Stephen Hawking Picks Physics Over God for Big Bang
Published September 02, 2010
SkyNews (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/02/stephen-hawking-picks-physics-god-big-bang/)
Physics was the reason for the Big Bang, not God, according to scientist Stephen Hawking.
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," the professor said in his new book, in a challenge to traditional religious beliefs.
"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going," he wrote in his book "The Grand Design," extracts of which are printed in London newspaper The Times.
The book, co-written by American physicist Leonard Mlodinow and published next week, sets out to contest Sir Isaac Newton's belief that the universe must have been designed by God as it could not have created out of chaos.
Big whoop, what else would you expect him to say?
Hawking VS (Newton + God) seems like two evenly matched teams in the play offs to me. Seems like God has been on a losing streak recently, what with a bunch of the fans he's picked up.
I hate to say it but even as someone who holds a degree in physics myself I think there is circular logic involved here. The question any religious person worth their salt has to ask is,"well who organised the laws of physics so that they had to be that way?" and immediately we are back to case unproven. Oddly it is exactly the same sort blindness to the circularity of their own flawed logic which afflicts those who believe in creationism too.
I personally believe neither of these extreme positions is correct, but I know that position is only belief and cannot be proved. For someone of Hawking's stature to claim otherwise is curious. Godel's theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems) tells you why such debate is ultimately futile.
Thank you Jenny,
I've had a really hard day at work having to use the ever declining little grey cells and then you throw Godel at me.
Time for a drink. Now do I want a drink because I'm thirsty? Or gravity requires alcohol to seek entropy in a liver? Or God wants me to? Or Hawking's can't so he wants me to? Or it's Friday night?
Hmm how to prove it? I think I'll have a drink and think about it ::)
Cindy
I made a (deliberately) simplified table to express my opinion.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2FPW85w.png&hash=a1bab78c81f06c467b322b80bf394b48ba9b99d9)
I haven't read the book, so unless he actually has some hard evidence then I'll stick with my table. :P
At the risk of sounding a little conspiritorial here, I sometimes wonder just how much of what we are told Hawking has said, is true.
By my reading, his latest pronoincement is that, whereas previously, he claimed that the complexities of the origin were such that it needed to mind of God, now he thinks it can all be explained by gravity.
That is a rather different proposition from saying there is no God.
Quote from: spacial on September 03, 2010, 05:09:37 AM
At the risk of sounding a little conspiritorial here, I sometimes wonder just how much of what we are told Hawking has said, is true.
By my reading, his latest pronoincement is that, whereas previously, he claimed that the complexities of the origin were such that it needed to mind of God, now he thinks it can all be explained by gravity.
That is a rather different proposition from saying there is no God.
I will only raise this as wild fantasy.
Hawkins is not capable to respond to questions quickly. His publishers are aware of this.
Hawkins takes on God when neither can respond. Well God can if God wishes; hasn't so far, as far as I have seen the reviews.
Me thinks I smell advertising.
A book about the beginning of the Universe, we will of course all buy it ::) ::) One denying god.; instant sale to the christian taliban.
And as Jenny pointed out you cannot prove god or absence of god, as you cannot really prove "anything" in Godal's logic. If one and one equals two, are the two ones comprised of the same matter? In which case one and one may not equal two,
Going to bed
Brain Strain.
Cindy
Quote from: spacial on September 03, 2010, 05:09:37 AM
At the risk of sounding a little conspiritorial here, I sometimes wonder just how much of what we are told Hawking has said, is true.
By my reading, his latest pronoincement is that, whereas previously, he claimed that the complexities of the origin were such that it needed to mind of God, now he thinks it can all be explained by gravity.
That is a rather different proposition from saying there is no God.
He was using god like einstien did as a metaphor.
Quote from: Muffin on September 03, 2010, 04:33:46 AM
I made a (deliberately) simplified table to express my opinion.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2FPW85w.png&hash=a1bab78c81f06c467b322b80bf394b48ba9b99d9)
I haven't read the book, so unless he actually has some hard evidence then I'll stick with my table. :P
You lack an understanding of atheism.
Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s) it is
not the belief that there are no gods.
Most atheists are agnostic atheists, they lack a belief in god but wont say that there is no god just that they don't believe in a god. I believe that gnostic atheists are just as silly as the theists.
Quote from: spacial on September 03, 2010, 05:09:37 AM
That is a rather different proposition from saying there is no God.
I think he may of selected his words carefully as I think he meant there is no link between the "big bang" (or whatever he calls it I can't be bothered scrolling up.. you know what I mean) and god. I don't think he was denying the existence of a god etc. But I could be mistaken.
When I saw that three part doco on the universe he did earlier this year I thought "wait this is so radically ridiculous, I thought he was meant to be a genius?". It was also dumbed down but I can understand that much, but still I'll take him with a grain of salt. :P
Quote from: Nathan
You lack an understanding of atheism.
Perhaps.. but no more than my lack of understanding of theism.. anyone can twist stuff to try and justify themselves. I mean I've met atheists that stress both your ideas of what it is... but yeah if there is a word that is more suitable for those that are offended by my own personal opinion then I'd be more than willing to amend my table [refer to avatar].
Quote from: Dee_pntx on September 03, 2010, 10:44:13 AM
I will say that there is no god, never was, never will be.
god isn't dead, god never existed.
I am a militant atheist.
I identify as agnostic atheist but i'm only agnostic towards god as much as I am to leprechauns. Saying there isn't a god to me sounds too much like theists even though the burden of proof is on them.
Quote from: Vicky on September 03, 2010, 12:40:46 AM
Hawking VS (Newton + God) seems like two evenly matched teams in the play offs to me. Seems like God has been on a losing streak recently, what with a bunch of the fans he's picked up.
Na not really, Steve plays for himself whereas god sends in pinch hitters who pick their own way to play the game.
Steph
Quote from: Dee_pntx on September 03, 2010, 10:44:13 AM
I will say that there is no god, never was, never will be.
god isn't dead, god never existed.
I am a militant atheist.
Kind of agree. Seems like god was created to explain away things that couldn't be explained, back in the day. It's all hearsay.
Steph
I hate to admit it, but Hawking is a tad bit more knowledgeable than I when it comes to the world of physics. ;) Yes, he once accepted the role of God in the creation of the universe. Then he put another 22 years of study into the equation and came up with this. I think one is entitled to change his/her mind "after further review".
I've read some of his stuff. I've seen it explained in documentaries. And with this tidbit of information I've tried to glean some level of understanding about how this all works. I can't say I've fully conceptualized all of his theories yet. ::) What I will say is Hawking works with concepts, theories and facts and arrives at a reasonable conclusion. There is no fear of God or fear of eternal damnation influencing those conclusions. There is no place for that in the equation.
The belief in God is filled with fear, faith and indoctrination, not to mention substantial social pressure. People who go around claiming they know the word of God or the mind of the lord have little room in proclaiming theories like Hawking's are nonsense. At least he works with real facts.
As for me, once someone shows me what's on the other side of the end of universe or explains why God can have no beginning but the universe can't, then I'm in. Until then the reasonable response to things like this is something like, "Well, I guess that's possible". No one, at this point in time, can prove they are absolutely right so it's unreasonable to make that claim.
so god = gravity this week. Got it.
*makes mental note then gets on with her life in which gravity plays a much more substantial role than god in any case*
Quote from: Nathan. on September 03, 2010, 06:30:12 AM
Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s) it is not the belief that there are no gods.
Not true. It can be either, and perhaps other things as well. (I suppose some people might even describe themselves with both definitions at once.)
I've always felt that if I went with the definition you're using, I might as well just shoot myself in the head, become a theist, and be done with it (in that order). That definition's premise seems to be that there ARE gods, but I simply choose not to believe in them. I reject that definition because it doesn't accurately describe me; I don't think that gods exist, period. In this case, semantics is everything. I should also note that many times, theists have tried to use that definition to convert me. I don't know why they bother. They do what works for them, and I do what works for me. I have never tried to convert them to my way of thinking.
Personally, I don't think I'm capable of believing in a deity. I don't think I'm hardwired for it. Perhaps I'm a sport. (Or perhaps I would have been very pious in an overwhelmingly pious society. One never knows.)
So far, I haven't seen any compelling evidence that gods, as they are traditionally defined, exist. I've seen plenty of evidence that the universe operates quite nicely by itself. But I suppose it depends on how you define key terms like "god," "universe," and "itself."
I'm not at all religious, but without some context those statements are just begging the question. Unless you digress to the metaphysical there can be no evidence for or against the supernatural. Physics has a bias towards the natural because it subsists by it. If the supernatural is prior to nature then natural laws can't observe it, much like lower vs higher dimensions. I blame scientifically motivated atheism on the image of a humanoid god working within terrestrial laws which is a text book straw man. I agree that science comes to the more logical conclusion vs religion, but it's moot if the premise they both assume happens to be false. And since the current image of god is nothing more than a blind guess at this point there is a fairly good chance that it is false.
Quote from: rejennyrated on September 03, 2010, 02:42:49 AM
I hate to say it but even as someone who holds a degree in physics myself I think there is circular logic involved here. The question any religious person worth their salt has to ask is,"well who organised the laws of physics so that they had to be that way?" and immediately we are back to case unproven. Oddly it is exactly the same sort blindness to the circularity of their own flawed logic which afflicts those who believe in creationism too.
I personally believe neither of these extreme positions is correct, but I know that position is only belief and cannot be proved. For someone of Hawking's stature to claim otherwise is curious. Godel's theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems) tells you why such debate is ultimately futile.
kudos on quoting Godel :D
Speaking as a self proclaimed Christian not to mention the wrong forum, is a belief in a god necessary? (From a Christian perspective).
edit
It was worded badly and doens't make the point I wanted.
Quote from: Arch on September 03, 2010, 12:45:26 PM
Not true. It can be either, and perhaps other things as well. (I suppose some people might even describe themselves with both definitions at once.)
I've always felt that if I went with the definition you're using, I might as well just shoot myself in the head, become a theist, and be done with it (in that order). That definition's premise seems to be that there ARE gods, but I simply choose not to believe in them. I reject that definition because it doesn't accurately describe me; I don't think that gods exist, period. In this case, semantics is everything. I should also note that many times, theists have tried to use that definition to convert me. I don't know why they bother. They do what works for them, and I do what works for me. I have never tried to convert them to my way of thinking.
Personally, I don't think I'm capable of believing in a deity. I don't think I'm hardwired for it. Perhaps I'm a sport. (Or perhaps I would have been very pious in an overwhelmingly pious society. One never knows.)
So far, I haven't seen any compelling evidence that gods, as they are traditionally defined, exist. I've seen plenty of evidence that the universe operates quite nicely by itself. But I suppose it depends on how you define key terms like "god," "universe," and "itself."
Atheism means without god. Thats all, you be an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist.
I don't see how that the definition means that there are gods but i'm rejecting them.
I lack a belief because there is no evidence or reason to believe in god(s). Same reason why babies are atheists, they have no reason to be anything else.
Chiming in here too - (seems like this discussion has really strayed into a different forum tho...)
Whether or not there are god(s) or fairies or unicorns or underwear gnomes, since they do not interact with my life, I live my life as if there are no supernatural beings / gods and there is a natural explanation for everything. Everything comes from nature and nature doesn't care about us specifically we're just a part of the process. I guess you could say I'm a naturalist (not to be confused with naturist. ;) )
If there is some eventual proof of a supernatural being's actual existence and/or physical impact on the world and/or personal interest in my life or humanity, I may change my mind, but I'm going under the assumption that the supernatural does not exist in nature. (self-describing definition?)
Besides, to me the idea of monotheism - a perfect mystical dude who made everything including EVERYTHING , all of the bad stuff and good, but still "loves us individually" but is secretive and doesn't physically interact with us personally / individually; seems inconsistent and kinda like a jerky a-hole.
As far as my own definition of a god that makes sense to me -- my deity is spelled T-H-E_L-A-W-S_O-F_N-A-T-U-R-E and she does not have an interest in me or anything for that matter. My holy days follow the cycles of the seasons, national and local celebrations, and personal milestones in my life and my loved-ones lives.
Cheers
Rayalisse
Prior to Hawking book jackets of late, ZinniaJones has led me to pause and reflect recently:
Slate's Ron Rosenbaum doesn't understand atheism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5Tn4w04KOY#)
Quote from: Nathan. on September 03, 2010, 01:27:30 PM
Atheism means without god. Thats all, you be an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist.
I don't see how that the definition means that there are gods but i'm rejecting them.
If you want to argue etymology, then knock yourself out. I was under the impression that you were talking about definitions. As you pointed out, there is a big difference in the two definitions you stated in your earlier post. The first one can be taken to imply that gods exist; the second really can't. But the wording in definitions varies from reference book to reference book, and I've seen some older definitions that openly
assume that god/God exists. Neither one of your definitions does that. But if you look in a variety of reference books, you'll find your second definition liberally represented.
Quote from: Nathan. on September 03, 2010, 01:27:30 PM
Same reason why babies are atheists, they have no reason to be anything else.
Unless they are incredibly precocious, babies are not atheists; they're nonreligious or areligious (like my ex, except for different reasons).
Quote from: Arch on September 03, 2010, 10:33:03 PM
Unless they are incredibly precocious, babies are not atheists; they're nonreligious or areligious (like my ex, except for different reasons).
That what atheism is, it's not a view point or religion it's the default position. We are born with pretty much no knowledge and we learn stuff along the way, the unlucky ones are tought theism.
Atheism isn't a default position any more than Islam is. (Islam teaches that all babies are born Muslim).
No one is born with a belief in god(s). Atheism is the lack of belief not the belief that there is no god that makes babies atheists.
Atheist is still a label.
anyway this pic is more entertaining....
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fxa7.xanga.com%2Fa1ef65e603333270624527%2Fz215567571.jpg&hash=32d23d237f7249cc77f6e5c0724087282bd1abf4)
Quote from: Muffin on September 04, 2010, 05:47:11 AM
Atheist is still a label.
I don't recall ever saying it wasn't ??? It is a label.
oh my bad... I should of added this.... babies don't care much for labels (from what I gather). They don't hold an opinion on the subject hence no label.
Expressing that you don't believe there is a god (or whatever definition you prefer) is an opinion, that is defined by a label. That is all my point is.
But yeah that is just my opinion, I see where you are coming from I just feel that if a baby has no idea of what it is then how can they be labelled as thinking or believing a certain idea.
Personally I don't consider myself anything, though my POV is no doubt similar to someone who is agnostic I don't feel the need to label my POV, especially when a label can have several ideas attached to it. Like you've pointed out with atheism. It's a complicated topic that sure does ruffle a lot of feathers. When really it shouldn't because we are all entitled to our own opinions, it's only when we challenge each others opinions that problems occurs. Like now for example. :P
I remember saying to my ex years ago "I'm going to worship a tomato, if I try hard enough and believe in the tomato just enough then I should theoretically have a vision come to me of a tomato face... ala attack of the killer tomatoes". I thought it was funny but yeah. :P
Again atheism is the lack of belief. It doesn't matter that babies are unaware of the label atheist it doesn't change the fact that they have no belief in god.
lol yeah ok.
That was a mature thought out reply ;)
I hate making rifts especially here at Susans but I debate this stuff often and can't help myself :)
lol what would you have me say? We've both expressed our opinions and ...yeah.....ok. :P
Quote from: Nathan. on September 04, 2010, 07:47:26 AM
Again atheism is the lack of belief. It doesn't matter that babies are unaware of the label atheist it doesn't change the fact that they have no belief in god.
Once again, semantics is important here. If you do a little more reading, I think you'll find that atheism is not simply a lack of belief or a nonexistence of any thinking on the subject; it's a profession of belief or nonbelief, an act of believing or not believing. People profess atheism; they do not simply default to it.
A = without
theist = god.
Quote from: Nathan. on September 04, 2010, 03:14:04 AM
No one is born with a belief in god(s). Atheism is the lack of belief not the belief that there is no god that makes babies atheists.
IMO, it's not fair to label someone as "atheist" until they at least have an understanding of what religion is. Babies aren't "defaulting" to atheism until they are actually presented with the choice in understandable terms. You can't just fix such a focused label to such broad forms of ignorance.
But again, that's just my opinion on the definition. I don't think anyone can really have a successful debate about this without sourcing those who are in charge of our language. To me such a broad usage of the word "atheism" just seems impractical though.
Quote from: Steph on September 03, 2010, 11:09:55 AM
Kind of agree. Seems like god was created to explain away things that couldn't be explained, back in the day. It's all hearsay.
Steph
My old religion teacher used to draw this on the blackboard to explain what you just wrote.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa.imagehost.org%2F0838%2Fchart.png&hash=3c0cc62771250c7ea9539b929ed3dd9f0a6c781f)
I think science can never say anything of the existance of a god simply because something supernatural that can't be proven by the means that study nature.
The belief in a supreme being will always be what it is: a belief without any evidence. It is up to people themselves to choose what and if to believe.
I can never dream of reaching the insight Stephen Hawking has in nature so I am not able to discuss his findings.
Quote from: Ayaname on September 04, 2010, 02:20:06 PM
IMO, it's not fair to label someone as "atheist" until they at least have an understanding of what religion is. Babies aren't "defaulting" to atheism until they are actually presented with the choice in understandable terms. You can't just fix such a focused label to such broad forms of ignorance.
But again, that's just my opinion on the definition. I don't think anyone can really have a successful debate about this without sourcing those who are in charge of our language. To me such a broad usage of the word "atheism" just seems impractical though.
I apologise if this post doesn't makes sence i'm slightly drunk
I don't understand what the porblem is, atheism is the lack of belief in god and atheists lack a belief in god. They are atheists. Atheist should not be a label that is looked down upon, it's a label and nothing more. It's meant to mean nothing other then the lack of belief in god(s).
Atheism was not something I chose, I just lost my belief in god, when I lost my faith it felt like I had lost a limb, I was devestated.
This has become a very grave subject! And heavy too man.
I've kinda been waiting for someone to tackle the whole "gravity proves" part of this so I didn't have to think!
Quote from: Arch on September 04, 2010, 12:01:42 PM
Once again, semantics is important here. If you do a little more reading, I think you'll find that atheism is not simply a lack of belief or a nonexistence of any thinking on the subject; it's a profession of belief or nonbelief, an act of believing or not believing. People profess atheism; they do not simply default to it.
Exactly. :)
BTW, the discussion regarding a baby's belief is nonsensical. Their survival instincts to suckle and thrive are all there is to it.
They have no intellectual concept of whether there is a God or not, or whether or not it will rain today because it is cloudy. ::)
Babies aren't even aware that us humans have gods and stuff, all they know is that they are hungry/tired etc They have no belief in god, they are pretty much blank canvases.
They are atheists, it rediculous to say that they aren't, people are not born believing in god. I don't even know how people come to that conclusion ???
People do not just profess atheism, I was an atheist before I knew there was a term for it because I had no belief in god.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg3.visualizeus.com%2Fthumbs%2F08%2F04%2F03%2Ffacepalm%2Chumor%2Cmeme-060cdded9e7366f5e09072e66316602a_m.jpg&hash=d678f6b15ed15e34df9dd5d105fe36ce36c1c6d1)
Quote from: Julie Marie on September 04, 2010, 07:36:12 PM
This has become a very grave subject! And heavy too man.
I've kinda been waiting for someone to tackle the whole "gravity proves" part of this so I didn't have to think!
Where are in the yacht? Great picture, totally jealous.
Yea :laugh
I was sort of thinking that maybe I would read the book before going too much further with God vs Hawking's book.
Most of the gravitational theories Hawking's and associates are defining, are at the none user friendly end of quantum physics. I wasn't too good with quantum physics for dummies so maybe we should all cool it a bit.
So let's all cool down before someone says something silly.
Cindy
Nice pic BTW
Quote from: Muffin on September 05, 2010, 04:18:08 AM
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg3.visualizeus.com%2Fthumbs%2F08%2F04%2F03%2Ffacepalm%2Chumor%2Cmeme-060cdded9e7366f5e09072e66316602a_m.jpg&hash=d678f6b15ed15e34df9dd5d105fe36ce36c1c6d1)
Yeah that pic describes how I feel too.
how about this one? :P
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg842.imageshack.us%2Fimg842%2F4720%2Fbackpacks.gif&hash=ce5e0176f5fc1e405b1e92f47bb06033f2a2c012)
Quote
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," the professor said in his new book, in a challenge to traditional religious beliefs.
I hope that's not the best he can do. Statements like "gravity necessitates creation" or "the universe must necessarily create itself spontaneously" are not scientific evidence. That sounds a lot like the same type of arguments that theists use to defend their positions. Just replace "gravity" with "God" and you have the same type of non-logic to argue how the universe works. So now, both scientists and theists are using the same argument: "I can't explain how the universe began, so my position must be correct!"
Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this?
Physicists can't explain why gravity exists, so that somehow means that we must get something from nothing? Please. Those two things aren't even related. Gravity has nothing to do with something creating itself from nothing.
Nicely put.
There's another point which has been playing on my mind for a while. I'm no a physisist, just a interested amiter
The press has been portraying this as hawking's Dawkins moment.
But Hawking is saying that everything eminates from gravity. If that is the case, then he is also saying that the remaining other two forces do so also. In other words, Hawking is saying there is only one elemental force in the universe, gravity.
If this is indeed the case then it is considerably more astonishing and mind blowing than any comments about God.
Quote from: VeryGnawty on September 05, 2010, 05:44:53 AM
I hope that's not the best he can do. Statements like "gravity necessitates creation" or "the universe must necessarily create itself spontaneously" are not scientific evidence. That sounds a lot like the same type of arguments that theists use to defend their positions. Just replace "gravity" with "God" and you have the same type of non-logic to argue how the universe works. So now, both scientists and theists are using the same argument: "I can't explain how the universe began, so my position must be correct!"
Did you read his entire publication or just the article?Quote from: CindyJames on September 05, 2010, 04:37:08 AM
Where are in the yacht? Great picture, totally jealous.
We were in Newport, RI. We visited a friend in CT and made a trip to Cape Cod and P-town. On the way back Juliekins saw signs for Newport. Knowing I am a sailing nut she suggested we make a detour. While walking along the docks we saw a day cruise booth. 1-1/2 hours for $32.50@ on a 46 foot sloop. As we got on I told one of the crew if they needed any help I had a lot of sailing experience. After we cast off they handed me the helm and I sailed the entire time. I was in heaven! The crew loved the break and I loved the opportunity. Now I'm thinking sell the house and doing a liveaboard. ;D
Now back to your regularly scheduled program...
Quote from: Nathan. on September 05, 2010, 03:19:20 AM
Babies aren't even aware that us humans have gods and stuff, all they know is that they are hungry/tired etc They have no belief in god, they are pretty much blank canvases.
Babies are born with personalities. They are anything but blank canvases. If they were, the belief by some that LGBT people learn to be gay or lesbian or trans would be true. Each one of us is formed by both nature and nurture.
To engage in a little devil's advocacy, some believers in the afterlife, especially mediums, will tell you that children are the best mediums we have. Their so called imaginary friends are really spirits from the other side. While that doesn't mean they believe in God, it does imply some communication with "heavenly spirits". People who have had near death experiences also talk about communication with spirits.
Of course trying to prove that is about as easy as trying to prove there is or isn't a god. It seems Hawking is making a stab at it though.
Quote from: Julie Marie on September 05, 2010, 10:04:48 AM
Babies are born with personalities. They are anything but blank canvases. If they were, the belief by some that LGBT people learn to be gay or lesbian or trans would be true. Each one of us is formed by both nature and nurture.
To engage in a little devil's advocacy, some believers in the afterlife, especially mediums, will tell you that children are the best mediums we have. Their so called imaginary friends are really spirits from the other side. While that doesn't mean they believe in God, it does imply some communication with "heavenly spirits". People who have had near death experiences also talk about communication with spirits.
The bit in bold is all woo, i'm willing to accept that there may be a creator but not in the after life and spirits and stuff without any good evidence.
Also I said pretty much, babys are not all blank but they do not have views on things. They have no view on god, politics etc.
I would think babies have no views on almost anything. They tend to take pretty much everything as being a norm.
Have to agree with Julies point about personalities. I've seen babies, 48 hours old showing signs of preference, even some selective reaction to different stimuli. I've seen several, following shapes around the room, with their eyes, at 3 days.
One of the biggest mistakes many mothers make with their babies is to assume that when they cry they are sad. In reality, they are simply communicating.
Quote from: Nathan. on September 05, 2010, 03:19:20 AM
Babies aren't even aware that us humans have gods and stuff, all they know is that they are hungry/tired etc They have no belief in god, they are pretty much blank canvases.
They are atheists, it rediculous to say that they aren't, people are not born believing in god. I don't even know how people come to that conclusion ???
People do not just profess atheism, I was an atheist before I knew there was a term for it because I had no belief in god.
If you're going to eliminate choice from the equation then you might as well say that every person that is either dead or hasn't been conceived yet are atheists as well. While your at it throw in rocks, trees, cars, ...etc. since they all lack belief in a god. Beliefs and non-beliefs alike are meant to be perceptions of reality. Without something to perceive it's entirely impractical to label that lack of perception as a specific non-belief.
For example, if I were to tell you that there was a person standing directly in front of you you would only tell me that you didn't believe me if your eyes were telling you something different. That is, I'm presenting a situation that contradicts your senses, i.e. what you base your "knowledge/beliefs" on. Now is that lack of belief the same as that of someone who is 100% ignorant of this situation? Is the non-belief of any person who wasn't there as relevant as your non-belief?
Non-belief is always either based on other beliefs or on ignorance and these two "non-belief"s are very different and deserve to be treated as such. To use a term that is meant to pinpoint such a small section of non-beliefs only to leave it open to both knowledge based and ignorance based forms of non-belief only weakens the definition of that term. It defeats the whole purpose of a definition which is for the sake of distinction.
There can be made a very broad genus that covers all non-beliefs, both ignorance and knowledge based where the only shared quality is that of general lack of belief. However there is no more reason to place any importance on one member of that grouping than on any other. e.g. A car is "not" many things, but is it any more worth while to say it is not a dog than to say that it is not a carrot? These types of groupings are unnecessary as anything other than an alternative to labeling infinite amounts of "non" qualities for one specific object and any attempt at grouping "non" qualities leads to logical paradoxes(which is evidenced by Russel's paradox) if used as anything other than for the above purpose. It's a tool that's meant to be used and then thrown out.
So when you use the word "atheism" are you meaning it in a concrete sense that's supposed to withstand in-depth scrutiny? If so then you can't use a simple "lack of belief in a god" as it's definition. However, if what you mean by "atheist" is literally just a broad term for any person who has the specific quality: "lack of belief in a god", then your stance holds no impact. It's just a passive observation of a wide range of individuals and is analogous to any other passively true statement such as, "that dog is not black", when nobody asked.
And to extinguish the argument that will undoubtedly arise from this example, i.e. "what if the argument is that the dog is in fact black?": In that case it just becomes the former type of "non" statement and, as with the definition of "atheism", it must always remain its respective type.
So... please choose your context and stick to it, or at least inform us of when and why you are making the switch.
Does a new born have choice in things like this? I doubt it. they have no idea that people believe in god(s) and a tree has no brain and no thought, but as they have no belief in a god so they are atheists.
I honestly don't understand why people are having such a hard time understanding this. Babies, trees, rocks, dead people lack a belief in god so they are atheists. Although I feel silly calling an object with no thought an atheist.
They only conclusion I can come up with as to why people are having such a hard time with this is maybe they have a negative view of atheism ??? I don't get it, anything that has no belief in god is an agnostic atheist or gnostic atheist, but babies are not gnostic atheists, they have no comprehension of god or lack there of.
Quote from: Ayaname on September 05, 2010, 03:37:57 PM
Now is that lack of belief the same as that of someone who is 100% ignorant of this situation?
Yes as they have no belief in god(s).
It's that simple.
I have pre-ordered the book.
Nathan we understand what you are saying we just........... don't agree. But you are entitled to your opinion just like everyone else.
I doubt anymore discussion on it will change anything... by the looks of it. But that's ok. Right?
Quote from: Muffin on September 05, 2010, 07:44:07 PM
Nathan we understand what you are saying we just........... don't agree. But you are entitled to your opinion just like everyone else.
I doubt anymore discussion on it will change anything... by the looks of it. But that's ok. Right?
I'm fine with people having differing views, I just want to know why.
Babies are either atheists or theists and I haven't seen a single argument in this thread to say that they are theists and not atheists.
Baby atheists are different from adult atheists, but they are still atheists. They are implicit atheists. Implicit atheism is simply a lack of awareness of the idea of god(s)
You've already had it explained to you by several people, you just don't understand what they are saying. Even if I try my best (ok I'm trying to eat pizza right now so not my best) to display the other side of the table you just don't.. short-sighted I don'tv know..maybe stupid.
Beliefs are practices of thought, you have to be aware of the thought before you can entertain it.
Non-belief is still a belief, it is a pov, opinion. hhmmfff.
BUT you will still not see what I'm trying to say, I feel very certain about that.. but it's ok. Opinions, opinions.. etc.
Quote from: Muffin on September 06, 2010, 04:36:29 AM
You've already had it explained to you by several people, you just don't understand what they are saying. Even if I try my best (ok I'm trying to eat pizza right now so not my best) to display the other side of the table you just don't.. short-sighted I don'tv know..maybe stupid.
Beliefs are practices of thought, you have to be aware of the thought before you can entertain it.
Non-belief is still a belief, it is a pov, opinion. hhmmfff.
BUT you will still not see what I'm trying to say, I feel very certain about that.. but it's ok. Opinions, opinions.. etc.
Atheism is the
lack of belief. Meaning there is no belief there. You seem to be confused by what the lack of somthing means. I lack a belief in god and have done since I was 13, funnily enough I would probably still be a theist now if I hadn't of felt the need to get more into my religion. Learning more about my religion got me thinking, this led to me loosing my belief. I didn't say this is rediculous I can't believe, I just lost it and then tried my hardest to get it back.
Quote from: Nathan. on September 06, 2010, 04:42:05 AM
Atheism is the lack of belief. Meaning there is no belief there. You seem to be confused by what the lack of somthing means. I lack a belief in god and have done since I was 13, funnily enough I would probably still be a theist now if I hadn't of felt the need to get more into my religion. Learning more about my religion got me thinking, this led to me loosing my belief. I didn't say this is rediculous I can't believe, I just lost it and then tried my hardest to get it back.
Nathan, atheism is the disbelief in a God or higher being or creator, any of these terms. It is not the lack of belief.
Quote from: Hermione01 on September 06, 2010, 05:01:18 AM
Nathan, atheism is the disbelief in a God or higher being or creator, any of these terms. It is not the lack of belief.
That definition is false.
A = without
Theism = god.
The dictionary may say atheism is the rejection of god but I don't think it will continue to do so for much longer as that is a very old view of what atheism is and i've only ever heard theists use that definition before.
Nathan love.
You're down to arguing sematics. This is very circular.
I appreciate the strength of your convictions. And I respect the depth of thought you've put into them.
I really think this argument, of the nature of what babies are aware of and the extent to which they are conditioned by information is intersting. But this seems to be the wrong forum for it. I'm sure a lot of others would like to participate.
I've started a thread in the spirituality forum. I did consider the philosophy forum, but the problem with philosophy is that, no matter how much you think you know or have read, someone else comes up with something you know nothing about. I recall, when I first read Hobbs, I had to spend as much time looking up words meanings as I did reading his texts.
I hope some and especially you, will participate. We could find some intersting perspectives.
https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,83522.new.html#new (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,83522.new.html#new)
Quote from: Nathan. on September 06, 2010, 05:11:19 AM
That definition is false.
A = without
Theism = god.
The dictionary may say atheism is the rejection of god but I don't think it will continue to do so for much longer as that is a very old view of what atheism is and i've only ever heard theists use that definition before.
Atheism is borne from the term theism, to reject that belief. :)
Quote from: spacial on September 06, 2010, 05:21:22 AM
You're down to arguing sematics.
Well we can hardly debate something if people have no understanding of what they are debating.
Atheism may have come from the term theism but atheism has been around longer the the word to describe it.
As people seem to no understanding of what atheism means I feel the need to point you towards a forum called rationalskeptisism it's not an atheist only site, there was even a theist mod.
Anyway i'm signing off, this isn't the place. Feel free to start another discusion in the atheism part of this site if your not sick of it :D
I understand Nathan and you are perfectly correct.
But the subject, with great respect, is physics.
Quote from: spacial on September 06, 2010, 07:12:50 AM
I understand Nathan and you are perfectly correct.
But the subject, with great respect, is physics.
Hmmm, actually it's more like sensationalism. Hawkins, famous theoretical physicist throws spanner in the works....God may not exist.
That is what's catching people's attention, not the baloney about gravity. :) Suppose I got to buy his book now. Urgh.
But that's the problem. I don't think that is what Hawking was saying at all. one of his ex wives has said he is an athiest, so his use of the term was more figurative than literal.
We have some physicists as members here. But sadly, this thread has been rather over taken with the defination of a word.
While it was incredably interesting and insightful, it did kinda destroy what might have been in interesting and informative discussion. The last Hawking book I read was filled with a whole lot of stuff that only he coud understand.
Clever people tend to be like that. That's the real benefit of having people who are half way.
Everyone has their own beliefs. To believe in something you have to have thoughts about it. To have thoughts about it you have to have a mental process of some sort, ie: you need a brain. Hawking has a brain, a tree, to the best of our knowledge, doesn't.
When I first read the article I immediately thought about origin. Origin, to me, is the sticking point of every discussion about the existence of a god, as we define it. Hawking says gravity is why he chose physics over God. What is the origin of gravity? How did it begin?
Back in my Catholic grade school the nuns taught "God was, is and always will be." Therefore God has no origin. My mini scientific mind imagined traveling back through time and finding God there. Then I went further back and there was God. Even back when there was nothing, there was God. And on and on my mind travel went back until I tired of the exercise.
With Hawking's theory we have to assume the same thing for gravity. No matter how far you go back in time, there is gravity. Does gravity then become God? If gravity is the creator of our universe and has no origin, doesn't that make gravity God-like?
When my time on this earth comes to a close, I will have the answer. Or maybe the lights will simply go out. Until then, this is simply a mental exercise.
The nature of gravity is really the nub here.
According to Einstien, even time, in its literal sense, is a function (or is it consequence?), of gravity.
If I understand Hawking correctly, though not having read his book, yet, he seems to be suggesting that gravity is the sole elemental force, creating electro-magnitism and the nuclear force. I may have this wrong of course. But the other two elemental forces are themselves, so essential to matter as we know it, it seems strange that Hawking picked gravity rather than all three.
From what I understand about the three elemental forces, gravity is the least understood. It has only one characteristic, that it attracts particles of mass to each other. Though how gravity affects that which has no mass is beyond me I'm afraid.
Then it's settled. Gravity is God. I'm going to rewrite the Bible and wherever the word 'God' is, I am going to replace it 'Gravity'.
And Gravity said, "Let there be light!" And Gravity freed the light and let it go forth into the universe.
I think I'm on to something... 8)
Gravity is God. Oh my gravity!
Wow, heavy man.
Sorry, couldn't resist it.
My copy of the book is expected (by Amazon, anyway) to arrive here 2moro. I really look forward to it.
If nothing else, this thread has me increasingly curious what the actual book is about.
But the thread also interests me as a Philosophy student (even though I graduated years ago). It seems perfectly reasonable for people to say things like, "For the purposes of this discussion, I mean X by the term atheism," as a means of moving a debate forward.
Probably my favorite existence of God debate to this day was between Fr. F. C. Copleston, S.J. and Bertrand Russell. They started by defining their positions, but also provisionally agreeing on statements of the meanings of terms such as god, enabling them to dive into a lively, respectful, and intelligent debate.
I've seen far worse than the tenor of this thread's discussion.
Good points Sidney.
I hope no-one minded my intervention in the semantics debate. There are so few places where you can read the views of people who know their stuff, when it comes to physics.
I was despirate to hear more.
There's four forces--electro-magnetic force, the strong force, the weak force...and gravity, which is the weakest of the four. Interesting that it would be gravity then that was responsible for the universe. A very good book I was reading recently called "Warped Passages" (really good stuff if you're into quantum mechanics) had a theory that went something along these lines...the bulk of the gravitational force is located in other dimensions (the book called them branes). I think that was the gist of it; I could be wrong, it was very difficult to understand a lot of it.
Quote"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."
This sentence was wildly out of context, and appears on page 180 of the book. He doesn't state that gravity itself is responsible for the universe.
The book is a defense of M-theory as the only candidate for a unified theory of everything.
Quote from: SydneyTinker on September 12, 2010, 07:30:36 PM
The book is a defense of M-theory as the only candidate for a unified theory of everything.
I'm not particularly convinced on M-theory either. But it's better than the idea that gravity created the universe, which is a terrible idea.
QuoteI'm not particularly convinced on M-theory either.
The M-theory is many theories that fit mathematical models. Gravity is just one of the factors.