct, this will demonstrate that string theory 'works' to predict the behavior of entangled quantum systems," said Professor Mike Duff, lead author of the study.

String theory was originally developed to describe the fundamental particles and forces that make up our universe, and has a been a favorite contender among physicists to allow us to reconcile what we know about the incredibly small from particle physics with our understanding of the very large from our studies of cosmology. Using the theory to predict how entangled quantum particles behave provides the first opportunity to test string theory by experiment.

But – at least for now – the scientists won’t be able to confirm that String Theory is actually the way to explain all that is, just if it actually works.

more ...

[Iggo]

114. Not the same thing at all.

Fun thread, though.

Have a Rec.

[breadandwine]

119. ••• I know a lot of Hassidic Jews, serious mystics. They make mincemeat out of guys like Hawking •••

I'm an avid student of Hawking and a big fan of him and his collaborator, the great Roger Penrose, but from the Hassidic view there are numerous things Hawking overlooks, that all things that can be observed in nature are themselves creations.

For instance, who created the principle of gravity? If Hawking says it was just there to begin with, he is not examining the absolute beginning. Some scientists say there were multiple Big Bangs in succession over eons. This is also consistent with Hassidic teachings, which state that there were multiple universes before this one.

But at some point, however distant in the past, gravity itself had to come into existence. If you say, welp, before the universe came into existence there was nothing because, welp, that's how gravity works, then you are not talking about the absolute beginning. The principle of gravity itself was a creation according to the Hassidics.

You can say, welp, there was always gravity in the void, that's just the way the void works. But who created the void? Who created the space in which all these laws applied?

The Hassidic mystics teach that God created a void and before that there was only God, no void, no gravity, just God. Hawking only talks about the operations of the universe as they perform AFTER those principles of nature came into being. That's not really as primordial as he would like to think.

The Hassidic mystics even say that time itself was a creation. This is another problem for Hawking. He does not even understand how there could be anything before time. The Hassidics explicitly say, and have said for centuries, that time itself was a creation.

Some people think that even infinity has a stable quality to it. The Hassidics refer to God as "ein sof," sometimes loosely translated from Hebrew as "the Infinite" but it does not really translate accurately that way. Rather, the literal translation of "ein sof" is "no end."

I can draw a line on a piece of paper between two dots and tell you accurately that mathematically the number of points along that short line segment is infinite. But that line segment is still very limited even while possessing the quality of infinity. That God is "ein sof" - "no end" - is a much more sweeping statement about God than just saying He's "infinite" and "ein sof" isn't even limited to what God is because it says what He is NOT. He is not limited in any way.

The Hassidics (Chassidim in Hebrew, with a throaty "H") refer to God as "nimna hanimna'ot" - "the One for whom nothing is impossible." This includes even philosophical contradictions.

For instance, suppose one were to ask, "If there is a God, and He is all-powerful, can He make an obstacle He can't move?" Some religious people will tell you such a question is a logical absurdity. Not the Chassidim. They will tell you that since God is the One for whom nothing is impossible, He can indeed do it. He has the capacity to do anything, including making something He can't move. And then, no matter how unmovable it is, He can then move it. At any given moment He can do what you think He can't. Because He is "ein sof" - no end, no limit.

Of course, one way of answering this question is to point out that WE are the obstacle God can't move. Because He gave us free will. He created many beings, animals, plants, angels. The angels have very little free choice and God wanted beings who would turn to him not as automatons or robots but out of their own love for Him and free will. So He does not force them because it defeats His purpose. But He can also force them if He chooses.

The kinds of assertions Hawking is making about all this are incredibly pedestrian and limited. Even to say that something can come out of nothing, Who created the nothing in the first place? Who created the void? Hawking didn't get up to that page yet.

I am sometimes amazed when some people talk about atheism. For instance, the Beetles sang, "Imagine no religion." But the same Beetles were into eastern mysticism and were involved with eastern mystics. Isn't that just a wee bit hypocritical?

You can say that since all the religions disagree they are all wrong. In fact, the best that you can say is that if all the religions disagree, all but one must be wrong. You can't be certain that they are all wrong. Suppose I ask, what does two plus two equal? You can come up with endless answers, three, five, two, nine, etc. etc. This does not mean that there is no answer or that they are all wrong. The answer is two and the fact that everyone else said otherwise does not mean there is no answer and it does not mean that everyone is wrong.

Another point the Chassidim make:

When God created the void He took His infinite presence out to create room for something besides Himself. According to Chassidim philosophical speculations and contradictions essentially come from the void. Since God is not there, you won't find Him there. You will instead find doubts and conundrums.

But God is even in the void. He is just concealed. In the future we will see that God was always there too.

God says in Deuteronomy 31:18, "I will hide my face." It is a basic principle to the Chassidim that God conceals His presence from us but we must find Him and return to Him nevertheless. The fact that someone didn't find proves nothing.

The Chassidim also talk about the book of Daniel, chapter 12, which talks about the time of the end (the end of an imperfect world, NOT the end of the world) and they refer to Daniel 12:4, which says that Daniel is instructed by God to obscure the knowledge of the end. Many will try to understand the end but only the wise really will.

So you have every nutcase out there from Glenn Beck to Palin claiming they know what is going to happen in the end but they are all bloviating with wishful thinking to try to justify their corrupt, selfish ideologies by verses in scripture they do not understand. These people will tell you that self-interest or "enlightened" self-interest or some other corrupted creed or Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" is all one with scripture, as if God consulted Smith before creating scripture.

Some of these nutcases were telling us that Bush was fighting the good fight in the war of Armageddon. In Hebrew, Armageddon is "Gog uMagog." Actually, according to the Chassidim, Bush was the evil king Gog, spelled gimel-vav-gimmel in Hebrew, which in Yemenite pronunciation, a very ancient Hebrew pronunciation, is pronounced "Johj" and even with a slight rolling "R" sound: Jorj; George. In Yemenite pronunciation the gimel can be pronounced both as a G and as a J.

The full phrase is "Gog uMagog." The meaning of this according to the Chassidim is as follows:

"Ma" means "from."

"u," the single letter vav, can be pronounced as a "V" or "u," and it means "and."

Thus, "Gog uMagog" means "George and from George."

Ancient Jewish commentaries explain "Gog uMagog" exactly opposite the way the nutcases explain it. Gog is an EVIL king, not a good one. Actually, according to these Jewish commentaries he is called a "nasi" which translates as both a "prince" and a "president," a chief presiding officer. Gog is a president, not a literal king.

"Ma" in Hebrew can mean "from." The "ma" in "MaGog" implies a place. According to the Chassidim, all the traditionally Jewish rabbinical authorities today agree that MaGog is America, and it is not a compliment. MaGog in ancient commentary referred to an EVIL nation.

How was George Bush "from George"?

He was from George because his father was named George.

He was from George because America was founded by George Washington, leader of the revolution and first president.

He was from George because America was created when it broke away from England, led at the time by King George.

He was from George because he presided in the city of Washington D.C., named after George Washington.

Hebrew letters have numerical equivalents, a kabbalistic science called "gematria" or numerology.

The entire phrase, "Gog uMagog" has the numerical value of 70, referring to the 70 principal evil nations. You can work this out yourself, based on these equivalencies from gematria:

G=3 (the letter gimel)
O=6 (the letter vav, a vowel usually)
G=3 (the letter gimel again)
U=6 (the letter vav again, pronounced at this point in the phrase like "ooh.")
M=40 (the letter mem. The later letters of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet go up to 400 in their values in gematria.)
(Biblical Hebrew is written without vowels except for a few letters. In this case, there is no vowel written after M and it is just pronounced "Ma.")
G=3 (the letter gimel again.)
O=6 (the letter vav again.)
G=3 (the letter gimel again.)

Thus, if you add it up, "Gog uMaGog" equals 70, referring to the 70 principal or root nations. (Not necessarily literally 70 nations but originating from 70 original evil root nations, today these break down into more than 70.)

MaGog, it should be noted here, adds up to 52. Another, simpler way of writing 52 is with the Hebrew letters nun (numerically valued in traditional gematria at 50) and beis (numerically valued in gematria at 2).

But the name of the letter "beis" is also a word. "Beis" also means "house."

Thus, "MaGog" can signify "the house of 50" - the 50 United States.

Before "MaGog" is the letter vav or "u," meaning "and." In Hebrew the word "and" written as a letter vav is written as part of the next word, without a space: "uMaGog."

Does this sound like "America"? Hardly. There isn't even a "G" sound in America.

Or is there?

America was named after an Italian mapmaker named Vespucci. It was Vespucci who first realized that the land mass discovered by Columbus was not, in fact, Asia but an entirely different land mass. In honor of Vespucci, America was named after him.

How so? Because Vespucci's first name was the Italian name "Amerigo." With a "G." In naming America, the name was Latinized to "America" - with a "C." But originally it was with a "G."

Notice the similarity in phonetics:

Amerigo
uMaGog

Thus, MaGog and uMaGog together suggest:

"The 50 United States of America."

The entire phrase, "Gog uMaGog" signifies "George Bush, from the 50 United States of America."

This is how the Chassidim explain it. And those who explain it are no fans of George Bush because Gog in scripture refers to an arch-evil leader.

And YOU thought YOU hated Bush.

Just a little response by me here to those who think that since Fundies are nuts, therefore there is no such thing as true religion. The best you can say is that if all religions disagree all but one must be wrong.

Palin thinks that Alaska is going to be a refuge from the Rapture. The Rapture is a purely New Testament notion that is nowhere in the Old Testament. The Chassidim emphasize that the ultimate purpose of all creation and of all the worlds, upper and lower, is this lowest world and our whole purpose is "to make a dwelling place for God in this lowest world," to make this world good and Godly. Down here is where it's at, not up there. The nuts who are hoping for the rapture, that a few will be sucked into the sky while the rest of the world will be destroyed have all despaired of the potential good in this world. They think we are all sinners INHERENTLY and therefore need to get punished. This is not a Chassidic view. The nuts are all projecting onto the world their own sense of their having spoiled their own existence through their own corruptness. So they want everybody to GET IT because misery loves company.

Again, this is the exact opposite of how the Chassidim view it. They see this world as precious and having great good potential, not through getting a quick-fix instant forgiveness but through good deeds. Ann Coulter said "You Jews have to obey laws but we have Federal Express!" This quick fix is antithetical to the Chassidic view. God gave us laws to observe, good deeds, down here, to make this world good. Those who don't want to do good in action are merely passing around a hot potato called good and free choice.

Again, the fact that there are fundie nuts in the world does not prove that there is no God. Neither do claims by Hawking that since he didn't find, it isn't there.

Incidentally, it is rather ironic that we are all discussing this at this time, thanks to the naysayer Hawking. One may doubt that God is the lord of time, but this week, by coincidence, is Jewish New Year, Rosh Hashana, which commemorates the beginning. The great Kabbalist Chassidic rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, who gave up a promising career as a physicist to become a Chassidic rabbi, has shown how according to ALL the early Kabbalists from thousands of years ago, the age of the universe is a mathematical puzzle that when analyzed mathematically using Kabbalah means that the universe is billions of years old.

The reason that Christians don't say this is that they only accept the written Bible, not the Jewish oral tradition of Talmud, Midrash, and Kabbalistic texts that accompanied the written Bible.

According to the Chassidim, when Moses was up on Mount Sinai for 40 days and nights, God certainly didn't need all that time to give him the Ten Commandments and all the other commandments. He could have just said "Here. Now go back down the mountain." The Chassidim teach that during that time God was teaching Moses all the subtleties of the law.

For instance, in the Bible it says that one should wear fringes on the corners of his garments, as a reminder to do God's other commands, which is why Chassidim wear tzitzis or fringes. But nowhere in the Bible does it ever explain how. How long is fringe? What is it made of? How many strands does it have? How many knots? How is it attached to the corner, through two holes in each corner or just one? Or is it just a part of the same fabric as the garment? What do you do if the garment does not have four corners?

None of this is explained anywhere in the Bible. Even if you believe in a new covenant, and Chassidim and other Jews do not, you must acknowledge that certainly at one time there was an original covenant. In that covenant people would have had to know how to observe the laws including making the fringes and observe the law regarding them in all its particulars and details.

The only explanation of how this was done is that there was an additional body of teaching that went with the Old Testament that explained how to do each of those laws, and this was an oral tradition that was written down in the Talmud and other oral texts.

In the Talmud it explicitly states that this rabbi got it from that one and so on, who got it originally from Moses.

If you only accept the written text, you can't arrive at the great age of the universe, but if you also study the oral tradition in Judaism, the great age of the universe is perfectly clear.

Which is to say that just because fundies are ignorant nuts who hate science and want to abolish it to push their creed does not mean that there is no truth to any religion. They lack proper understanding of the Old Testament. They also lack expertise in science.

And Hawking lacks expertise in religion.

Happy Rosh Hashana everybody.

[Orrex]

120. Um, no. Your argument, like all Creationist dogma, boils down to the God of the Gaps

That is, God is said to be hiding in this or that principle yet to be understood by humans. And then when humans do demonstrably understand that principle, you move the goalposts and say "Oh yeah? Well what about this principle?"

It's the fallacy of the receding target, and it's a smokescreen concealing nothing.


No doubt you will protest this fact, but you'll be wrong.



Additionally, when you invoke numerology, you are simply saying "abra cadabra" and "presto" and hoping that people won't notice. Sorry, but numerology is a poor substitute for science and it always has been.


Hawking may lack expertise in religion, but between science and religion, science is a much better descriptor of the universe. Religion (as a feeble surrogate for science) is simply there to make you feel better about the parts that you don't like and/or don't understand.


Claiming that these mystics would make "mincemeat out of Hawking" is like saying "my light saber would cut right through your Kevlar armor."

[breadandwine]

121. Orrex, in the words of the Kotzker Rebbe, "There is nothing so crooked as a glib straight line."

Your argument is shallow and glib.

You should read "Stephen Hawking's Universe" by David Filkin. It even has a foreword by Stephen Hawking himself. Although Hawking does not want to look at it this way, the book itself tells the dramatic story of how scientist George LeMaitre confronted Einstein about how his own theories could only be explained by there being a beginning, which inspired Einstein to admit to "my greatest blunder." LeMaitre was a religious person, a theologian in fact, who insisted that there was a creation.

I prefer the Kabbalistic interpretation because it is much closer than LeMaitre's religion.

In fact, the Kabbalistic interpretation of the age of the universe is identical to the age as determined by the world's leading cosmologist, Alan Sandage. Sandage says that the Big Bang is the closest approach of science to religion or vice versa. There are lots of scientists who do not consider atheism an essential to their view.

Sandage says the universe is 15 billion years old and so does Kabbalah. Kabbalah said it ages earlier.

Sandage has had a dispute with Wendy Friedman about the age of the universe. Gradually Friedman kept revising her estimate until it nearly matches Sandage's and one scientist after another has come around to Sandage's view.

Sandage uses measurements of the cosmic expansion but he also has measured the age of the oldest stars in the universe. They are: 15 billion years old. Friedman initially said the universe was younger than that. However, it is not possible that the universe could be younger than its constituents.

You might try considering the fact that there are a lot of scientists who are religious people.

I tend to think there is more in their heads than slogans.

[breadandwine]

122. By the way, Orrex. Einstein himself believed in God.

Einstein said,

"My religion consists of a humble admiration for the illimitably superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

Hawking's entire work was based on Einstein. He applied Einstein's formulas to the functioning of the Big Bang.

So if one really wants to go back to the beginning, certainly go back to the scientist on whom Hawking bases his own work.

[cleanhippie]

124. Thats a bit of a stretch.

He explicitly stated he did not believe in a personal god, but like most non-believers, never stated that there was NOT a god.

It really depends on what YOUR definition of god is, right?

[Orrex]

128. By the way, breadandwine, no he didn't.

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

From a letter to Erik Gutkind

[RainDog]

129. here's what Einstein had to say about the bible: nothing more than primitive legends

Albert Einstein in a letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954:

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No...interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

and

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
- Albert Einstein, 1954

and

A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
(Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science", New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930)

and

I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature. (Albert Einstein, The World as I See It)

and

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
(Albert Einstein, Obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955)

and

The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously. (Albert Einstein, Letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946)

While Einstein was open to the "music of the spheres" and felt a "mystical wonder" about the workings of the universe - he said he felt the same way about music and art. To me, this point is that the idea of god as described by any of the monotheisms or any of the polytheisms - any religion that anthropomorphizes the idea of god is obviously untrue. Whether god is in the existence of the universe is something for people to decide for themselves - but there is no proof of this. That doesn't make it an untruth, like existing religions; however, the idea remains a matter of belief and speculation and a personal issue.

Which is the realm of religion in any event - it's not the matter of government and government is not the business of religion in this society as it was and is philosophically conceived.

[Orrex]

127. In fact Einstein considered his "greatest blunder" to be his positing of the cosmological constant

You are, therefore, misusing a quotation out of context, and poor Einstein is doubtless the scientist most often abused by religious apologists in this manner.

I reject your interpretation of the Kabbalistic interpretation as an explanation of the universe because it is a religion and therefore non-verifiable. Additionally, as I noted above, numerology is a nonsensical, mystical version of three-card monty. Any explanation that descends from such trickery can only be either innocent guesswork or deliberate fraud.

In fact, the Kabbalistic interpretation of the age of the universe is identical to the age as determined by the world's leading cosmologist, Alan Sandage.

You mean that Kabbalah got it wrong, too? Sandage, as I'm sure you're aware, first put the age of certain globular clusters at around 25 billion years. Pretty good estimate form the information available at the time, but that figure has subsequently been shown to be hugely inaccurate. Additionally, Sandage posited a universe that expanded and contracted over an 80 billion year period. So to which of Sandage's estimates is Kabbalah's estimate identical?

Sandage says that the Big Bang is the closest approach of science to religion or vice versa.

Sorry, but I don't credit out-of-context quotes without citation. When did he say this? In what context? And in what venue before what kind of audience?

There are lots of scientists who do not consider atheism an essential to their view.

Irrelevant, as I'm sure you're aware.

Sandage says the universe is 15 billion years old and so does Kabbalah. Kabbalah said it ages earlier.

And the Sumerian King list said it even earlier, but so what? In any case, since Sandage has been revising his view over the course of his career, you can't really use it to shore up your claim that Kabbalah has been right about it all along. In any case, the current age of the universe is put at about 14 billion years, so if Kabbalah said that it's 15 billion, then it's wrong. Unless you're willing to consider a billion-year error "close enough." Or are you going to play numerological games to revise your

You might try considering the fact that there are a lot of scientists who are religious people.

Not as many as you probably like to think, and in any case it's likewise irrelevant.

[RainDog]

130. I admire your patience

that you actually took the time to read thru all that nonsense.

the truth is that, of course there are scientists who believe in an idea of god. there are scientists who attend religious services.

however, those scientists I know who would consider themselves religious (and they are few and far between among the ones I've known) do not believe in crap like literalism or doctrine based upon obvious bullshit like the numerology in the post above.

the problem is that people who believe such crap try to latch those beliefs onto "science" in order to provide some sort of validity for claims that are not valid.

[PVnRT]

165. Huh?

Einstein said his greatest blunder was in assuming that the universe is static; he made that quote when Hubbel's evidence of an expanding universe was simply irrefutable. His "greatest blunder" was the attempt to introduce a cosmological constant. After Hubbel's research became accepted, he accepted LeMaitre's hypothesis about the big bang. Furthermore, Einstein encouraged LeMaitre to continue working on the idea, even while considering it suspect.

Oddly enough, research into dark energy indicates that there may in fact be a "cosmological constant." So it might not have been a blunder after all.

Allan (two l's) Sandage did come up with the first accurate estimate of the age of the universe, but hundreds of other astronomers have done so as well. There is nothing at all religious in his work; as for your claims about the Kaballah, I find it hard to believe that a doctrine of Jewish faith would have been taken seriously for a few thousand years if it was claiming that the universe was 15 billion, especially since the word "billion" was first coined in 1475.

[Warren Stupidity]

125. what an astounding load of drivel.

Thanks for reminding me why religion is idiocy.

By the way the 'but who or what created gravity' argument solves nothing (not that there is anything to be solved) as the answer 'must be god' is not established in any rational manner, and answers nothing. Who or what created this god that created gravity?

Hawking made no claim regarding religion. He made a claim regarding the origin of the universe, specifically that our (or more specifically theoretical physics') current understanding of the universe does not require an external agent. This is not a denial of religious beliefs or a statement that your god does not exist.

[Goblinmonger]

126. Who created gravity?

Really? That's your big game stopper? Jesus, I didn't even read further. Um, matter creates gravity. I'm an English teacher and even I can climb through the head scratcher you through out there.

Man.

[cleanhippie]

131. I think I am actually 10 IQ points lower now for having read that.

What an astounding load of Glen Beck-like association game playing.

Well Done! Well Done!


I'm pissed that I wasted 5 minutes of my life on that though. What a load of crapola!

[LAGC]

134. What basis do you have to claim that its more likely that one religion is true than none of them?

Why is that the best you can say? I mean, did not all religions have a beginning? Can not all religions be boiled down to proximate causes of the ancient tribes that invented them? What makes one more likely than another? Just because it sounds more plausible?

[skepticscott]

143. Your beloved mystics do nothing

and neither did your rambling, babbling post, except resort to special pleading to make "god" the answer to the problem of infinite regress. Unfortunately, it is merely an unjustified declaration, supported by neither evidence nor reason (though certainly by a lot of spilled ink). If a "god" complex enough to create the universe we see (or anything in it), could spring into existence or always exist with nothing preceding him, then a less complex universe is even more likely to have done so. Which would a rational person choose?

[DeSwiss]

123. god = nobody n/t

[laconicsax]

148. So are you presuming to speak for your god?

If so, you may consider reading the Bible...specifically the part that says, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."

If not, when did your god say, "You So Don't Get Who I Am?"

Are you trying to imply that your god had nothing to do with the origin of the universe?

If so, how is that any different than the position you're attacking?

If not, what the hell does your subject line mean?

[Deep13]

156. "I think Stephen stepped in just a little over his head."

And you would know that, I guess. :eyes:

Your statement is simply wrong. Hawking is basing his very well grounded opinion on his profound understanding of the physical evidence. It is an evidence-driven conclusion. Creationists simply refuse to look at anything that contradicts their mythology. It is conclusion first, evidence second.

And if you can show me an actual message from God reading, "You so don't get who I am," I will be impressed. As it is, I think Hawking knows exactly what he is talking about and refuses to indulge in wishful thinking or word games to square the circle.

[Jim__]

172. "It is an evidence-driven conclusion."

Maybe you could present us with the evidence.

According to Marcelo Gleiser, a theoretical physicist, there is as much empirical evidence for god as there is for Hawkings claim:

The theories that Hawking and Mlodinow use to base their arguments on have as much empirical evidence as God. It’s extremely misleading to promulgate highly speculative theories as the accepted word of the scientific community. Although I have enormous respect for Hawking’s work as a scientist—he’s one of the greatest of our generation without question—this sort of media hype is, to my mind, irresponsible.

more ...

[laconicsax]

174. I know you werent asking me, but I'll answer all the same.

My understanding of the matter for quite a while has been:

Flat universe=zero net energy=universe that can start itself.

The WMAP data points to a flat universe.

[Jim__]

176. That's not what Hawking is talking about in his book.

While Hawking mentions WMAP, he only mentions it as something that may bring us new information in moving toward a unified theory. However, in the book, Hawking bases his claims about the origin of the universe on super-symmetry, super-gravity and M-theory. He does not specifically address the origins of the branes in M-theory, but Hawking himself admits that there is currently no evidence for the type of particles that the theory requires - IIRC he is talking about partner particles. He says that evidence may be forth coming from LHC.

IOW, Gleiser seems to know what he's talking about.

[tama]

181. Comments on comments

Based on the comments in science blogs (e.g. http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=3141), Hawking's new book seems to be all about Hawking's irrational belief in pseudoscientific M-theory - which doesn't seem to be testable and hence is mocked as "not even wrong".

From the link above:
"A British journalist contacted me about this recently and we talked about M-theory and its problems. She wanted me to comment on whether physicists doing this sort of thing are relying upon “faith” in much the same way as religious believers. I stuck to my standard refusal to get into such discussions, but, thinking about it, have to admit that the kind of pseudo-science going on here and being promoted in this book isn’t obviously any better than the faith-based explanations of how the world works favored by conventional religions."

Hawking's reductionistic view on humans is not any more scientific than his belief in M-theory:

"we human beings – who are ourselves mere collections of fundamental particles of nature"

[rrneck]

175. An interesting thread.

I think the OP could have done a much better job of explaining what he thought of the ideas he presented. It appears he didn't read the material himself.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/clay-naff/hawking-to-god-your-servi_1_b_705773.html
...That's the Hawking argument for the world we live in. To call it the Hawking argument is to give him excess credit, however, for many other scientists have made the same assertion.

Is it true? Maybe. It is a reasonable extrapolation from incomplete evidence. However, there may be other explanations that have yet to be explored in a scientific manner. Two things are certain. The evidence clearly shows that the Universe we inhabit is not the handiwork of an omnipotent, perfect Creator. Whatever the true explanation, the traditional interpretation of Genesis makes no sense...

The other certainty is this: authentic faith does not depend on traditional creation stories. "Faith" is a vague term, but I suggest it has two essential characteristics: it is a belief that ultimately some good will come of it all, and while its components may be reshaped by evidence it is a belief that transcends the evidence. In short, people who feel that such and such scientific claim must be false or their whole religious belief system will collapse don't really have faith. They have a membership in a particular ideology.

It would be helpful if the OP would come back and clarify his flamebait.

[truthteller50]

177. Evidence against everything Stephen Hawking said

No matter who you are or what you believe you need to read this article and check out the evidence: http://howmanyknow.com/2010/09/a-response-to-stephen-hawking/ People in power have been withholding information from you which would cause you to doubt spontaneous creation and man's so called evolution from apes.

[laconicsax]

178. Let's assume for a moment that the laws of physics had to be created.

Prove that the god of the Bible did it.