God did not create the universe, says Hawking

[Dre89]

LuigiToilet yeah I am that's my point, these discussions should be reserved for the debate hall.

But as debates, they serve to assess the debater's skills, and for the fun of debating it. I still don't consider myself an authority on the subject, that's why I don't want anyone to convert to a position I hold because og my arguments.

Acrostic- History would really only refer to religion specifically, not God in general. the God issue is not scientific, science has nothing to do with whether God exists or not. The only thing science can do is refute the credibility of religious doctrines (eg. f they say the world is flat, and science shows it isn't).

 

[Mr.Freeman]

Dre, it was a joke, I could care less about Stephen Hawking believing God didn't make the universe.

It was spam. I posted to spam.

 

[.Marik]

It was spam. I posted to spam.

In Dre's rush to create a debate and prove his knowledge, he misses the obvious things.

Like you spamming, for example, and creating a pretty entertaining scenario from it.

 

[Luigitoilet]

Video game forum discussions on God will be full of straw mans like these.

Excuse me, but how does being in the Debate Hall exclude people from this? You're all still on a video game forum.

 

[TigerWoods]

Excuse me, but how does being in the Debate Hall exclude people from this? You're all still on a video game forum.

Video games are srs business.

 

[Dre89]

Marik- Read my first post here, the whole point was to stop a debate from happening.

Luigitoilet- I didn't say DHers such as myself wouldn't use straw mans. I just said that in a DH, it assesses debater's skills, and it's done for the sake of debating. Still, the debates will still apply several straw mans.

Here people are arguing as if they consider themselves authorities on the subject, which none of us are.

 

[.Marik]

Marik- Read my first post here, the whole point was to stop a debate from happening.

After you conveniently stated your opinion, I should add.

smh

 

[Dre89]

No, I stated corrected common misconceptions.

I responded to arguments from people like BPC.

People here were arguing as if God was a physical being, when theists never consider God physical, and sometimes not even a being either. Correcting misrepresentation is distinct from arguing that God exists.

 

[.Marik]

...

That's the exact same concept as starting a debate.

You tried to influence other people's opinions by stating your own, essentially the entire point.

I'm done nitpicking, suit yourself.

 

[Luigitoilet]

I think this thread has run its course. I'm not gonna close it yet, but I recommend you guys get off of the pointless discussion.

 

[Dre89]

...

That's the exact same concept as starting a debate.

You tried to influence other people's opinions by stating your own, essentially the entire point.

I'm done nitpicking, suit yourself.

But it's not just an opinion. An opinion would be thinking God exists. The fact that theists don't think God is a physical being, or sometimes even a being in general is fact.

I'm not saying theism is immune to criticism, I'm just saying that if you're going to criticise theism, there's no point criticising something theists have never said. That's why I'm usually less critical of atheism than theism, because I'm less in touch with what atheist philosophy actually says.

Luigitoilet- You might as well lock it now, or at least let Marik respond first. Threads like these always end up getting locked.

 

[Эикельманн [РУС]]

Why do human beings have to constantly try to figure out what exists and what doesn't?

I'd rather just wait until I die. If I turn into a cosmic nothing, sucks. If there's an afterlife and I go to hell for being a non-believer, I guess that sucks as well.

 

[Luigitoilet]

Why do human beings have to constantly try to figure out what exists and what doesn't?

I'd rather just wait until I die. If I turn into a cosmic nothing, sucks. If there's an afterlife and I go to hell for being a non-believer, I guess that sucks as well.

This is how I feel. It's not worth worrying over or even considering to me.

 

[Dre89]

Yet it's the philosophers who end up influencing the way we live our lives.

 

[DTP]

Yet it's the philosophers who end up influencing the way we live our lives.

For some people.

 

[Dre89]

Lol no.

Philosophy influences every day life and every day people, it just takes hundreds of years for schools of thought to gain influence.

Nowadays, we have this idea that anything is ok as long as we don't harm others, which came from philosophy.

We have this idea that what's good for each individual is subjective, which again came from philosophy.

International law is influenced by natural law theory, again a philosophy.

Australia is considering implementing a new education style, which came from philosophy.

Even the Matrix was based off a philosophy lol.

Basically, what you would call a modern person, with modern ideas, is essentially a reflection of the thinking
in the Enlightenment Period.

 

[freeman123]

But it's not just an opinion. An opinion would be thinking God exists. The fact that theists don't think God is a physical being, or sometimes even a being in general is fact.

I'm not saying theism is immune to criticism, I'm just saying that if you're going to criticise theism, there's no point criticising something theists have never said. That's why I'm usually less critical of atheism than theism, because I'm less in touch with what atheist philosophy actually says.

Luigitoilet- You might as well lock it now, or at least let Marik respond first. Threads like these always end up getting locked.

Theists have never said that God is a physical being? Have you ever read the Bible? God appears as a physical being several times in the old testament, and, if you believe that Jesus was God(as many people do), then he also appears as a physical being in the new testament.

This idea of God being a "non-physical being"(which is completely ridiculous) is simply theists moving the target as science discovers more about the universe. People originally thought that Heaven was in the clouds, and then we found out about space and suddenly Heaven moved. Theists constantly change their definition of "God" every time the current definition is debunked.

 

[1048576]

Now the golden rule is a philosophy?

Why is everything always everything else? I miss when words had meaning.

Btw I've never consulted a philosopher to determine my moral compass. I defined my own set of axioms based on my limited science education/knowledge, and used logic to generate conclusions resulting from those axioms. I guess that's a philosophy too, right

 

[Luigitoilet]

Yet it's the philosophers who end up influencing the way we live our lives.

This is irrelevant. We weren't talking about "philosophy" (which is such a vague blanket term anyways), we were talking specifically about the existence of a deity/afterlife.

 

[Tomo Takino]

So how about that OP guys.

 

[Dre89]

Theists have never said that God is a physical being? Have you ever read the Bible? God appears as a physical being several times in the old testament, and, if you believe that Jesus was God(as many people do), then he also appears as a physical being in the new testament.

Lol.

That's only the case if you're a Protestant and take the Bible literally, which Catholics never have.

Secondly, the people who do take it literally are fideists, who literally do not use reason. I don't mean that as an insult, they literally believe reason is corrupted and faith is the only salvation.

The way you're talking, you probably still believe Catholicism is based entirely on the Bible.

And yes Jesus was physical, but that was merely a physical manifestation of God. It's not as if God is just Jesus sitting up in the clouds lol. Do you actually believe that's what Catholic theology teaches?

This idea of God being a "non-physical being"(which is completely ridiculous) is simply theists moving the target as science discovers more about the universe. People originally thought that Heaven was in the clouds, and then we found out about space and suddenly Heaven moved. Theists constantly change their definition of "God" every time the current definition is debunked.

What?

Non-physical notions of God have been around since Ancient Greece....probably even before that...

Even after that, Catholics such as Augustne, St. Anselm, Aquinas, Duns Scotus, plus many more had non-physical notions of God before science was even prominent.

I don't think any Catholic philosopher or theologian ever had a phyiscal notion of God, so I have no idea where you got that idea from.

In fact, Aristotle, an ancient Greek, hada non-physical notion of God, and he was pretty much the first person in western civilisation to practice science, so your statement could not be further from the truth.

Have you actually read any philosophy or theology?

The only people who think God is some guy in the clouds, are fideists, polytheists (which is mostly eastern anyway, not western) and people off the street who have no educated notion of God.

It's like scientifcally uneducated people off the street who believe evolution says we evolved from the Gorillas that still exist today. Actual evolution theory doesn't say that, so refuting those uneducated people off the street means nothing.

I'm sorry, but Freeman is the perfect example of what I was warning people about in these threads, people with enormous misunderstandings about the opposition.

This is the problem. Too many theists have no adequate understanding of their religion, then go and say completely wrong things to atheists, then people like Freeman come into these debates with interpretations that couldn't be further from the truth.

Numbers- I never said you had to consult a philosopher for morality, most people don't. But what most people don't realise is that the moral trends of society actually originate from philosophy.

For example, today society operates under social contract theory. SC is pretty much says you are permitted to do what you like, as long as you odn't harm others. Now the idea that anything is acceptable as long as it doesn't harm others (which is essentialyl social contract theory), began with Thomas Hobbes, and was improved upon by John Locke. This is what I mean when I say philosophy influences every day life.

 

[Lore]

I would like to point out that Hawking wrote the book to disprove the "god-of-the-gaps" concept that is used in physics today, not any specific God.

Essentially, if something is completely unexplainable (the big bang) or is part of a huge gap in our scientific knowledge, God (or some other omnipotent being) is believed to be the cause of it until we find out more about the subject.

Carry on.

 

[Dre89]

That's a good point Werekill, and the God the Gaps issue is controversial, but certain God theories, such as that found in Aquinas' metaphysics precede anything to do iwth science. That doesn't make them right, just that science has nothing to do iwth them.

 

[freeman123]

Dre.
That's only the case if you're a Protestant and take the Bible literally, which Catholics never have.

You said that theists have never said that God is a physical being. I was simply pointing out that that isn't true. There are theists who claim that God is a physical being.

Dre.
The way you're talking, you probably still believe Catholicism is based entirely on the Bible.

I didn't say anything about Catholicism.

Dre.
And yes Jesus was physical, but that was merely a physical manifestation of God. It's not as if God is just Jesus sitting up in the clouds lol. Do you actually believe that's what Catholic theology teaches?

Again... I never said anything about Catholicism.

Dre.
Non-physical notions of God have been around since Ancient Greece....probably even before that...

The gods worshiped by the Ancient Greeks were physical beings who looked like people.

Dre.
Even after that, Catholics such as Augustne, St. Anselm, Aquinas, Duns Scotus, plus many more had non-physical notions of God before science was even prominent.

I don't think any Catholic philosopher or theologian ever had a phyiscal notion of God, so I have no idea where you got that idea from.

Why do you keep mentioning Catholics? When did I say anything at all about Catholics?

Dre.
In fact, Aristotle, an ancient Greek, hada non-physical notion of God, and he was pretty much the first person in western civilisation to practice science, so your statement could not be further from the truth.

You said that no theists say that God is a physical being. I was telling you that that isn't true. I didn't say that all theists say that God is a physical being.

Dre.
Have you actually read any philosophy or theology?

Yes.

Dre.
The only people who think God is some guy in the clouds, are fideists, polytheists (which is mostly eastern anyway, not western) and people off the street who have no educated notion of God.

Thank you for acknowledging that you were wrong about theists never claiming God was a physical being. Also, what do you mean by "educated notion of God?"

Dre.
This is the problem. Too many theists have no adequate understanding of their religion, then go and say completely wrong things to atheists, then people like Freeman come into these debates with interpretations that couldn't be further from the truth.

Except that what I said was true, and you've already agreed with it.

Dre.
For example, today society operates under social contract theory. SC is pretty much says you are permitted to do what you like, as long as you odn't harm others. Now the idea that anything is acceptable as long as it doesn't harm others (which is essentialyl social contract theory), began with Thomas Hobbes, and was improved upon by John Locke. This is what I mean when I say philosophy influences every day life.

That's not at all how society operates today. There are plenty of things that don't hurt others that are illegal, and there are plenty of things that do hurt others that are legal.

Dre.
That's a good point Werekill, and the God the Gaps issue is controversial, but certain God theories, such as that found in Aquinas' metaphysics precede anything to do iwth science. That doesn't make them right, just that science has nothing to do iwth them.

Don't call them "theories"; call them "guesses." Calling belief in God(s) a theory is like if I were to suggest that maybe the universe was pooped out by a magical space hippo, and then call that a theory. When you use the word "theory", it comes off as though the belief has a level of credibility that it hasn't earned.

 

[Dre89]

You said that theists have never said that God is a physical being. I was simply pointing out that that isn't true. There are theists who claim that God is a physical being.

And there are atheists who don't believe in religion, simply because they don't like having to obey someone.

There's no point attacking poor arguments, when the opposition has better ones.

I didn't say anything about Catholicism.


Again... I never said anything about Catholicism.

You addressed the Bible.

The gods worshiped by the Ancient Greeks were physical beings who looked like people.

The Greek public believed in those things. Ancient Greek philosophers believed in a non-physical God, crushing your point that the idea of a non-physical God came about just to cater to scientific developments.

Why do you keep mentioning Catholics? When did I say anything at all about Catholics?

You said that the Bible depicts God as physical, which isn't true for any Christianity that isn't based entirely on faith and literal interpretation (ie. Catholcism and various Protestant denominations).

You said that no theists say that God is a physical being. I was telling you that that isn't true. I didn't say that all theists say that God is a physical being.

"This idea of God being a "non-physical being"(which is completely ridiculous) is simply theists moving the target as science discovers more about the universe. People originally thought that Heaven was in the clouds, and then we found out about space and suddenly Heaven moved. Theists constantly change their definition of "God" every time the current definition is debunked."


You said that theists changed their definition of God from physical to non-physical to accommodate advances in science, yet there were non-physical notions of God before science was prominent at all.

Thank you for acknowledging that you were wrong about theists never claiming God was a physical being. Also, what do you mean by "educated notion of God?"

By educated notion of God I'm talking about any notion of God that is philosophically/logically orientated, as opposed to to purely fidiestic/theological notions.

I can't think of any philosophical notion of God that claimed God was physical.

There's no point discussing weak versions of theism, when there are stronge rones out there to refute.

Except that what I said was true, and you've already agreed with it.

No, you said theists changed their definition of God to accommodate for developments in science, when most theism had always maintained God was non-physical before science was prominent.

That's not at all how society operates today. There are plenty of things that don't hurt others that are illegal, and there are plenty of things that do hurt others that are legal.

Such as?

Don't call them "theories"; call them "guesses." Calling belief in God(s) a theory is like if I were to suggest that maybe the universe was pooped out by a magical space hippo, and then call that a theory. When you use the word "theory", it comes off as though the belief has a level of credibility that it hasn't earned.

If you're going to compare God to a space hippo, then I'm guessing you don't really understand what the God arguments aim at.

You do understand that the reason why most of these God arguments come about is actually because the theists believe something like a space hippo or pink unicorn couldn't be the first cause right? You do understand that the properties that theists attribute to God could not be more opposite to those of physical beings such as space hippos and pink unicorns right?

There are plenty of legitimate arguments against God theories, but the flying spaghetti monster argument is only used by people like Dawkins, who aren't well read on philosophy of religion or metaphysics at all. Anyone who uses the FSM argument shows they don't really understand what theists are arguing.

By the way, which God arguments are you familiar with?

You're statements don't add up. You say you've read philosophy and theology, yet you say theists maintained God was physical until developments in science, yet if you had read any notable philosophy or theology, you would have known that most theists had always argued God was not physical, well before science came into the picture.

You say theism hasn't earned any crediibilty, well how does it earn credibility in your eyes? Pleasue don't tell me you're one of these "only science can prove truths" and "I require physical evidence for a non-physical principle" people. Because if you are, you've just committed the fallacy of circularity in your epistemology (and if you have read philosophy and theology, like you say you have, you should know what that word means).

Also, show me evidence that the Church has changed their notion of God to accommmodate science.

 

[freeman123]

Dre.
And there are atheists who don't believe in religion, simply because they don't like having to obey someone.

There's no point attacking poor arguments, when the opposition has better ones.

Claiming that God is "non physical" is not a better argument. It's a worse argument, since there's nothing indicating that a "non physical" being could even exist, or what that even means.

Dre.
You addressed the Bible.

Which is not Catholocism.

Dre.
The Greek public believed in those things. Ancient Greek philosophers believed in a non-physical God, crushing your point that the idea of a non-physical God came about just to cater to scientific developments.

No, it doesn't crush my point, because the possibility that other people may have thought of that before is irrelevant to the fact that the reason many people believe it today is in response to current scientific knowledge.

Dre.
You said that the Bible depicts God as physical, which isn't true for any Christianity that isn't based entirely on faith and literal interpretation (ie. Catholcism and various Protestant denominations).

The Bible does depict God as a physical being. The fact that most modern Christians don't believe the Bible has nothing to do with what the Bible says or what the people who wrote it believed.

Dre.
You said that theists changed their definition of God from physical to non-physical to accommodate advances in science

Because they did.

Dre.
yet there were non-physical notions of God before science was prominent at all.

It doesn't matter. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all taught that God was a physical being, and the only reason many modern Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe otherwise is in response to science discrediting their holy books.

Dre.
By educated notion of God I'm talking about any notion of God that is philosophically/logically orientated

So, in other words, it's a meaningless term.

Dre.
There's no point discussing weak versions of theism, when there are stronge rones out there to refute.

I'd love to hear one.

Dre.
No, you said theists changed their definition of God to accommodate for developments in science, when most theism had always maintained God was non-physical before science was prominent.

No, most theism had not always maintained that. Most of the gods worshiped through out history have been depicted as being physical beings.

Dre.
Such as?

Drugs, prostitution, and same sex marriage are all illegal. A 17 year old who takes a naked picture of themselves is considered a child pornographer for the rest of their lives. Meanwhile, the government is allowed to take money from gays and atheists and give it to the Boyscouts(who discriminate against gays and atheists), and social security, which is a government enforced pyramid scheme, is legal. Our current laws are based on us trying to find a middle ground between the fascism of the right and the socialism of the left.

Dre.
If you're going to compare God to a space hippo, then I'm guessing you don't really understand what the God arguments aim at.

You do understand that the reason why most of these God arguments come about is actually because the theists believe something like a space hippo or pink unicorn couldn't be the first cause right? You do understand that the properties that theists attribute to God could not be more opposite to those of physical beings such as space hippos and pink unicorns right?

There are plenty of legitimate arguments against God theories, but the flying spaghetti monster argument is only used by people like Dawkins, who aren't well read on philosophy of religion or metaphysics at all. Anyone who uses the FSM argument shows they don't really understand what theists are arguing.

By the way, which God arguments are you familiar with?

You're statements don't add up. You say you've read philosophy and theology, yet you say theists maintained God was physical until developments in science, yet if you had read any notable philosophy or theology, you would have known that most theists had always argued God was not physical, well before science came into the picture.

You say theism hasn't earned any crediibilty, well how does it earn credibility in your eyes? Pleasue don't tell me you're one of these "only science can prove truths" and "I require physical evidence for a non-physical principle" people. Because if you are, you've just committed the fallacy of circularity in your epistemology (and if you have read philosophy and theology, like you say you have, you should know what that word means).

Also, show me evidence that the Church has changed their notion of God to accommmodate science.

Please explain what a non physical being is and how you know one exists.

The evidence that the church has changed its notion of God is the Bible. The Bible says God is a physical being, so any Christian who believes otherwise has changed the original Christian definition of God.

 

[Эикельманн [РУС]]

Wow, Dre. Get debaited.

 

[Mr.Freeman]

I made the universe.

 

[Dre89]

Claiming that God is "non physical" is not a better argument. It's a worse argument, since there's nothing indicating that a "non physical" being could even exist, or what that even means.

I'm guessing you're not familiar with the cosmological argument, based on this statement.

What philosophy have you read? How could you not know what the cosmological argument is?

Which is not Catholocism.

You need to be specific then which Christian denomination you're reffering to.

No, it doesn't crush my point, because the possibility that other people may have thought of that before is irrelevant to the fact that the reason many people believe it today is in response to current scientific knowledge.

Lol what?

Where is your evidence of this?

The Church has always maintained God is not physical, no Catholic philosopher has ever said God as physical.

Again, show me evidence of the Church declaring God is physical.

The Bible does depict God as a physical being. The fact that most modern Christians don't believe the Bible has nothing to do with what the Bible says or what the people who wrote it believed.

Lmao.

We know that the people who wrote the Bible didn't mean for it to be taken literally. Do you even know how the Bible was formed? By the Catholic Church, who have never taken it literally.

Seriously, what theology have you actually studied?

Because they did.

Again, show me the evidence.

It doesn't matter. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all taught that God was a physical being, and the only reason many modern Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe otherwise is in response to science discrediting their holy books.

This is laughable.

Again, show me evidence of Catholic physical notions of God.

Even early Islamic philosophers, were neo-Platonists and occassionalists. Neo Platonists believe nothhing physical exists, yet you're saying that they believed in a physical God lol.

So, in other words, it's a meaningless term.

I don't get what you mean...

I'd love to hear one.

You'd have unblock your ears first.

If you actually want to have a God debate with me, apply to join the proving Grounds in the debate Hall, this is not the palce for a debate like that.

No, most theism had not always maintained that. Most of the gods worshiped through out history have been depicted as being physical beings.

No, that's mainly polytheism.

Again, show me evidence that physical Gods were worshipped in western civilisation.

Drugs, prostitution, and same sex marriage are all illegal. A 17 year old who takes a naked picture of themselves is considered a child pornographer for the rest of their lives. Meanwhile, the government is allowed to take money from gays and atheists and give it to the Boyscouts(who discriminate against gays and atheists), and social security, which is a government enforced pyramid scheme, is legal. Our current laws are based on us trying to find a middle ground between the fascism of the right and the socialism of the left.

Drugs is considered harmful to society, not saying that's right, just that's the perception. Homosexuals are getting successes in certain places, like having the gay adoption bill passe din Australia.

Regardless, this is detracting from the point of this conversation.

Please explain what a non physical being is and how you know one exists.

Some theists won't consider God a being. Again, the cosmological argument proposes that the contingent nature of physical beings necessitates the existence of a self-necessary, and tehrefore non-physical, first cause.

That's just summing it up quickly. But for someone who claims he's read philosophy and theology, you sound awfully uneducated in these matters.

The evidence that the church has changed its notion of God is the Bible. The Bible says God is a physical being, so any Christian who believes otherwise has changed the original Christian definition of God. [/QUOTE]

Lmao.

Have you read any theology?

The Church has never interpretted the Bible literally. And no, the no, the Church isn't conflicting with the people who put the Bible together, it was the church who put the Bible together.

Tell me, what philosophy and theology have you actually read?

If you want to prove a point, why don't take a prominent God argument (which you should know of if you've read philosophy and theology) and refute it?

Also, you're yet to show me this evidence that the Church thought God was physical.

 

[Luigitoilet]

O

k