Hawking Picks Physics Over God For Big Bang 1328
Hugh Pickens writes "The Guardian reports that in his new book, The Grand Design, Professor Stephen Hawking argues that the Big Bang, rather than occurring following the intervention of a divine being, was inevitable due to the law of gravity. 'Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,' Hawking writes. 'It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.' Hawking had previously appeared to accept the role of God in the creation of the universe. Writing in his bestseller A Brief History Of Time in 1988, Hawking wrote: 'If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we should know the mind of God.'"
Annnd... brain goes splat. (Score:4, Funny)
This is why I never did well in the higher math classes in college.
So... I thought gravity required there be something with mass in order to create gravity. Doesn't that mean in order for there to be a law of gravity you need stuff with mass attracting each other? Which requires something, not nothing, so --
Damn. There it goes again, brain matter all over the wall. Excuse me while I get a spatula.
Re:Annnd... brain goes splat. (Score:5, Informative)
I'm no physicist (far from it) but the reason you have trouble is that you're still thinking in 1800's physics lessons.
Gravity probably has a lot less to do with mass than you might think. Gravity is basically a "curvature" in space-time - a dent in a rubber sheet for an everyday analogy. It can be caused by the presence of mass, and it can affect mass because it makes the "shortest path" to something shorter (imagine denting a rubber sheet with two marbles close to each other - one will "roll down" the other's "gravity" slope).
Gravitational lensing is the most prominent evidence for this - we can actually see things that are hiding behind huge space objects (e.g. galaxies, stars close to us, etc.) because the huge object "bends" space around it, so the light gets distorted like it's been through a curved lense - to the light the travel was perfectly straight, but the space it was in "curved" as it went past the massive object. Thus, we are sometimes able to see parts of space that would technically be impossible to see otherwise - we are literally looking "around and behind" large galaxies / stars.
Then go back several billion years to a time when the universe was nanoseconds old, and its entire mass and energy (and, confusing as it is, space) was crushed into something smaller than the head of a pin. The laws of physics get really "weird" to our eyes at that point and lots of strange stuff happens. The single best source of information for us to explain what happens at that point is probably Prof. Hawking, a modern-day Einstein in this exact field. Given that there are probably a million and one errors in even my simple explanation, and he has a good reputation, I'd say he probably thinks he's correct and there are very, very few people in the world who can actually argue by having a complete understanding of the same facts but a different opinion.
Re:Annnd... brain goes splat. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm in the strange position of having reached the realization that essentially, unless I'm willing to devote about 20 years of my life studying the matter on my own I'm going to have to decide to accept it by faith and not by reason. Oh irony, you are so delicious.
Re:Annnd... brain goes splat. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
but the 'faith' to trust an authority is different than 'faith' that really has never had an actual authority.
the big difference is that scientists can show an audit trail of their thinking; and if its BS, they get called on it.
anyone can stand up, declare a religion and its essentially untouchable. you can't be argued with since most of mankind of brainwashed to think that you have to 'respect religion' (as a valid institution).
the two worlds could not be farther apart and the 'faith' that you talk about
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, when the universe is several nanoseconds old, we're past talking about "creation", aren't we? By several nanoseconds, at least.
Ultimately, the other side of the singularity that is the Big Bang is unknowable. We can speculation all we like, and pretty much all the speculations are equally va
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Of course, when the universe is several nanoseconds old, we're past talking about "creation", aren't we? By several nanoseconds, at least."
Assuming a single-universe, in only the four human-visible dimensions, that came from "nothing" rather than, say, a constantly expanding and contracting universe, or one created via intra-dimensional interactions that are invisible to us in "our" universe, or... etc.etc.etc. Simply saying "this universe looks to be several billion years old" does not negate the possibi
Re:Annnd... brain goes splat. (Score:5, Funny)
Time and space are pretty much the same thing to a theoretical physicist, remember.
I finally figured that part out about 40 feet ago.
Re:Annnd... brain goes splat. (Score:4, Funny)
The movie will star Samuel L. Jackson as gravity who will quote a passage from the Old Testament before he makes my brain go splat.
God = gravity, Gravity = God (Score:5, Funny)
Re:God = gravity, Gravity = God (Score:5, Funny)
and binds us and flows through us, binds the whole galaxy together
well duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
You could have just said "Hawking Picks Rational Thinking Over Superstition"
.
Re:well duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
In the grand Slashdot tradition, I have not read the article. However, it seems one might also write a headline which says, "Hawking fuels false dichotomy".
Re:well duh. (Score:5, Funny)
But Spartacus died on the cross for me! Does that mean I should foment slave revolts?
The true believer (Score:5, Insightful)
A true believer will just argue that God designed gravity that way for that very reason.
Personally, I think scientists should stay completely out of the religious sphere. They're not going to change anyone's mind, science and religion mix very badly, and commenting on theological issues only increases the perception among many religious types that science is their enemy/competitor.
Re:The true believer (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I think scientists should stay completely out of the religious sphere. They're not going to change anyone's mind, science and religion mix very badly
True enough, but the religious folks think it's OK to warp science to fit into their primitive belief systems.
Just look at the Creationist nonsense going on in US schools. This is 2010?!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
True enough, but the religious folks think it's OK to warp science to fit into their primitive belief systems.
Just look at the Creationist nonsense going on in US schools. This is 2010?!
Also true. But that seems to be mostly a US thing. Along with televangelists. Most major Christian religions actually accept science and really don't interpret Genesis literally. So evolution is not that big an issue.
Stephen Jay Gould had it right with the Noma Principle.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
True, but I simply don't believe science has any reason to even consider, let alone mention "God" in any fashion. You can't waste time disproving something that no one can prove. The onus here is on those who believe. Basically, science need not worry itself with theological ideas. Just keep learning new facts, coming up with new theories and keep teaching them to the best of your ability.
If somehow, one day, the paths do truly cross, still don't mention religion. Just put the information out there and
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't saying that you've disproved something that can't be detected or tested by the very definitions of the people you're debating warping science?
Invoking a being outside the physical laws violates Occam's Razor. Dismissing philosophically something that can't be disproved using the scientific method violates the falsifiability principle.
If something isn't falsifiable, stating that it is true or false is simply, unscientific. To say that there is a god or isn't a god is unscientific. To say you can't be s
Re:The true believer (Score:4, Interesting)
It certainly is. But unfortunately the science/religion "debate" is an American disease which has unfortunately infected discourse in most other anglophone countries. This kind of tripe coming from Stephen Hawkings himself is a symptom of just how chronic the infection has become.
Call me nostalgic, but I seem to recall that in the 1990's, anyone talking about the place of God or Religion in the sciences or indeed politics was viewed as an outlandish crackpot or a cultist of some kind. People seemed to leave their religion at home (I'm talking about countries outside the US). Nowadays, everyone seems to have no shame dropping out juvenile level inanity about creationism or belief in the divine at the drop of a hat.
In my opinion, all this jawing about religion in virtually any context is a waste of air, and worse has a divisive, and poisonous effect on our society. We're going downhill ever since we caught this bug from US newsfeeds--as well as the internet--and its only going to get worse until we stop allowing backward opinions from conservative America to pollute our airwaves.
Garbage like this is why I find myself turning to sources like Russia Today, Al-Jazzeera and China Daily for news. At least the totalitarian regimes don't cater to this pre-Enlightenment prattle. We may as well start reading horoscopes and celebrity gossip than give credence to this crud.
Re:The true believer (Score:5, Insightful)
God, god, god.... (Score:4, Insightful)
No theist theory holds. It's all there to explain what we can't understand. And when we get to understand, we say "well, you know, God may have played a role anyway"...
But try to convince 90% of the human race that what I say is true. I may have a hard time.
Re:God, god, god.... (Score:5, Insightful)
When I have an empirical proof that god exists, I will believe.
Ironically, if you get empirical proof that God exists you will not be required to believe... Herein lies the problem.
Re:God, god, god.... (Score:4, Informative)
> Tell me what pi is.
The ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter.
> Obviously if you try to do that, you'll never finish. It's infinite
No, its crude representation using one of our standard numbering systems is infinite. In my "base pi" numeric system, it's exactly represented as "10".
Who's on first? (Score:5, Interesting)
"If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we should know the mind of God."
I always thought it was a metaphor, as in to "know the mind of God" as he puts it means we'd finally understand everything about the universe, not that we'd know what a literal God is thinking.
Either some people took Mr. Hawking's statement too literally, or I misunderstood...
Re:Who's on first? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who's on first? (Score:4, Interesting)
I always thought it was a metaphor
If course it was, this is just a clarification to stop religious extremists from being able to pretend that he supports their god. What I find really interesting in the article is that he supports M-theory. It may be old news, but I wasn't aware of it.
He may be breaking the law (Score:5, Funny)
He may be breaking the laws of physics, in Louisiana
Here be dragons (Score:5, Interesting)
Until we can point an exact and computable equation for the entire past, present and future of existence, there will always be unexplored parts of the map. You can fill that void with any assumption you want - from dragons to flying spaghetti monsters, a big fat zero to $God. If you assume that this placeholder is omnipotent and mysterious, that removes all the messy frustration about why it's hiding out in the ignorance section.
Where you run into problems is that these seemingly harmless placeholders become memes. As you add lore around your placeholder of choice, there is competition between memes. Some survive. Some die. Some mutate. Evolution now kicks in. The placeholders become resistant to being replaced with other placeholders. As people start filling in the map, knowledge itself becomes a threat to the meme and it begins to complete for mindspace in which to live.
Now this harmless placeholder is, for all practical purposes, a real living thing scratching at your mind from the void beyond knowledge like some quantum virtual particle leaping out of a black hole.
I didn't think I'd see the day... (Score:3, Insightful)
no choice was made by hawking (Score:5, Insightful)
god IS the laws of physics
god is a metaphor, that some people need to take literally, because not everyone has the mind of stephen hawking, but they still need to understand the world, so mental shortcuts have to do
the whole hullabaloo over the existence of god is really silly, as soon as you realize that everyone has a different way of describing the same thing
Atheism is always a Win Win Ethically (Score:5, Insightful)
Being a moral atheist is a total win win, compared to being a mere Theist.
Version 1:
Dead Atheist: Oh!, um hi God..., didn't think you existed, oops!
Deity: No problem, it's not like I left any useful clues... Welcome to my heaven.
Dead Atheist: Nice... How come I qualify?
Deity: Because you were a moral and ethical being, because you lived by a code of ethics; you understood that love was the right thing to do even in a universe that you had good reason to believe was completely and utterly godless. You were moral because you chose to be, not because you "believed" in some silly magic book; or were too scared, or weak minded, to think for yourself.
You chose to do the right thing, even when you did not have to; you lived by a moral and honorable code, not by some mythical manifesto of terrorism and fear...
Dead Atheist: So what happens to all the myriad god followers, "believers", the Theists, martyrs, crusaders, suicide bombers, terrorists, etc?
Deity: Tricky one that! They are not really worth anything much, because they never thought for themselves ethically speaking... What do you suggest?
Anyway, no hurry, they can wait outside indefinitely while you decide what to do with them. Welcome to heaven!, go pick yourself out some virgins...
Etc...
Version 2:
Dead Atheist: Hello, Anyone There...! (nothing, nada, zip, zilch, silence, nope...)
Dead Atheist: Thought So! (vanishes in a sudden total existence failure)
So........
Looks like a Win Win to me!
Re:But what created the law of gravity? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But what created the law of gravity? (Score:5, Funny)
It's turtles all the way down!
Re:But what created the law of gravity? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
depends on whether it's Friday night or not
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's turtles all the way down!
Someone, it appears, actually read "A Brief History of Time."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or any of the other tens of accounts of the story which came first. Or other popularizations of it. Or Pratchett.
Re:But what created the law of gravity? (Score:5, Funny)
Hubris (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, that's why trying to prove certain things may not be possible. Saying they are likely to be XYZ based on certain evidence is wiser, but insisting that you are even close to 100% sure is being silly. If it turns out we really are in something similar to a universe simulator/virtual machine there's no guarantee we can prove anything about stuff outside.
For example, say I create a universe simulator, set up a universe, make copies and mess about with some copies. Pause one, edit and restart it.
How old would that universe be? From the "inside" it might be billions of years or more. From outside it might have just started a moment ago.
From inside that universe, based on the rules, there could be no evidence or need for a creator. From the outside there could be one or many creators involved in designing it, etc. Or the concept of "one" vs "many" doesn't really translate that well.
Yes it could turn out that isn't a creator at all, and it just so happens it's like that. But it could even turn out to be stranger - because the rules outside aren't necessarily the same as the rules inside, heck thinking they must be takes an immense leap of faith in my opinion.
Looking at the evidence, I think the universe isn't quite so simple as many think (even the very smart ones). As such, I personally believe there is a God and he has a strange sense of humour. I may be wrong, but how can a intelligent, rational and knowledgeable mere human being can be so sure he/she is right about the universe?
It's certainly not a simple 3 body newtonian universe we're in. And thank God the graphics are better than Civ2
Re:But what created the law of gravity? (Score:5, Interesting)
Humans evolve. Humans create self replicating robots. Humans go away. Some robots say they were built. Other robots rebut 'But who built the builders?' No one, they were not built.
Or to put it another way, what if a self-aware cartoon character asks 'Who drew the drawers?' No one, they were not drawn.
Point is, what applies for one level doesn't necessarily apply for the one above it.
Re:But what created the law of gravity? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well that's the whole point.
"Who created the creator?" comes as a retort to religious people saying "Something can't come out of nothing" and then saying that it must have been created by a god since for some reason god is exempt from this rule but any other explanation wouldn't be.
Re:But what created the law of gravity? (Score:4, Funny)
Himself. He's a recursive God. He created time, traveled back in time, and then created himself. So there! No need for stinkin' turtles.
Re:But what created the law of gravity? (Score:4, Interesting)
Well then why can't something else be outside time and have the same results?
Or would you also call that god?
Or does being outside time somehow necessitate agency and if so why?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Atheist or not, SOMETHING had to have always existed. Otherwise it's turtles all the way down.
I saw a Mormon laughing at a Christian for believing that God always existed. He said that their belief of a God pyramid going back forever made more sense.
Scientifically, philosophically and theologically "the beginning" is just something we can't figure out. Perhaps our brains are too small.
Moses (Score:3, Insightful)
"Well who created the all-mighty then?" That was an easy question. Moses created "the almight" about 1000 BC. He invented the single god, aka "all-mighty", inspired by the single god of a pharao a few centuries earlier (who btw was Nefertitis husband). Before that the hebrews were polytheistic like most other in Egypt. The big question is how Pharaoh had receieved the idea of a single god. Possibly he in turn was inspired by the zoroastrians, a monotheistic religion which had been created several centuries
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll go ahead and cite Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash as my source for saying that religion is nothing more than a social/mental virus.
Sure it's fiction, but I'd wager it is just as good as any sources you can dig up to the contrary.
(oh, and for your information: there are a shitton of peer-reviewed papers and books about the origins of different religions. Go to any local university and ask a librarian for some help finding some.)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This is a interesting question I have thought of quite often and I believe I have a reasonable answer.
"Time" is a by product of creation of our universe.
Keeping this in mind, there is no "need" for anyone creating god. Without universe there is no time (or at the very least time as we perceive), yet there is god (for those who believe in god, and I do). Question of creation only arises when asked in reference to "time".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:But what created the law of gravity? (Score:4, Interesting)
The law of gravity is physical in the sense of a force acting upon matter and energy. Part of the big bang theories out there in fact postulates that the strong, weak nuclear forces, gravity, electromagnetic, etc were all bound together maintaining the inital singularity (if that term is even accurate) then one or more of them broke off that unified force and subsequently set the big-bang off. If that was the case then we have a whole new layer of physics to contend with, the fact that forces themselves have the potential to break down or decay. In simple terms: The very laws of physics may change over time. (Heavy isn't it?) So gravity itself (as a force) could at some point break down into some additional, more basic forces, convert to a particle based force, who the hell knows! For all of human history we've never really looked at the concept that reality itself (And that laws that form it) may be subject to change themselves over time.
But, tangent aside, as a physical "thingiee"... sure but nor more or less physical as "pressure", "heat", or to a lesser extent entropy.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:But what created the law of gravity? (Score:5, Insightful)
I sincerely hope that was a sardonic statement. If that's the condition of people in general today, we're going to have a sticky few decades ahead of us.
I don't think there's anything unreasonable about what he said. If you're having an argument or discussion with someone and you believe a book that you read would convince them that you're correct, the least you can do is give them the gist of what the book is about and why you think it's relevant. If they want to know more or are interested, then they can read the book -- but it's kind of asinine to say, "Oh, just read book X and you'll realize there has to be a God."
If you disagree with me, go ahead and read Don Quixote (again, if necessary) and you'll see I'm right.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed. This is a version of what I call the Proof from Theological Proliferation, which, baldly stated, goes something like: "There are lots of books of theology, and you haven't read them all. Therefore, God." Or, "The proof is left as an exercise for the reader."
If there is a killer argument in the book, he should tell us what it is, rather than just brush off questions with a hand wave.
Re:But what created the law of gravity? (Score:5, Insightful)
And how do you know he hasn't? There are some pretty subtle arguments for the existence of God, such as Plantinga's version of the ontological argument using modal logic. I don't accept it, but the problem isn't a lack of understanding of science or critical thinking. (For what it's worth, I don't accept the argument because I don't believe the version of modal logic he uses correctly describes the universe, but that's a metaphysical position -- there's no possible observation that could decide between the modal logics I accept, in which the existence of God appears not to be provable, and the one Plantinga uses in which the existence of God appears to be provable).
If you think that because some religious people have stupid reasons for being religious they must all have stupid reasons for being religious then perhaps you should spend a few minutes with a critical thinking primer too.
Re:But what created the law of gravity? (Score:5, Insightful)
The ontological proof is the weakest one of the six common proofs.
Pretty much all of these boil down to "I really, really, really, want there to be a god".
And the rebuttals:
Re:But what created the law of gravity? (Score:5, Insightful)
Their argument is that it's just so obvious that there's a god, or gods and you have to take their non-existence on faith alone; you can't prove they don't exist, so therefore it must be more likely that they do. It's basically the Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction argument; we can't find any evidence of their existence, so they must be really well hidden.
The problem with that argument being that it's not that "I believe that there isn't a god or gods", but "I don't believe that there is a god or gods".
Re: If they are wrong (Score:5, Funny)
Pascal sent a letter. He wants his Wager back.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:But what created the law of gravity? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:But what created the law of gravity? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But what created the law of gravity? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No doubt. I don't think Zeus will think much of their blasphemy.
Re:But what created the law of gravity? (Score:5, Funny)
Indeed, I live my life by the motto "What would Zeus Do?"
Pretty much anything he wants, it turns out.
Re: (Score:3)
Serious questions:
Were you raised Christian?
If so, doesn't it at all make you second guess yourself to think that the religion you think is most plausible just happens to be one your parents indoctrinated you into?
Bonus question:
Do you suppose a random ancient Greek person felt any differently about the surety of their faith? After all, their gods were involved in the fall of Troy -- that's just a matter of history.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:But what created the law of gravity? (Score:5, Insightful)
I was raised in a non-religious household. [..] So it's quite common for people to believe in Christianity through being convinced of its claims, not only because of an accident of upbringing.
I bet you were raised in a nation with a large Christian following, though. Just how many people will become Christian growing up in a Muslim country? How many Christians were there in every other culture before Christianity arose? Every culture, when separated from others, came up with their own religions. Does it sound like God really wanted one true message to be heard, and that it is Christianity? Or perhaps people were just making shit up.
Re:But what created the law of gravity? (Score:5, Insightful)
They live their whole lives doing what they want, and rejecting the concept that there could be anyone or anything greater than themselves.
Alternately: Everyone does what they want. Some people choose to rationalize their choices based on a fairy tale.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:But what created the law of gravity? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure it does. Atheists stake their eternal future on the presumption that God does not exist. They live their whole lives doing what they want...
False. That atheists have no "moral code" simply because the reject some arbitrary collection of do's and don'ts is a common but incorrect assumption. Sure, there are plenty of amoral atheists, but then again, there are plenty of outright scoundrels who will bleat long and loud about their "Christian values". On the other hand, some of the most "moral" people I know are atheists. They take full responsibility for their actions (no "salvation" just for uttering some magic words) and weigh those actions against a thoughtful and continuously evaluated personal code. In other words, they choose to do the "right" thing because it is right, not because someone else said it was right and threatened them with torture if they disobeyed.
If they are wrong, and there turns out to be a judgement day they will spend eternity burning in hell..
You do know that not every religion has the Judeo-Christian concepts of heaven, hell, and "judgement", don't you?
Re:But what created the law of gravity? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:But what created the law of gravity? (Score:5, Insightful)
Atheists stake their eternal future on the presumption that God does not exist. They live their whole lives doing what they want, and rejecting the concept that there could be anyone or anything greater than themselves. If they are wrong, and there turns out to be a judgement day they will spend eternity burning in hell. That takes a great deal of faith (or ignorance take your pick).
And many theists assume that, even if there is a God, that it's important to him that you believe in him during this life. (Why would that be so important to God anyway?!)
And many theists assume that, if you don't believe in God before you die, that God will be so upset that he'll send you to hell for eternity. (Why do so many theists think God is a psychopath?)
And even if you do believe in God, what are the chances you've chosen the right one to believe in?
Christianity? What if the Muslims are right?
Islam? What if the Jews are right?
Judaism? What if the Hindus are right?
Hinduism? What if the Buddhists are right?
What if all the major religions are wrong?
And on and on it goes...
It seems overwhelmingly self evident to me that people inherit their religious beliefs from their parents and the society around them. They don't wait until they're adults, capable of making these kinds of Big Decisions with a rational mind. They don't research all the alternatives and make an informed decision. They're basically brainwashed from birth.
If God really is a psychopath; i.e., if God really is going to send you to hell for eternity because you didn't believe or did believe, but believed in the wrong God, then the vast, vast majority of humanity is screwed, and is going to hell, because even if you do believe in the right God, chances are your faith and adherence to your religion is watered down enough to piss him off to send you to hell anyway...
I would argue that to have true faith and confidence in God would mean having faith and confidence that he's competent and his plan doesn't suck so much that the vast majority of human souls will spend eternity in hell. You should have faith that God is not a complete psychopath just waiting to make the vast majority of his creation suffer torment for all eternity.
And, please: if you're religious, and disagree, or are even offended, please don't mod me down; instead provide some rational counterarguments to what I've said.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
you made me think, if you assume the christian god is the correct one (i dont, atheist and such), then believing in any particular version of christianity might even be more dangerous then being a muslim. If the christian god exists, and for instance, catholicism is the correct interpretation, then a protestant (reformed, whatever), person, will not only have not heeded the right set of rules of the god he believes in, he will have done things in his gods name, which go directly against gods will (which, fo
Re:But what created the law of gravity? (Score:5, Insightful)
If God really is a psychopath; i.e., if God really is going to send you to hell for eternity because you didn't believe or did believe
It's worse than that. Can you think of anything done on earth that deserves eternal, and infinite punishment? Think about it. Hitler was obviously a horrible person and his actions led to millions of deaths, but sending Hitler to hell would condemning him to the most painful experience imaginable (according to some theists) for trillions upon trillions of years.
And then throw in that at one time or another, various religions have stated that you deserve this punishment for everything from murder to premarital sex, from worshiping the wrong god to saying the 'name' of god, from having homosexual sex to simple gluttony. In my opinion, anyone that believes in a god that would punish someone in any way for all eternity believes in a god that is a sociopathic asshole.
Re:But what created the law of gravity? (Score:5, Insightful)
As other people have pointed out, that's Pascal's Wager.
However, if you actually think about it, the logic used in Pascal's Wager inevitably leads to the idea that you have to kill as many children as you can.
Consider:
And hey, if you do that, you'll become a martyr! Just imagine all the children you'll usher into heaven, even if you're going to hell.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:But what created the law of gravity? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And also thinking that, shit, give someone a few million years to mull it over and maybe, assuming the Buddhists are right, the Christians might be able to say "well holy shit, I don't think this here Jesus guy is working for us, what with all the constantly being reborn and suffering and all." That might be optimistic.
Re:But what created the law of gravity? (Score:4, Insightful)
i am not sure about buddhism, but hinduism also knows the concept of starting over again on a lower step (like going from human to a dog) if you screw up a life, so if in this life you are a christian, and as such do wrong things, you will simply end up as a lower lifeform, and if you do that right, you go up a step, without having to be the same christian guy again.
Being a christian in a hindu reality merely means having to back a few steps on your path to enlightenment, it doesnt mean being stuck in an endless loop of being wrong, so in that respect a hindu reality is more friendly to christians then a christian reality to hindus
Re:But what created the law of gravity? (Score:4, Interesting)
There's far more religious people in prison than Atheists [holysmoke.org].
Also far less crime in countries with high rates of Atheism [nairaland.com].
And murder rates seem directly correlated with Christian belief [cybercollege.com], not inversely as you might expect.
Christians are also much more likely to divorce than Atheists [religioustolerance.org]
So on the whole ... if there is a heaven, and entrance is based on good behavior and actions, there's probably going to be more atheists there then Christians.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:But what created the law of gravity? (Score:5, Insightful)
Still room for the old logical fallacy there. If God created gravity, then who created God? Most theists then state that God was always there, but then it's easier to simply say that gravity was always there.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Still room for the old logical fallacy there. If God created gravity, then who created God? Most theists then state that God was always there, but then it's easier to simply say that gravity was always there.
It's easier to ignore the whole debate and watch TV. This doesn't mean that's the correct decision.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why's this a troll? Occam's razor is not law around here.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Like many things in this subject it comes down to definitions. Theism is pretty consistent, in that most people accept it as being belief that a deity exists and is somehow active in this world or the supposed next. Atheism could have two basic meanings - depending on who you're talking to.
1) Denial that god(s) exist
This is rarely expressed as absolute certainty, and is a position I personally consider indefensible and problematic in that it shifts the burden of evidence. Also, no-one can say for definite t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
With the proper application of apathy, you don't even need to do that much. In fact, I think I'll go fry myself up a delicious bacon/egg and cheese sandwich right now instead of pondering a damn thing. Who gives a shit? I'm not a physicist, biologist, theologian, or policy maker, why should I waste my time on any of this?
Oh right, because it's fun to argue on the internet... oh well :)
Re: (Score:3)
Still room for the old logical fallacy there. If God created gravity, then who created God? Most theists then state that God was always there, but then it's easier to simply say that gravity was always there.
Cut out the middle man!
Or, don't multiply entities needlessly.
Creationists claim that everything needs a cause, including the universe, then posit a god as the necessary cause and immediately proclaim that that god is immune to the "everything needs a cause" claim.
Also, "God" has no explanatory value. He can do anything, and what he decides to do is completely unpredictable. If a scientist predicted a particle or force that can do anything and is utterly unpredictable, he'd be either ignored or laughed at
Re:But what created the law of gravity? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because "God did it" adds nothing to our understanding and adds an extra, seemingly unnecessary link in the chain of reasoning. It's a platitude, not an explanation. On top of that, "God did it" has never, in the entire history of mankind, been the correct answer where such answers became knowable:
Why does the sun move across the sky? God did it... no wait, the earth is rotating so it only seems the sun moves across the sky. Why do people get sick? God did it... no wait, it turns out there are things called germs and pathogens that affect our bodies and make us sick. Where does thunder and lightning come from? How is wine formed from grape juice? What causes the seasons to change? There used to be a "God did it" explanation for all of these.
So why should we accept "God did it" as the reason the universe exists?
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As a (unfortunately non-car) analogy, think about the question "why did my wife smile when she looked at me just now?". The answer "she loves me" wouldn't be appropriate in a journal article in a scientific journal about correlating human brain activity with human actions, but it might very well be an appropriate answer in other contexts.
Are you arguing that "God" like "love" is an entirely subjective phenomenon that occurs only in the human brain? As an atheist, I'd tend to agree with that.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Actually, it's exactly the same thing to say that gravity was always there."
No.
"I've never understood why hardcore atheists believe that scientific explanations preclude God as a valid concept."
Definition of 'God' usually requires it to be conscious. And a lot of religions believe in personal God. These concepts do not bring in anything new or worthwhile.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've never understood why hardcore atheists believe that scientific explanations preclude God as a valid concept.
Strictly speaking it doesn't. You just don't need God as an explanation when you have real explanations. And for those things you still can't explain, invoking God doesn't help anyway - an unknowable power with unlimited capability and inscrutable will is compatible with any and every observation you make, and therefore has no explanatory value.
Also, people who cling to belief in God tend to cling also to myths that are demonstrably *not* valid concepts, so God tends to get thrown out with the garbage he's
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
With that logic you'd have to believe in absolutely everything. Ghosts, Vampires, Aliens, FSM, Unicorns, goblins, drangons, orcs, elves (short and tall), Fraggles, Transformers, ninja turtles, Voltron, Zerg, absolutely anything that anyone could dream of.
For some reason this makes me imagine a person in deadly peril shouting, "Save me, hydralisk!"
Re:But what created the law of gravity? (Score:5, Insightful)
Listen, you don't just randomly use "whom" as a sort of intelligent version of "who", you pretentious jackass.
Re:But what created the law of gravity? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do so many atheists feel the need to be smug assholes? What the fuck does it matter to you if he believes in 'an invisible sky wizard'? Why can't you just let people believe what they will, why must you impose your beliefs on other people?
It has nothing to do with me being an atheist, I'm just an asshole.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Atheist Communists started plenty of fights over religion.
Derp? That wasn't the question. the question was "When was the last time a war was started because of atheist beliefs? Here's a hint: Never. Wars are fought over "you have resource X and we want it", or "our god doesn't like your god, and he told us to kill you". You're not going to find atheists starting wars over their lack of god anywhere outside of Southpark reruns.
The fact that atheism is relatively new doesn't change the fact that it's just another religion.
Sorry, wrong again. Atheism pre-dates your religion - people didn't believe in god(s) long before they made up yours. And it's not a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I was actually under the impression that the law of gravity, like time ans presumably other laws of physics, were inextricably part of this universe, which would mean they came into being at the time of the Big Bang. Does Hawking now say that's not true? Or have I always been wrong in my understanding?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I am extremely dubious about our ability to even speculate about something so far removed from human experience as the birth of universes. That applies to physicists and theologians, though it seems to me that
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Stating that a supernatural being outside the physical limitations of the universe and of time either does or does not exist based on the physical limitations of the universe and of time and of our still quite limited ability to measure and explain those limitations is poor physics.
I mean, whose definition of God, gods, demigods, angels, demons, spirits, souls, or whatever do we even use to start looking? How do we test?
Some philosophy is from different branches of philosophy than science. You don't discuss
Re:Other physical laws anybody? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is this really Hawking speaking? Has he finally lost his mind?
Yes. It's not that this is a single quote taken out of context from an entire book. He surely never mentions Conservation of Energy or entropy in this book. The statement is obviously not the conclusion of a lengthy argument, but rather the entirety of the argument and conclusion contained together in one sentence. Ergo your observations are undeniably correct and Hawking has no idea what he's talking about.