Stephen Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe

[Mitsui2]

Maybe you're mixing up the concept of believing that there's no God and not believing there is one. Some people might tell you that the first one represents atheism, but it really doesn't. Most atheists are really agnostics, just of a particularly strong variety, which fits perfectly with the evidence available (That is to say, none).
So maybe you just picked up on atheism from the wrong angle. There's actually nothing wrong in thinking you're right about something; what's wrong is thinking you're right about something for which you have no evidence, or refusing to change your thinking when contrary evidence is presented. The difference is that the atheistic position leaves room for further evidence to affect a change in position, whereas the religious position leaves none, simply because it doesn't require any evidence in the first place.
That said, I think if you do your best to keep an open mind you won't be doing too badly. The main thing to remember is that an open mind can be filled with junk just as easily as it can with gold, and thus the critical examination of the ideas we encounter in life is vital.

That's an extremely sensible post, Malboury. And it's not often one gets an opportunity to honestly say that round here, even about one's own !

[Malboury]

I spent time with Athiests found them just as Arrogant as the Religious. With that Arrogance Atheists will be the next wave of fanatics to come after the muslims fanatics. you may say an open mind will be filled with junk and Gold but with an open I can choose what stays and with what i want to keep a closed mind no matter what flows in will get stuck and rot their heads. as i said before Athiests and the religious are more alike than they would want to believe. it's a shame really

Maybe you just need to meet more atheists! They're a good bunch in my experience, but I'm sorry if you've had a bad time of it. Maybe it's just that people are a bit more arrogant in general than you like? Or maybe it was more anger toward religion you encountered, rather than arrogance? After all, the rigid rejection of observation most religions require has cause a great deal of suffering in the world, or at the very least has been a highly visible tool of those who choose to cause suffering.
What I was actually saying was that an open mind CAN be filled with either junk OR gold, or indeed both. What's important is what you choose to allow in there, exactly as you say. A closed mind is pretty useless (unless you want to control people, in which case minds closed to certain way's of thinking is perfect!).
I agree that atheists and religious people are very alike, because of course people are pretty similar the world over. And indeed most religious people actually are atheists to every religion bar the one they follow; atheists just take take it one god further. Regardless of similarities, I think it's important to not knowingly follow a doctrine you know to be false, so I think that criticism toward religion is well founded.
The idea of fanatical atheists doesn't really jive with me though; fanatics have to believe in something, and there's no requirement that atheists do. You could easily have an atheist who's fanatical about, say, a particular nation, or perhaps star trek, but fanatical thinking and a lack of belief in the supernatural are not connected insofar as I can see. I am open to contrary observation on that though ;-)

[edifice.]

[quote]

Well, that's not exactly the position of atheists though, is it. Yes, one could argue that any such direct intervention by a God or God's could be played off as aliens using advanced technology, but that doesn't mean such evidence would be useless, or even that it wouldn't be sufficient for most atheists. Take, for example, gravity. There is in fact nothing to say that the falling motion all objects seem to undertake when dropped is not actually caused by the interference of advanced aliens. Their technology could merely be so advanced that it appears to us that gravity exists, when in fact our region of the universe is the only area where the aliens make that happen. Further, this sort of thinking can be applied to everything in life, every last observable thing. But we don't bother with this sort of thinking in science, because we push forward with the best tools and techniques we have. Thus, if God really appeared in a independently verifiable, observable, testable way, then you would find that the vast majority of people would be as accepting of the idea of a God as they are of gravity. So really, people who don't accept the idea of the God hypothesis aren't somehow inoculated against evidence for it, it's just that thus far no such evidence exists, and so the idea of God is on parity with the idea that aliens are responsible for gravity, and we should live our lives as such. But only for now; if evidence arises then lets take another look!

But this is my point, what exactly does that entail? If you don't define that you leave it open ended as a deliberate tool merely to refute anything put forward.

According to what criterion? If we go back to the visions for a moment what criterion would they have to meet in order to qualify as 'evidence'? Its evidence that cows exist because we can see them but is that enough for seing a god? If we do not apply a criterion to say whay constitutes evidence then neither can it be claimed that no evidence exists because 'evidence' fails the admissability test. This just goes on and on and on.

This also isn't necessarily true, and is in fact exactly contrary to the scientific method. In fact, when thinking about the question of God, or any other phenomena, the first thing one does is say 'what does this mean if it's true?'. This is so that we can create testable predictions based upon the hypothesis; it's a way of keeping scientists honest too, as it requires the idea to stand on it's own, so that one can't merely make up something to fit individual observations. Rather science tries to find theories that fit even observations that haven't been made yet.

That sounds peachy but when the issue arose of something from nothing science moved into the exact mode that you are describing now; instead of answering the question they moved to define it in such a way so as to argue that it couldn't be asked in the first place. Apparently Hawking stated that the Universe could come from nothing...........all you needed was some gravity etc............ just as bizzarre.

Thus, the question of what could God do to prove he exists is absolutely fine to ask! It would be better to phrase it something along the lines of "What testable predictions does the idea that a sentient God controls the universe make.' Well, one answer to this is of course that such a God could act outside the natural order of things, and in fact could take steps to subvert that order to prove his existence. So to answer your question, what could God do to prove himself, I would suggest that a series of repeating, testable, verifiable violations to the natural order would be sufficient. Say, make all cakes fall up on Tuesdays, or have the decay rate of uranium double if a researcher asks the Uranium to do so in the name of God. That sort of thing would work just fine.

Straight away you redefine what you are asked and set about addressing the redefined version. Maybe that's good, maybe not, but it does demonstrate that this issue is so open to definition and redefinition that no criterion can ever be constructed to define evidence for. Do inexplicable cures replace the cakes on Tuesday? Certainly just because they are inexplicable does not tranlate to God as a cause but neither does Cakes on Tuesdays unless it does so for YOU!

Unfortunately, just because something is believed by a lot of people for a long time doesn't make it true, or in fact make it false. All it does is suggest that a lot of people believed it for a long time.

But it does constitute Prima Facie evidence.

[BlackLion]

Maybe you just need to meet more atheists! They're a good bunch in my experience, but I'm sorry if you've had a bad time of it.

The idea of fanatical atheists doesn't really jive with me though; fanatics have to believe in something, and there's no requirement that atheists do. ;-)

thanks but like everything you have your bad apples with the good ones and as i learnt that you never mention your religious beliefs to an atheist you hardly know and the same with religious stragers about your atheists beleifs but they might be always one who is open minded.

My view on fanatics is that if your views and beliefs are attacked or threatened you will become more protective of them and if pushed enough times you will start to hit out against those who attack your and some will become fanatics. the best examples are the catholics and protestants in the North. they are more Irish and British that the Irish and british are. the same as the jews and arabs in Israel and Gaza/westbank

I believe in aliens but have no proof that they exist. is there a god? and is it male or female? i don't know but it is not anything we humans can imagine with a limited minds and though. I believe there is a higher level of conscience in this universe but is there a heavan or hell waiting for me in the end i don't know but I am not holding my breath. all i can do is trust myself and like all mankind I too want to live on forever. but i find that they are 2 types of immortality the physical and spiritual. the physical is an idead that is passed down thru the years and also the fame of someone (Alexander the great, Caesar and so on) the spirtual is really where god and religion comes in.
Jesus is the one that could have done both (the spirtual has to be proven)
I like most look for a reason to our lifesand why we are here.

i like to quote myself if it makes sense yay and if it doesn't well i can say I was drunk. anyway "an athiest looks at the world and says HOW it was created while the religious say WHY was it created".

[Malboury]

[quote=edifice.;3316439]

But this is my point, what exactly does that entail? If you don't define that you leave it open ended as a deliberate tool merely to refute anything put forward.

According to what criterion? If we go back to the visions for a moment what criterion would they have to meet in order to qualify as 'evidence'? Its evidence that cows exist because we can see them but is that enough for seing a god? If we do not apply a criterion to say whay constitutes evidence then neither can it be claimed that no evidence exists because 'evidence' fails the admissability test. This just goes on and on and on.

Well, I think I laid out some pretty okay criterion, but the lack of such evidence so far makes it hard to judge what exactly that evidence might look like. There are too many variables. I would suggest that if God were as evident as a cow, then that might give us a bit more to go on. So, I would further suggest at the moment that if God were visible to us in the same manner as a cow, that would constitute evidence for God which was worthy of consideration. By the by, am I to take it from what you say that evidence for God can't exist? I'm unsure what you're getting at... I think that if God/Gods exist, then there's probably evidence for it, or at the very least such evidence could exist. If there's no evidence for it, or if God possess a property that makes evidential proof impossible, (a bit like the aliens in The X-Files!) then I'm not sure if considering the idea of God has any merit. But I remain open to evidence for God, and I'm willing to consider just about anything. If you insist on criteria, then I suppose, in the loosest sense, the evidence must be perceptible in some manner, it must exist, and it must be testable. That's all. If you have some insights that could help narrow this down, I'd be like to hear them. What do you think about God, personally, and what sort of evidence do you think the God/God's you consider likely to exist leave behind?

That sounds peachy but when the issue arose of something from nothing science moved into the exact mode that you are describing now; instead of answering the question they moved to define it in such a way so as to argue that it couldn't be asked in the first place. Apparently Hawking stated that the Universe could come from nothing...........all you needed was some gravity etc............ just as bizzarre.

Science is actually pretty broad, and there are as many theories about the beginning of the universe as there are individuals to have them. The beginning of the universe, and what might have occurred therein is a complex question. Truthfully, science doesn't have one widely accepted answer just yet. The big bang seems a likely event, due to the observations of distant galaxies and objects, but what happened before it? Was there even a before for such things to happen in? There are many theories, some are testable, some not so. The theory that a supernatural being did it is popular in some circles, less so in others. All we can do is continue to make observations, continue to make predictions, and continue to find better and better models to describe this complex, amazing universe we find ourselves in. Better models will make more accurate predictions, poor models will make inaccurate predictions. Untestable models will make no predictions, or at least no new ones. That's just how it goes. The idea of that the universe could occur from pre existing laws is bizarre in some ways, but it's a theory that fits many observations. Bizarre facets in themselves do not make something untrue; look at quantum physics, a testable realm of the truly bizarre! That doesn't meant that physicists dodged the question, it just means they tried their best to honestly answer it.

Straight away you redefine what you are asked and set about addressing the redefined version. Maybe that's good, maybe not, but it does demonstrate that this issue is so open to definition and redefinition that no criterion can ever be constructed to define evidence for. Do inexplicable cures replace the cakes on Tuesday? Certainly just because they are inexplicable does not tranlate to God as a cause but neither does Cakes on Tuesdays unless it does so for YOU!

Hum, that's interesting. While I did rephrase your question in such a way as to make it more scientific (ie, to remove any prejudice from it) I don't think that this makes the question particularly slanted either for or against God. Is that what you're suggesting? In any case, my answer to both questions remains the same; in order to truly show that God exists, you're going to need something which subverts the natural order. Cakes on a Tuesday is a good example, as is the decay rate of Uranium. But really, anything which subverted the natural order in a verifiable, testable way would do pretty much perfectly. Miracle cures, if tested sufficiently both before and after (even during!) would be great. Cakes on tuesday is more dramatic, and better because it can be tested everywhere. It would also solve the Jaffa cake biscuit/cake dilemma perfectly! Decay rates would also be good. Everyone everywhere getting the same tattoo at once would also be very convincing. What I've described here are examples of good evidence for a supernatural being capable of altering the nature of the universe in fundamental ways. But there are just so many potential lines of evidence for God that I couldn't begin to list them all!

The important thing to remember here is that science is not a tool for providing absolute truth, simply because we live in a universe where you can't ever really get to that. Instead, science is a tool which helps us approach certainty. As I said, you can't ever be sure that gravity exists, but you can be sure enough that to act as though it doesn't is ridiculous. In the same why, there's not way to ever be sure that god does or does not exist, but with enough evidence we could be sure enough. As it stands, I'm unaware of any evidence (no cakes, even!) which shows that God does exist. Thus, there's no good reason to proceed with the God theory as fair as I can see. Much like other branches of science, crank theories will continue, but that's okay. You never know, the Earth might really be flat, or God might really exist. It's just that as of now there's not enough evidence for either for it to be reasonable to proceed as if these things are true. But I do remain open to evidence for either!

But it does constitute Prima Facie evidence.

I don't think it does, to be honest. All it shows, at an empirical level, is that lots of people believe in God, and have done so for ages. That's... not really evidence for anything outside of human behavioral tendencies.

[Incitatus]

Isn’t everyone an atheist? To the best of my knowledge both Christians and Muslims are atheists about the gods of Hinduism, the Norse religions (which exist today in a reconstructed form), etc. Perhaps there are some henotheists or monolatrists reading who could correct this impression though, as far as I know, these beliefs were common only during the early stages of monotheism. Personally I’m unaware of a convincing argument for any kind of theism, but what’s especially intriguing is the dismissive stance monotheists take towards polytheistic beliefs. It betokens a kind of cultural superiority, as if somehow the “god” of the former is the only thing that’s “real” or warrants consideration. It’s also interesting the way this unexamined assumption shines through the more abstruse theistic arguments on this thread. And as Mercurial has pointed out of the latter, the “god” so described bears little relation to the one worshipped in any of the major religions – largely, one suspects, because something that exists only as a clever linguistic construct will be incapable of exerting any degree of control over people’s lives.

Jesus and Mo

[nozzferrahhtoo]

What evidence is acceptable to you? For example take the many reported visions; how are they to be transcribed into evidence that will satisfy your definition of what constitutes evidence?

Anything that fits into the three step process I described. I am perfectly willing to consider anything you put before me.

I can however tell you what is NOT acceptable evidence to me. Unverifiable anecdote would be one, which your "reported visions" are.

You ask how to make them evidence? Well finding a tool by which we can distinguish between anecdote would be a massive first step. For example if I accept the "reported visions" of people who claim to have been visited by god, on what intellectually honest grounds can I reject the reports of people who say they have seen a still living elvis or have been themselves abducted by aliens?

It is not JUST the "reported visions" that is the problem therefore, but the fact that we have no tool to distinguish between all the different anecdotal claims people present us. Accepting the reported visions of Christ and rejecting those of alien abductees is just an exercise in confirmation bias by the believer.

If you wish to present a procedural construct for dealing with this issue, I am all ears.

[nozzferrahhtoo]

I spent time with Athiests found them just as Arrogant as the Religious.

It would be a miracle if they were not. What you have found is simply evidence for something we already know: People are generally arrogant. So if you take any group of people, atheists, theists, blacks, footballers, musicians, politicians, whatever... you are likely to find arrogance in there.

The trick is to get past it. Build a bridge and get over it. Train yourself to consider WHAT people are saying not WHO is saying it or WHICH tone of voice they are saying it in. Things do not become more or less correct because of the tone of arrogance or humility the thing is said in.

It is not an easy thing to train oneself to do... given arrogance is so emotionally offensive to us... but it is certainly something worth putting the effort into training for.

[Cato]

It would be a miracle if they were not. What you have found is simply evidence for something we already know: People are generally arrogant. So if you take any group of people, atheists, theists, blacks, footballers, musicians, politicians, whatever... you are likely to find arrogance in there.

The trick is to get past it. Build a bridge and get over it. Train yourself to consider WHAT people are saying not WHO is saying it or WHICH tone of voice they are saying it in. Things do not become more or less correct because of the tone of arrogance or humility the thing is said in.

It is not an easy thing to train oneself to do... given arrogance is so emotionally offensive to us... but it is certainly something worth putting the effort into training for.

Wise advice.

Happy mid-winter to you Nozz.