God did not create the universe, says Hawking

[PaintedGhost]

Are you actually going to make a logical argument against me?

Edit: Thanks Victra.

ur an aussie wearing a batman shirt. nuff said

 

[Dre89]

Lol I'm sure that call sounded funny in your head, you just enjoy that little trickle going down your leg now.

Actually, I don't have that shirt anymore, my ex girlfriend (when we were dating) made me throw out all those kinds of shirts and made me get more "mature" shirts, which I'm grateful now for, actually.

By the way if you're trying to troll me, it's not going to work. Well it depends on whether you consider successfull trolling getting someone mad, because you won't get me mad. I'm not sure if you consider that trolling, I've never really understood what the point of trolling was, I don't know why people would take time out of their day to...deliberately try to get people mad?

 

[PaintedGhost]

Lol I'm sure that call sounded funny in your head, you just enjoy that little trickle going down your leg now.

Actually, I don't have that shirt anymore, my ex girlfriend (when we were dating) made me throw out all those kinds of shirts and made me get more "mature" shirts, which I'm grateful now for, actually.

By the way if you're trying to troll me, it's not going to work. Well it depends on whether you consider successfull trolling getting someone mad, because you won't get me mad. I'm not sure if you consider that trolling, I've never really understood what the point of trolling was, I don't know why people would take time out of their day to...deliberately try to get people mad?

lol u are a handsome guy though ill give u that. but ur a ****ing god believing scum aussie who likes playing aussie rules footie like wtf who plays that

 

[.Marik]

LOL.

Hi Alex, just ignore Dre, he likes engaging in bouts of pseudo - intellectualism.

 

[Dre89]

lol u are a handsome guy though ill give u that.

Well I wasn't expecting that lol.

If you're not being sarcastic (and I'm guessing you were being sarcastic), um...thanks I guess lol.

but ur a ****ing god believing scum aussie who likes playing aussie rules footie like wtf who plays that

I don't play Aussie rules actually, I play football(soccer).

Marik- Not sure if that was an insult or not. Are you apart of my DH hate club as well?

 

[NeutralDamage]

Kinda stupid claim. I mean, it's kinda stupid to claim someone didn't make something before it is even proven that this someone exists. But yeah, I got the point.

 

[Dre89]

I'm sort of confused as to what you're saying.

Are you saying it's stupid to talk about a non-physical principle, because there is no physical evidence it exists?

 

[PaintedGhost]

I'm sort of confused as to what you're saying.

Are you saying it's stupid to talk about a non-physical principle, because there is no physical evidence it exists?

do u work out dre?

 

[Dre89]

do u work out dre?

I'm not a trolling expert but that still seems like an unusal method of trolling.

As for the question, I don't work out, I'm all natural baby.

 

[DTP]

Oh dang, Dre's kinda hot lol

 

[Dre89]

Lol why is everyone trolling me on my picture now?

Is the idea that I'm supposed to think you're being serious, then get a big head about it?

 

[DTP]

The hell? I wasn't trolling lol

 

[Dre89]

You can understand me assuming that when someone on Smashboards says your hot they're trolling, particularly because I'm no Brad Pitt.

But thanks for the compliment lol.

 

[NeutralDamage]

Pfysical or non-pfysical evidence, there is none.

 

[Dre89]

Well let me ask you, what would you consider sufficient evidence to prove His existence?

Obviously it's not going to be physical or scientific, because He's not physical.

 

[NeutralDamage]

How do you know he is not physical? How do you even know he is(exists)? There has to be some reason to think that he exists, or otherwise everyone of us could claim that there is somekind(anykind you can imagine) of an imaginary thing living in non-physical world and everybody would agree xD. I agree there are things we don't know yet about universe and stuff, but I haven't encountered anything that would even hint such thing as god would exists. If you have, please share it with us(me) too.

 

[Dre89]

God wouldn't be physical, He wouldn't be God if He were physical.

Most God theories arise because the philosopher believes a physical being couldn't be the first cause. That's the whole point, God has completely different traits to physical objects.

He's not some guy in the clouds with a beard or something, I hope no one here still thinks that.

The cosmological argument is a good example of an argument which proposes that it is necessary for a non physical principle to precede any contingent beings, ie. physical things.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I think the most disturbing fact about the god debate is that if nobody had thought of god, god would not exist. He is created through our belief. Would the world be much different if god didn't exist? "I'm not touching you".

The fact is, once you advocate an unfalsifiable claim (inb4everythingissubjective/everythingisunfalsifiable/nihilism), you are pragmatically wrong. See also: tooth fairy, santa claus, etc. God is one such unfalsifiable claim, and I fail to see how he is different from the aforementioned items. And if you are wrong on a practical level, your theory should be discounted Am I correct?

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Is it possible to rationally uncover/deny the existence of a transcendental entity that supersedes rationality itself?

 

[TigerWoods]

Alright. Basically, I strongly disagree with Dre... but I don't think all of the trolling is necessary. Having said that:

Lol why is everyone trolling me on my picture now?

Is the idea that I'm supposed to think you're being serious, then get a big head about it?

The hell? I wasn't trolling lol

You can understand me assuming that when someone on Smashboards says your hot they're trolling, particularly because I'm no Brad Pitt.

But thanks for the compliment lol.

I'm with DTP here. You actually are good looking lmao. Most of the people on here aren't very pretty... so yeah... compared to the others you get a thumbs up.

 

[Mr.Freeman]

FSM made the universe.

His saucy, delicous wrath will destroy those who believe otherwise.

 

[deepseadiva]

Can we all get back on topic please:

Dre is attractive.

 

[Today]

^No. Stay on the real topic.

 

[.Marik]

Can we all get back on topic please:

Dre is attractive.

^No. Stay on the real topic.

Someone's in denial.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

^No. Stay on the real topic.

 

[5ive]

i ****ing lold.

 

[UberMario]

Acrostic just won the topic. lol

 

[Dre89]

Thanks Tiger lol.

BPC, I'm not going to get into a massive debate here, but let me just clear a few things up.

There is a huge difference between a pink unicorn and God.

Firstly, a PU, a physical, contingent being, which necessitates several prior truths, such as space time, matter, motion, perception, etc. whereas God conatins none of those.

Secondly, because the PU has those traits, the idea that it could the first cause is implausible, hence saying that God is the first cause, and the PU is the first cause are two ocmpletely different statements.

Thirdly, even if you don't say the PU is the first cause, but it just exists somewhere out there, that's still not the same as saying God exists. Theists aren't saying "you can't prove that He does not exist, therefore He does". With both the PU and God, you cannot disprove the existence of them, but that isn't sufifcient grounds to believe in them iether, theists never argued that. What separates God from the PU is that theists are arguing that God is necessary for the existence of the universe, and that what they deine as God, is the only thing capable of being this first cause. In the case of the PU, there is no necessity for its existence, therefore there is no reason to believe in it.

It's like a painting. When you look at a painting, you can infer that it was painted by a painter. It's a similar line of logic. One concludes that it necessitates a prior truth. That's what going on with theism, they believe by looking at the world, one can conclude it necessitates a prior cause.

Now whether or not the universe does in fact necessitate a prior cause is debateable, and BPC if you wnat, we can take that up in the DH. There are good arguments on both sides, but anyone who says "God is just like s spaghetti monster" (Dawkins) or "or if the universe needs a prior cause why doesn't God?" (Dawkins again) clearly doesn't understand what theistic philosophy of religion is actually arguing.

 

[Dre89]

FSM made the universe.

His saucy, delicous wrath will destroy those who believe otherwise.

Again, depends which religion, or which branch of Christianity if you're being more specific, you're talking about.

Which religion, or branch of Christianity are you talking about by the way?

 

[Luigitoilet]

Dannnng. It's okay Dre, at least you have good looks to fall back on.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

OUCH! Dayum, that is one hell of a topic-winner.

Thanks Tiger lol.

BPC, I'm not going to get into a massive debate here, but let me just clear a few things up.

There is a huge difference between a pink unicorn and God.

Firstly, a PU, a physical, contingent being, which necessitates several prior truths, such as space time, matter, motion, perception, etc. whereas God conatins none of those.

Depending on your definition of god. The pink universe could equally be beyond spacetime.

Secondly, because the PU has those traits, the idea that it could the first cause is implausible, hence saying that God is the first cause, and the PU is the first cause are two ocmpletely different statements.

I find the argument to causality fairly strange. You claim that some form of god is necessitated by the existence of the universe and everything else... Without demonstrating that causality still applies on that level. Before the universe, why should the laws of the universe apply?

Thirdly, even if you don't say the PU is the first cause, but it just exists somewhere out there, that's still not the same as saying God exists. Theists aren't saying "you can't prove that He does not exist, therefore He does". With both the PU and God, you cannot disprove the existence of them, but that isn't sufifcient grounds to believe in them iether, theists never argued that. What separates God from the PU is that theists are arguing that God is necessary for the existence of the universe, and that what they deine as God, is the only thing capable of being this first cause. In the case of the PU, there is no necessity for its existence, therefore there is no reason to believe in it.

I still don't buy it.

It's like a painting. When you look at a painting, you can infer that it was painted by a painter. It's a similar line of logic. One concludes that it necessitates a prior truth. That's what going on with theism, they believe by looking at the world, one can conclude it necessitates a prior cause.

But when you talk about the whole of existence, you can't claim that. What if:
-The law of causality doesn't apply outside of the universe
-The universe is infinitely old, a constant series of big bangs and big crunches
-The entire concept is false

I mean, refuting your theory is exactly what Hawking is trying to do.

Now whether or not the universe does in fact necessitate a prior cause is debateable, and BPC if you wnat, we can take that up in the DH. There are good arguments on both sides, but anyone who says "God is just like s spaghetti monster" (Dawkins) or "or if the universe needs a prior cause why doesn't God?" (Dawkins again) clearly doesn't understand what theistic philosophy of religion is actually arguing.

Fair enough. I stand corrected; only most modern theists are ********. Some of them actually have arguments going for them. :3

 

[Rici]

My reaction to most of the replies in this thread:

 

[5ive]

lol painting analogy again

 

[Mr.Freeman]

Again, depends which religion, or which branch of Christianity if you're being more specific, you're talking about.

Which religion, or branch of Christianity are you talking about by the way?

FSM stands for Flying Spaghetti Monster...

You taking me seriously is awesome.

 

[Dre89]

Mr. Freeman- I know what it is. But your post implies that you believe God is some arbitrary physical being (which couldn't be further from the truth), and that all theists believe you go to hell if you don't believe in God (again wrong).

Depending on your definition of god. The pink universe could equally be beyond spacetime.

Anything pink necessitates visual perception, Visual perception can only grasp concepts through the medium of space. Space and time are interwined, therefore your pink universe could not exist outside space and time.

I find the argument to causality fairly strange. You claim that some form of god is necessitated by the existence of the universe and everything else... Without demonstrating that causality still applies on that level. Before the universe, why should the laws of the universe apply?

I'm sorry I don't understand what you mean.

I still don't buy it.

Ok lol.

But when you talk about the whole of existence, you can't claim that. What if:
-The law of causality doesn't apply outside of the universe
-The universe is infinitely old, a constant series of big bangs and big crunches
-The entire concept is false

I don't understand what you mean by the first point. As for the infinite regress, that's another controversial issue, but i personally feel theists have adequately refuted it. But if you wnat to go in depth we can do it in the DH.

I mean, refuting your theory is exactly what Hawking is trying to do.

I never said there's anything wrong with trying to refute the theory, I never said ti was invincible.

Fair enough. I stand corrected; only most modern theists are ********. Some of them actually have arguments going for them. :3

True, there are some bad theists, but alot of atheists are also highly uneducated on these issues as well. It goes both ways. you have good and bad ones in both camps.

 

[StinkomanFan]

Everyone has there opinions. If Hawking says that God didn't make anything let him say it.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Everyone has there opinions. If Hawking says that God didn't make anything let him say it.

 

[Dre89]

Everyone has there opinions. If Hawking says that God didn't make anything let him say it.

My initial point was that in discussion threads, there's no poin trying to convert other people to your position, becuase the reality of it is, none of us on this site (including msyelf) are not educated enough in the relevant fields of study to be authorities on this topic.

All we will do is spread misinformation and misunderstanding. Like all these atheists who say "Catholicism is just about an unproven book" "Or everyone who doesn't believe in God goes to Hell", or the theists who use circular moral arguments like "if you don't belive in God how can you have morals?" etc.

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

If people want to discuss their views and what they believe it, that's fine, but when it turns into a debate, where people are trying to convert others, then it gets bad.

 

[Luigitoilet]

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

If people want to discuss their views and what they believe it, that's fine, but when it turns into a debate, where people are trying to convert others, then it gets bad.

Huh? Aren't you the Debate Hall guy?

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Even if someone has an open mind about this topic, attempting to establish a proper scientific corollary to the notion of a monotheistic entity would span many fields concerning mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, and so forth. If this is addressed in correlation with religious text, then there is another metaphysical battle in attempting to mitigate various lines of religious doctrine to come to a final agreement. Assembling a historical record may be useful in placing certain events listed in religious doctrine and establishing certain possibilities for legitimacy. I think that individuals attempting to make such contributions in a collective fashion is a positive thing, if such attempts can be pursued in a positive fashion. Even though it is questionable about how useful it would be to conclude the existence of an absolute deity, it couldn't hurt to try it out and make a collaborative effort to uncover the truth.