[Sigi_BC84]

luke warm, on Mar 30 2006, 11:39 AM, said:

so while you contend that assuming a creator makes the matter more complicated, i contend the opposite - what could be simpler?

Having to explain the creator makes it more complicated. If you don't suppose the existence of a creator (while choosing a model for the universe that doesn't need one) you don't have to struggle with proofs for the existence of the creator as well.

Also, if you assume that a creator exists, you expose yourself to questions like "where is this entity now?" which lead to very unsatisfactory answers at most.

--Sigi

[david_c]

luke warm, on Mar 30 2006, 11:39 AM, said:

hawking says (in 'a brief history in time')

"The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started – it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?"

it makes it obvious (to me at least) why it was imperative to prove the existence of an infinite universe... and if the only way to do that was to use imaginary numbers, well that's better than having to use God, right? notice that even hawkings admits that if there was a beginning, God (or at least a creator) exists... to me hawkings is saying that the universe is either infinite or created... since it can't be created (his mindset), ergo ...

Hawking [no 's' please] does not say "if there was a beginning, a creator exists". He is actually arguing for the converse statement, that is, "if there was no beginning, then there was not a creator". Note that even if you accept that this second statement is true (and Hawking is careful to avoid making such a concrete statement in this passage), it does not imply the first.

An atheist would say that there are two possibilities - either there was a beginning, or there wasn't - but that neither requires a god in order to work.

Hawking also seems to have a rather unusual idea of what God is - "God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws". This premise seems completely incompatible with any religion that I know of.

[helene_t]

david_c, on Mar 30 2006, 02:15 PM, said:

Hawking also seems to have a rather unusual idea of what God is - "God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws". This premise seems completely incompatible with any religion that I know of.

Hawking writes in "A brief history of time" that he was invited by Pope John Paul as a member of a scientific advisori board that should help the pope formulate the official catholic view on .... well, "life, the universe and everything" or some such. The pope asked the scientists not to come up with any atheistic vision on the creation of the universe since that was the domain of God. For the rest, the scientist were free to say whatever they wanted.

I'm not sure how the story ended but is sounds as if the pope was willing to accept the view on God that Jimmy quoted.

Also, it occurs to me that polytheistic religions do not necesarily attribute an active role for the creator after the creation. But I could easily be wrong.

Anyway, I don't think Hawking (or any other non-theologist) should be seen as an authority on theology. Surely, when the ancient religions were founded there was an overlap between theology and everything else, including cosmology (many astrononomers functioned as astrologists until a few centuries ago) but academic disciplines drift farther and farther away as int becomes increasingly imposible for an individual academic to span multiple diciplines.

[david_c]

helene_t, on Mar 30 2006, 01:36 PM, said:

I'm not sure how the story ended but is sounds as if the pope was willing to accept the view on God that Jimmy quoted.

Well, if you accept that God does not intervene in the universe, then that pretty much rules out Him having a son.

[helene_t]

david_c, on Mar 30 2006, 02:47 PM, said:

helene_t, on Mar 30 2006, 01:36 PM, said:

I'm not sure how the story ended but is sounds as if the pope was willing to accept the view on God that Jimmy quoted.

Well, if you accept that God does not intervene in the universe, then that pretty much rules out Him having a son.

Modern theologist tend to see the biblical accounts of miracles as allegoric. I'm not sure about the particular case of the holy virgin, but since Johannes Paul accepted Darwinism he probably also had some view on this that is compatible with biology.

[luke warm]

i simply quoted a passage attributed to hawking... i don't know his theology, or even if he has one... i do know that a God who doesn't intervene in his creation is counter to my beliefs, even if such a God is acceptable to a pope ... i think if you want views on beliefs, and reasons for those views, a new thread is needed

Sigi said:

If you don't suppose the existence of a creator (while choosing a model for the universe that doesn't need one) you don't have to struggle with proofs for the existence of the creator as well.

Also, if you assume that a creator exists, you expose yourself to questions like "where is this entity now?" which lead to very unsatisfactory answers at most.

i don't struglle with proofs... as for exposing myself to questions, that has never bothered me...

[Gerben42]

Quote

I'm not sure about the particular case of the holy virgin, but since Johannes Paul accepted Darwinism he probably also had some view on this that is compatible with biology.

"Virgo" means both virgin and "young lady". It is possible the latter was meant and was misinterpreted as the former.

Quote

Well, if you accept that God does not intervene in the universe, then that pretty much rules out Him having a son.

It appears Hawking's view is that there are certain "Laws of Nature" which the creator set in to place and then let it run perhaps like an ant farm, without interfering. Seen from inside this means that there are no exception to the "Laws of Nature", this means no miracles and in particular no divine conception.

[david_c]

luke warm, on Mar 30 2006, 02:00 PM, said:

i simply quoted a passage attributed to hawking... i don't know his theology, or even if he has one... i do know that a God who doesn't intervene in his creation is counter to my beliefs, even if such a God is acceptable to a pope ...

Well said Jimmy. Your beliefs may be completely different to mine, but you have my respect for being consistent about them.