God did not create the universe according to Steven Hawking [Archive]

Twa Cairpets

03-09-2010, 08:35 AM

This may seem like a bit of a bizarre question but WHY do people believe in God?

Is it because of the books they've read?
Because they need something to fill that gap 'knowing' where we came from?
Is it influence from parents?
Do you want there to be something bigger than earth and our life?
Is it because you don't believe the potential for physics/evolution to have created life?

I wasn't influenced in any way when I was younger but from a very early age (primary school) I took no interest in Jesus and signing hymns etc at assembly (heard that for the first time in ages the other day!) so I made up my mind that I didn't really care or want to find some kind of meaning.

All of the above, plus a need to impose an answer onto things which appear inexplicable. If you look at historical theology rather than just the christian God, this is even more important.

If you're living in a tribe 4000 years ago say, it would not be possible to conceive that that the big yellow thing in the sky is a super huge burning ball of hydrogen tens of millions of miles away across the Galaxy, becuase the concepts don't exist. Better to believe that its pulled across the heavens by an invisible chariot because that makes a damn sight more sense within your frame of reference.

One more reason is that if your life is pretty squalid or death is a genuine daily threat, the need to really believe is seductive. I think that one of the reasons why religiosity in Western Europe is declining is that the quality of life compared to 100 or 150 years ago is generally, much higher. People aren't, for the most part, affected by war or disease, so there is less to fear from things that are outwith an individuals control.

With the exception of the US, religious observance is higher amongst all religions in areas where poverty is extreme (by Western standards).

Whilst being a very strong advocate of atheism, it is difficult on an individual basis for me to criticise a persons faith if they gain genuine comfort out of it. Whatever reason someone has for belief, it makes some sense to that individual. My strong conviction is that any reason given is fundamentally flawed, and therefore built on a false premise which constrains that persons thinking and often ability to act constructively.

Teo10

03-09-2010, 09:25 AM

Good man!

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/296939

Pffft! What does he know!

:greengrin

bighairyfaeleith

03-09-2010, 10:15 AM

Even if He/It/She did, this takes us a loooooooonnngggggg way from Genesis.

leave phil collins out of this:grr:

bighairyfaeleith

03-09-2010, 10:17 AM

All of the above, plus a need to impose an answer onto things which appear inexplicable. If you look at historical theology rather than just the christian God, this is even more important.

If you're living in a tribe 4000 years ago say, it would not be possible to conceive that that the big yellow thing in the sky is a super huge burning ball of hydrogen tens of millions of miles away across the Galaxy, becuase the concepts don't exist. Better to believe that its pulled across the heavens by an invisible chariot because that makes a damn sight more sense within your frame of reference.

One more reason is that if your life is pretty squalid or death is a genuine daily threat, the need to really believe is seductive. I think that one of the reasons why religiosity in Western Europe is declining is that the quality of life compared to 100 or 150 years ago is generally, much higher. People aren't, for the most part, affected by war or disease, so there is less to fear from things that are outwith an individuals control.

With the exception of the US, religious observance is higher amongst all religions in areas where poverty is extreme (by Western standards).

Whilst being a very strong advocate of atheism, it is difficult on an individual basis for me to criticise a persons faith if they gain genuine comfort out of it. Whatever reason someone has for belief, it makes some sense to that individual. My strong conviction is that any reason given is fundamentally flawed, and therefore built on a false premise which constrains that persons thinking and often ability to act constructively.

Yep I'd agree with all of that, not a believer myself as I think it just doesn't make sense, but if someone wants to believe then I'm not going to preach to them that they shouldn't.

I do wonder however how many people, kind of think it's ridiculous and up there with santa claus, however can't be sure so I'll just hedge my bets and say I believe?

Calvin

03-09-2010, 10:28 AM

Is it influence from parents?

I wasn't influenced in any way when I was younger but from a very early age (primary school) I took no interest in Jesus and signing hymns etc at assembly (heard that for the first time in ages the other day!) so I made up my mind that I didn't really care or want to find some kind of meaning.

A problem I struggle with is that I went to Church right through my childhood, so now I am unsure if any beliefs I do have are genuinely my own or due to my sunday school brainwashing.

hibsbollah

03-09-2010, 12:13 PM

All of the above, plus a need to impose an answer onto things which appear inexplicable. If you look at historical theology rather than just the christian God, this is even more important.

If you're living in a tribe 4000 years ago say, it would not be possible to conceive that that the big yellow thing in the sky is a super huge burning ball of hydrogen tens of millions of miles away across the Galaxy, becuase the concepts don't exist. Better to believe that its pulled across the heavens by an invisible chariot because that makes a damn sight more sense within your frame of reference.

One more reason is that if your life is pretty squalid or death is a genuine daily threat, the need to really believe is seductive. I think that one of the reasons why religiosity in Western Europe is declining is that the quality of life compared to 100 or 150 years ago is generally, much higher. People aren't, for the most part, affected by war or disease, so there is less to fear from things that are outwith an individuals control.

With the exception of the US, religious observance is higher amongst all religions in areas where poverty is extreme (by Western standards).

Whilst being a very strong advocate of atheism, it is difficult on an individual basis for me to criticise a persons faith if they gain genuine comfort out of it. Whatever reason someone has for belief, it makes some sense to that individual. My strong conviction is that any reason given is fundamentally flawed, and therefore built on a false premise which constrains that persons thinking and often ability to act constructively.

I think your analysis is quite reasonable but it focusses on a rational interpretation of some of the literal beliefs in scripture, which isnt (I think) why religious people generally believe.

I suspect most religious believers are motivated by the moral and ethical lessons you get from organised religion, such as The Sermon on the Mount or the Ten Commandents, rather than a passionate belief in specific literal interpretations like walking on water, karma, water into wine and all that jazz. You could say that at a time when we dont talk about morality much in daily life, religion has filled a vacuum in this respect (even when the scientific basis for some of the stories has become shaky). As a moral position, 'Thou shalt not kill' is fairly hard to argue against, and whether 'God' created the universe is fairly irrelevant to that basic message.

Twa Cairpets

03-09-2010, 01:50 PM

I think your analysis is quite reasonable but it focusses on a rational interpretation of some of the literal beliefs in scripture, which isnt (I think) why religious people generally believe.

I suspect most religious believers are motivated by the moral and ethical lessons you get from organised religion, such as The Sermon on the Mount or the Ten Commandents, rather than a passionate belief in specific literal interpretations like walking on water, karma, water into wine and all that jazz. You could say that at a time when we dont talk about morality much in daily life, religion has filled a vacuum in this respect (even when the scientific basis for some of the stories has become shaky). As a moral position, 'Thou shalt not kill' is fairly hard to argue against, and whether 'God' created the universe is fairly irrelevant to that basic message.

Religions have morphed and developed with the prevalent moral stance of the society in which it is based.

Certain "morals" such as "Thou shalt not kill" are not exclusive to the religious of any particular faith. Rather they are hard-wired as a sensible way to preserve the life of everyone. (Notwitstanding that this very stark, black-and-white commandment is in my version of the Bible "Thou shalt not murder", it doesn't appear to apply to God who reportedly does it a fair amount, and seems also to be acceptable in times of war).

Religion does have some good guiding moral concepts, but the argument to me always has been you can't pick and choose which ones you choose to agree with. Therefore the moral "rightness" of any given position is "right" irrelevant of its inclusion at the core of a religion, such as christianity.

The ten Commandments are in Exodus 20:1-17.
Exodus 20:24 refers to the requirement to make "sacrifices and bunt offerings"
Exodus 21:2-11 gives instruction about the length of servitude and requirements for release for slaves
Exodus 21:17 "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death"
Exodus 23:29 "You must give me the firstborn of your sons"

This is just a selection from Exodus (well worth the re-read). These "laws" are the directly reported words of God as spoken to Moses, but few nowadays amongst the most devout would view it as morally acceptable to kill a child for bad mouthing your mother (or for putting a curse on her if that is what is meant). Slavery is an absolute moral wrong these days, but Exodus also gives a tariff for release of slaves - essentially knock out a tooth or an eye and they're entitled to be freed
If the commandments are to be obeyed because they are divine, then why dont we make burnt offerings of goat and cattle as directed? Not doing this could, presumably, be considered immoral by the standards of the time.

Im not using these examples as an excuse to poke fun at the Bible, but to make the point that if you are religious solely or predominantly because of the moral teaching and direction it offers, then it would be fair to ask yourself the following:

1) If you had been brought up without religious instruction, would you feel free to go put and kill people? If the only restraint from doing so is fear of God, then that's surely quite scary. I don't kill people because I think its a bad thing to do, and I have no religion whatsoever
2) Why if you believe that because there is a moral law there has to be a moral-law giver, i.e. God, do you also feel free to pick and choose which of his moral laws are applicable to you?

heretoday

03-09-2010, 02:08 PM

This Big Bang thing ok?

What caused it?

Twa Cairpets

03-09-2010, 02:36 PM

This Big Bang thing ok?

What caused it?

Personally, I don't know - I haven't read Hawkins book to go over his theory, but because I don't know and you dont know and, indeed, nobody indisputably knows it doesnt mean "God/Allah/Odin/Zeus done it".

CropleyWasGod

03-09-2010, 02:44 PM

I notice that there has yet to be a reaction from God to this latest development.

His/her silence is probably due to either:-

1. the fact that he/she doesn't believe in Stephen Hawking.

or

2. like his/her role model, the blessed RP, he/she will not comment on speculation and will only say something when the situation warrants it.

(editor's note.... the fact that I am having a laugh at God's expense in no way implies that I am an atheist. It merely confirms the fact that my God has a sense of humour. If he/she didn't, they would surely have struck me do.....

(God's note... GIRUY, smartarse,)

ancienthibby

03-09-2010, 02:47 PM

Personally, I don't know - I haven't read Hawkins book to go over his theory, but because I don't know and you dont know and, indeed, nobody indisputably knows it doesnt mean "God/Allah/Odin/Zeus done it".

And by that same reasoning, TC, it does not mean that God etc, did not create the universe!!

I'm sorry to see that the headline writer of the article put the headline first (don't they always?!) in order to make a point that Hawking himself did not make (at least per the extracts in the article).

Hawking seems to be saying that God was not necessary to create the universe. That still creates a yawning gap - who created (as another poster alludes to) the necessary laws which created the Big Bang.

I'll reply to your substantive post later, but, as we have debated before, you cannot selectively quote OT verses in the Bible without taking on the coming of Christ in the NT!!

heretoday

03-09-2010, 03:06 PM

I really can't believe in a deity (apart from various ex Hibs players) but I have to know what caused the Big Bang in the first place.

Serendipity?

The question is What? and Why? not Who?

Twa Cairpets

03-09-2010, 03:20 PM

And by that same reasoning, TC, it does not mean that God etc, did not create the universe!!

Can't argue with that.

But you have to accept that by the same logic, it would be impossible to prove that the Universe wasnt created by a small squirrel called Reginald from Berkhampstead.

ancienthibby

03-09-2010, 03:54 PM

Can't argue with that.

But you have to accept that by the same logic, it would be impossible to prove that the Universe wasnt created by a small squirrel called Reginald from Berkhampstead.

If you want to call your kids' squirrel Reggie tha'st fine by me, BUT neither you or any other non-believer can get to grips with the whole of Creation unless you take on board the coming of the Lord Jesus!!

You and I have debated before some of these matters and I would just repeat here that the God of Creation cannot be separated from the God of humanity - that is the God of Creation becoming fully human in the Lord Jesus and so determining that God became fully human in the historical Lord Jesus.:thumbsup::thumbsup:

RyeSloan

03-09-2010, 04:10 PM

Wilson

03-09-2010, 04:19 PM

Twa Cairpets

03-09-2010, 04:35 PM

If you want to call your kids' squirrel Reggie tha'st fine by me, BUT neither you or any other non-believer can get to grips with the whole of Creation unless you take on board the coming of the Lord Jesus!!

You and I have debated before some of these matters and I would just repeat here that the God of Creation cannot be separated from the God of humanity - that is the God of Creation becoming fully human in the Lord Jesus and so determining that God became fully human in the historical Lord Jesus.:thumbsup::thumbsup:

ancient, we have debated this on many threads, but Woodys question was "why do people believe", and my longer response was to hibsbollah's very reasonable point about people being religious because of the moral certainties apparently offered, and it's led us (perhaps inevitably) down this path.

I respectfully suggest that the acceptance of the christian God as a personal saviour, or the total acceptance of any God theory, deity or pantheon of deities is a very human extension of an ancient need to believe. The need to believe was based on different imperatives and societal conditions 2/4/6/10,000 years ago, but it has become such an ingrained element of how a society functions that it is now taken as being a natural (or maybe supernatural) part of our existence.

Your unswerving, personal acceptance of Jesus surely, by comparison, is no more nor less devout in its sincerity than that of the Oracles of Delphi or Norse Warriors embracing the opportunity to enter Valhalla.

Why do people believe? Because they do. You don't need to justify it to me or anyone else, but what doesn't help this type of discussion (I don't think) in the light of the above is your statement: "...I would just repeat here that the God of Creation cannot be separated from the God of humanity - that is the God of Creation becoming fully human in the Lord Jesus and so determining that God became fully human in the historical Lord Jesus". It doesnt make sense, its just words without any substance. It's a complex and convoluted interconection of ideas that would make Occam ditch his razor and say "sod it, a beard will be groovy". It doesnt tell me anything about why you believe, it reads, to me, as you justifying your belief by rote.

IndieHibby

03-09-2010, 05:15 PM

And by that same reasoning, TC, it does not mean that God etc, did not create the universe!!

I'm sorry to see that the headline writer of the article put the headline first (don't they always?!) in order to make a point that Hawking himself did not make (at least per the extracts in the article).

Hawking seems to be saying that God was not necessary to create the universe. That still creates a yawning gap - who created (as another poster alludes to) the necessary laws which created the Big Bang.

I'll reply to your substantive post later, but, as we have debated before, you cannot selectively quote OT verses in the Bible without taking on the coming of Christ in the NT!!

With reference to your question in bold, do you hold a (false, imo) assumption that a 'being' must have created the conditions/laws within which the 'Big Bang' happened? Why must this be so?

The position of the scientist on this is "we don't know" (what caused the Big Bang), and is perfectly happy with that, until science proposes a consequent theory on the matter. The position of the theist on this is (correct me if I am wrong) "there is a creator-being/God who must (as there is no alternative, in their mind) have created the Big Bang."

It is clear from anthropological studies that where/whenever humans consider things that are 'inexplicable', they invoke the supernatural explanation.

So one can reasonably conclude, imo, that is is human nature to have an unbending desire for an answer - any answer, in fact - regardless of whether we can be sure that the answer is correct/verifiable.

So, what is it that allows atheists to be content in not knowing the answer? And how can theists be content with their unproven faith in their answer?

IndieHibby

03-09-2010, 05:20 PM

I'd like to believe in Reginald but can't subscribe to the idea of offering up my nuts.

:faf:

Maybe Yogi was alluding to his private faith in Reginald when he threatened to offer up Stokes' nuts if he tried to engineer his move to Celtic??

(((Fergus)))

03-09-2010, 09:46 PM

Personally, I don't know - I haven't read Hawkins book to go over his theory, but because I don't know and you dont know and, indeed, nobody indisputably knows it doesnt mean "God/Allah/Odin/Zeus done it".

It does mean though that something we do not comprehend did it. The main (?) attribute of "G-d", if you can even call it an attribute, is incomprehensibility, e.g., it is beyond our ability (mine anyway) to conceive of a creation "out of nothing" at one extreme and infinite at the other. Nothing in out material consciousness is created without a cause or exists without boundaries.

IWasThere2016

03-09-2010, 09:56 PM

Why do people believe in Hawking?

He's asked a question and he taps on this computer .. What if he's just looking up the answer on Wiki or Google? :greengrin

(((Fergus)))

03-09-2010, 09:58 PM

Can't argue with that.

But you have to accept that by the same logic, it would be impossible to prove that the Universe wasnt created by a small squirrel called Reginald from Berkhampstead.

Not true at all. The purpose of monotheism is to get away from personalised Gods such as those entertained by the Greeks and Romans (and your squirrel pal) and accept the existence of a power that is unnamed and totally inconceivable by the human mind. As a result, there are only two options for the creation of the universe (even this finite word fails to grasp the infinity of that which it seeks to describe):

1) it is intentional
2) it is unintentional

If it was intentional, then there must be some kind of blueprint into which we as human beings have to fit and having free will, we have to use our reason gifted mind to find that way rather than relying on instinct.

If it was unintentional, then nothing really matters, we can all get steaming drunk, rob the poor box and go see the hoors :thumbsup:

Twa Cairpets

03-09-2010, 10:43 PM

It does mean though that something we do not comprehend did it. The main (?) attribute of "G-d", if you can even call it an attribute, is incomprehensibility, e.g., it is beyond our ability (mine anyway) to conceive of a creation "out of nothing" at one extreme and infinite at the other.
Because it is beyond your abiity to comprehend it does not mean that a real God/creator fills in the gap. It was not possible for Inca;s, for example, to conceive of the the concept of the Universe, it didnt mean they were correct when they invented a Sun God to explain what they saw coming up in the sky every day.

Nothing in out material consciousness is created without a cause or exists without boundaries. In your opinion and hope. Lots of things exist without a cause or a reason. And why cant something exist without boundaries? Light, energy, time maybe?

Not true at all. The purpose of monotheism is to get away from personalised Gods such as those entertained by the Greeks and Romans (and your squirrel pal) and accept the existence of a power that is unnamed and totally inconceivable by the human mind.

Is it really? I thought the bible, for example, was relatively explicit in its naming of God through Jesus. And for an infinite power of unimaginable and inconveivable incomprehensibility, he was very explicit on the importance of burnt offerings and what things people could do to each other in their own bedrooms. Is there not a dichotomy here between a power that can create the cosmos in six days, but at the same time micromanage a monumentally tiny section of it down to a quite astonishing level. If it is all part of the incomprehensibility of it all, then why is there a book that millions of people believe to be the reported word of the self same creator which tries to explain precisely what it was all about? You cant have unknowable and extreme prescriptive direction at the same time - that really doesnt make sense.

As a result, there are only two options for the creation of the universe (even this finite word fails to grasp the infinity of that which it seeks to describe):

1) it is intentional
2) it is unintentional

But you're still trying to define it within a human frame of reference. Unintentional suggests in error, or accident. Although the concept is hard to comprehend, isn't it equally possible that the Universe just "is".

If it was intentional, then there must be some kind of blueprint into which we as human beings have to fit and having free will, we have to use our reason gifted mind to find that way rather than relying on instinct.

If it was unintentional, then nothing really matters, we can all get steaming drunk, rob the poor box and go see the hoors

Why? I dont believe in God, I certainly don't believe I have a divine purpose or prescribed fate. I don't believe for one second my life-actions will be judged by anyone or anything in the afterlife. Yet strangely neither I nor the vasy majority of atheists, agnostics or believers in any numbers of gods for century after century have gone out and done all the things you suggest.

Isn't it enough to believe that what you do when you are around on the planet is enough of a purpose? To be a decent person? To raise healthy, happy kids? To cntribute to the welfare of others selflessly? All of these things can be done by people of no or different faiths, as is demonstrated daily across the globe.

Surely that is where reason takes you.

Ed De Gramo

04-09-2010, 05:50 PM

This Big Bang thing ok?

What caused it?

Hawkings computer was wired up wrong

Pete

04-09-2010, 10:44 PM

Here's the key points for those who are getting a sore head reading this.

Steven Hawkings uses google and wikipedia for his information like the rest of us and the universe was created by a squirrel.

Call me simple but I'm happy with this version of events...and if you disagree then I'll have to kill you.

Woody1985

04-09-2010, 11:10 PM

Is this the squirrel you talk of?

http://www.chaosrift.com/images/squirrel.jpg

Fantic

05-09-2010, 08:41 AM

SRHibs

05-09-2010, 12:05 PM

As far as i can tell Hawking doesn't answer the question of how something comes out of nothing. He can never answer this question because the answer is somewhere outside the realms of science imo. You won't find it hidden in a mathematical table or at the bottom of a test tube. Even gravity is a force which clearly exists and is far from 'nothing'.

Exactly. He proves pretty much nothing substantial imo. Gravity is a property of our Universe, and there has to be an explanation as to how the laws of gravity came about. Obviously I don't believe that the explanation is God, but that doesn't mean you can totally discount it.
Although you could go on and on, as when you find out what created one thing, you've got to question what created the creator...

Woody1985

05-09-2010, 12:14 PM

Twa Cairpets

05-09-2010, 03:19 PM

Exactly. He proves pretty much nothing substantial imo. Gravity is a property of our Universe, and there has to be an explanation as to how the laws of gravity came about. Obviously I don't believe that the explanation is God, but that doesn't mean you can totally discount it.
Although you could go on and on, as when you find out what created one thing, you've got to question what created the creator...

Why? An explanation of the laws does not mean that the laws have a reason. It is somewhat less difficult for me to belive that the Universe formed from a singularity formed of everything than from any specific version of a God.

The belief in religion is not necessarily the same as belief in a creator. In the Western world, the current dominant version of a divine creation is the Christian God described in the Bible. Talk of how the Universe was formed is almost irrelevant to belief in Christianity.

Saying that science hasn't proven the Big Bang - although the evidence is mounting up - may well be true. But lack of definitive proof for the formation of the Universe via a route that has strong evidence to support it (the Big Bang) cannot be used a a stick to beat up any alternative creation myth which has zero evidence to support it.

Andy74

07-09-2010, 03:28 PM

I like the fact that universes could be being created in our own rooms billions of times a second, we'd never know.

We think ours is pretty big, or even infiinite, yet it could all still be inside something many times bigger.

What no-one will ever get their head round is at the outside of all of it there must be an end and then whatever is outside of that would need to have an end too, so everything must be infinite if that kept going, but that can't really work either can it?

And before time started and there being absolutely nothing there to begin with, how does that work? how do big bangs create themsleves?

One thing I'm sure of is that there weren't anything like gods involved. When you now see how vast just our own universe is and how insignificant a speck we are in it all and not at all unusual you wonder how anyone could suggest just now that there was a God who created all this with just us in mind. Quite bizarre.

IWasThere2016

08-09-2010, 05:44 AM

He wikis it - I'm telling you!

RyeSloan

09-09-2010, 10:41 AM

One thing I'm sure of is that there weren't anything like gods involved. When you now see how vast just our own universe is and how insignificant a speck we are in it all and not at all unusual you wonder how anyone could suggest just now that there was a God who created all this with just us in mind. Quite bizarre.

This human centric view of God and the universe is the thing that really cracks me up...jeez we have hardly existed for any significant amount of time at all...quite why we think that 'God' would find us so special I have no idea.

Twa Cairpets

09-09-2010, 11:50 AM

This human centric view of God and the universe is the thing that really cracks me up...jeez we have hardly existed for any significant amount of time at all...quite why we think that 'God' would find us so special I have no idea.

Because in the more literal interpretations of the bible, people believe that we are the reason for the Universe existing.
Just under half of Americans (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm) genuinely believe that the Earth is in the region of 10,000 years old and we were created exactly as described in the Bible. If you believe this, you therefore clearly believe that God himself is hugely human-centric.

The fact that this belief requires the suspension of understanding of every scientific discovery/law/proof of the last 200 years is neither here nor there - to believe it must, I assume, be very comforting. To lack the desire or ability to challenge that belief rationally is an element of what faith is all about.

Holmesdale Hibs

09-09-2010, 03:51 PM

Because in the more literal interpretations of the bible, people believe that we are the reason for the Universe existing.
Just under half of Americans (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm) genuinely believe that the Earth is in the region of 10,000 years old and we were created exactly as described in the Bible. If you believe this, you therefore clearly believe that God himself is hugely human-centric.

The fact that this belief requires the suspension of understanding of every scientific discovery/law/proof of the last 200 years is neither here nor there - to believe it must, I assume, be very comforting. To lack the desire or ability to challenge that belief rationally is an element of what faith is all about.

I agree with what your point but I would take anything you read on a religious website with a bucket load of salt. IMO the number would be significantly lower than 50%.

There is a book called 'Why people Believe in God' written by a guy called Michael Shermer, who is a skeptic. I've not read that particular book but he wrote something called 'Why People Believe Weird Things' which I enjoyed despite not normally reading that kind of thing.

ancienthibby

09-09-2010, 05:12 PM

Because in the more literal interpretations of the bible, people believe that we are the reason for the Universe existing.
Just under half of Americans (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm) genuinely believe that the Earth is in the region of 10,000 years old and we were created exactly as described in the Bible. If you believe this, you therefore clearly believe that God himself is hugely human-centric.

The fact that this belief requires the suspension of understanding of every scientific discovery/law/proof of the last 200 years is neither here nor there - to believe it must, I assume, be very comforting. To lack the desire or ability to challenge that belief rationally is an element of what faith is all about.

You marry two divergent positions to make a point TC and you are being a bit disengenious in this!!

You know very well that there are millions of believers worldwide who will have no part with the Sarah Palin literal understanding of the Bible! God is spirit and He cannot be bounded by our feeble understanding of Him in time and space.

Then, you make the valid point of God being 'human-centric' and I agree fully!

But you must then engage with what made God 'human-centric' and that is only in the giving of His Only Son, The Lord Jesus, as a propitiation for the sins of humanity.

Twa Cairpets

09-09-2010, 09:08 PM

I agree with what your point but I would take anything you read on a religious website with a bucket load of salt. IMO the number would be significantly lower than 50%.

There is a book called 'Why people Believe in God' written by a guy called Michael Shermer, who is a skeptic. I've not read that particular book but he wrote something called 'Why People Believe Weird Things' which I enjoyed despite not normally reading that kind of thing.

I take anything on a religious website with the entire annual output of the Saxa factory, but the link takes you to a site which douments various researches done by organisations such as Gallup. The general figure is, depressingly, around the mid-high 40's in percentage terms.

Shermer is a good writer - he is an ex-evangelical so is able to make points from both perspectives, a;though bits of "Weird Things" is a tad dry. In a similar vein but to my mind a better read is "The faith Healers" or "Flim Flam" by James Randi.

You marry two divergent positions to make a point TC and you are being a bit disengenious in this!!

You know very well that there are millions of believers worldwide who will have no part with the Sarah Palin literal understanding of the Bible! God is spirit and He cannot be bounded by our feeble understanding of Him in time and space.

Then, you make the valid point of God being 'human-centric' and I agree fully!

But you must then engage with what made God 'human-centric' and that is only in the giving of His Only Son, The Lord Jesus, as a propitiation for the sins of humanity.

Ignoring, if you will forgive me, the religious rhetoric at the the end of your post, the point I was making was that if you take the bible literally, it is quite clearly solely concerned with humankind and what they need to do to live a righteous life. I was merely pointing out that tens of millions of people do take this view becuase of their literal belief in what it says. The unconditional faith of people who are in this position is surely as a result of being, essentially, programmed to believe in its inerrant truth virtully from birth, without being given the capability or opportunity to question its validity.

Youre quite right, millions dont subscribe to this literal view, and choose to go down a rather woolier interprative line, which to me, as a non-believer, is difficult to understand because either the bible is the recorded will of God, or its not. if its not, then it is clearly a human creation, and having absolute faith in a human creation is a strange position to be in, in my view.

ancienthibby

10-09-2010, 02:17 PM

I take anything on a religious website with the entire annual output of the Saxa factory, but the link takes you to a site which douments various researches done by organisations such as Gallup. The general figure is, depressingly, around the mid-high 40's in percentage terms.

Shermer is a good writer - he is an ex-evangelical so is able to make points from both perspectives, a;though bits of "Weird Things" is a tad dry. In a similar vein but to my mind a better read is "The faith Healers" or "Flim Flam" by James Randi.

Ignoring, if you will forgive me, the religious rhetoric at the the end of your post, the point I was making was that if you take the bible literally, it is quite clearly solely concerned with humankind and what they need to do to live a righteous life. I was merely pointing out that tens of millions of people do take this view becuase of their literal belief in what it says. The unconditional faith of people who are in this position is surely as a result of being, essentially, programmed to believe in its inerrant truth virtully from birth, without being given the capability, opportunity to question its validity.

Youre quite right, millions dont subscribe to this literal view, and choose to go fown a rather woolier interprative line, which to mean, as a non-believer, is difficult to understand because either the bible is the recorded will of God, or its not. if its not, then it is clearly a human creation, and having absolute faith in a human creation is a strange position to be in, in my view.

Not how or why it was posted TC!

Many many people will encounter the Lord Jesus before they come to any knowledge of the Creator God!

There is no disconnect between the two and as I have posted before, it is what God has done for humankind in the Lord Jesus, that can really awaken people to the mystery and majesty of our Creator God.

Also with respect to the 'literal' understanding of Genesis, wonder why so many people are so reluctant to acknowledge that time and space offer no boundaries for our Creator. As the OT says, 'With God a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day!

Twa Cairpets

10-09-2010, 02:55 PM

ancient, I genuinely admire the depth of your faith, honestly, but what (in the context of thiss thread) does any of it actually mean. I've read through it a couple of times and I'm still non the wiser

Not how or why it was posted TC!

Many many people will encounter the Lord Jesus before they come to any knowledge of the Creator God!

How? In what way? Are you saying it is not possible to have any appreciation of God until you encounter/accept Jesus? Does this mean that before you have this religious insight you have to have absolute faith that having faith will lead you to God?

There is no disconnect between the two and as I have posted before, it is what God has done for humankind in the Lord Jesus, that can really awaken people to the mystery and majesty of our Creator God.
Even accepting which ever version of the NT you care to choose as an accuarate description of Jesus's historical life and works, and even accepting that he believed he was the son of God (tell you what, for the sake of the argument I'll accept he truly was the son of God), in terms of the creation of the Earth and the Universe, the only thing we have to go on is Genesis, is it not. Absolutely everything we know about the Universe and the planet - absolutely everything - refutes the existance of even a semblance of accuracy in the creation story of christianity. Coming to know God through Jesus, as you would put it, does not change that rather awkward fact.

Also with respect to the 'literal' understanding of Genesis, wonder why so many people are so reluctant to acknowledge that time and space offer no boundaries for our Creator. As the OT says, 'With God a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day!

Quote mining, ancient. Tsk tsk.

The phrase is New Testament, 2 Peter 3:8, and does not relate to the boundaries of time and space. The full context is given from 2 Peter 3:2 -13

2: That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
3: Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4: And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5: For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8: But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9: The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10: But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11: Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12: Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13: Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

So basically its saying that God is patient, not that time and space are bendable to his will, and that we'd better buck our ideas up before he - without warning, mark you - destroys us all in the promised apocalyptic meltdown.

And remember the New Testament is meant to be the nice one.

ancienthibby

10-09-2010, 03:36 PM

ancient, I genuinely admire the depth of your faith, honestly, but what (in the context of thiss thread) does any of it actually mean. I've read through it a couple of times and I'm still non the wiser

How? In what way? Are you saying it is not possible to have any appreciation of God until you encounter/accept Jesus? Does this mean that before you have this religious insight you have to have absolute faith that having faith will lead you to God?

Even accepting which ever version of the NT you care to choose as an accuarate description of Jesus's historical life and works, and even accepting that he believed he was the son of God (tell you what, for the sake of the argument I'll accept he truly was the son of God), in terms of the creation of the Earth and the Universe, the only thing we have to go on is Genesis, is it not. Absolutely everything we know about the Universe and the planet - absolutely everything - refutes the existance of even a semblance of accuracy in the creation story of christianity. Coming to know God through Jesus, as you would put it, does not change that rather awkward fact.

Quote mining, ancient. Tsk tsk.

The phrase is New Testament, 2 Peter 3:8, and does not relate to the boundaries of time and space. The full context is given from 2 Peter 3:2 -13

2: That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
3: Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4: And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5: For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8: But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9: The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10: But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11: Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12: Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13: Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

So basically its saying that God is patient, not that time and space are bendable to his will, and that we'd better buck our ideas up before he - without warning, mark you - destroys us all in the promised apocalyptic meltdown.

And remember the New Testament is meant to be the nice one.

To clarify, TC, here is the quotation I had in mind when I posted earlier!

Guess what, it's from the OT!! And does speak to who God is and that fthe universe is under His control.

http://biblebrowser.com/psalms/90-4.htm

ancienthibby

20-09-2010, 05:29 PM

With reference to your question in bold, do you hold a (false, imo) assumption that a 'being' must have created the conditions/laws within which the 'Big Bang' happened? Why must this be so?

The position of the scientist on this is "we don't know" (what caused the Big Bang), and is perfectly happy with that, until science proposes a consequent theory on the matter. The position of the theist on this is (correct me if I am wrong) "there is a creator-being/God who must (as there is no alternative, in their mind) have created the Big Bang."

It is clear from anthropological studies that where/whenever humans consider things that are 'inexplicable', they invoke the supernatural explanation.

So one can reasonably conclude, imo, that is is human nature to have an unbending desire for an answer - any answer, in fact - regardless of whether we can be sure that the answer is correct/verifiable.

So, what is it that allows atheists to be content in not knowing the answer? And how can theists be content with their unproven faith in their answer?

Indie, please excuse my lengthy delay in responding!

I don't have a major issue with some of what you say, except in respect to your use of the word 'inexplicable, for example.

Let me make a first response, so to speak, with your last sentence, which may then set the scene for other discussions.

You ask: 'How can be theists be content with their unproven faith'. My answer would be that you can never 'prove' faith (otherwise what's the point?) and I (and more than a billion believers, and growing, worldwide) can attest that I have never met a believer with any need to prove their faith.

Faith is a great Biblical calling - you put your trust in the Lord Jesus and none other - and no other condition, no pre-requisite, no good works or the like is required. Simple faith; which, in the belief of believers, and the Scriptures, is all that is required - not works as well, as some religions would have you believe.

This debate started with the view that R Hawkings had somehow proved that God did not exist, in that he was not necessary for the Creation of the Universe. This Hawkings view has been roundly opposed, with some commentators suggesting that Hawkings has veered into the field of philosophy rather than that of science!!

I hold to the view that what the Creator God has revealed of Himself to us in the form of His Son, the living Lord Jesus, is much more than sufficient to confirm that He is the Lord of Creation!! I have posted before, and will do so again, that those who wish to challenge a Creator God, must get to grips with the personal God, the Lord Jesus.

He walked this earth, He (by His Spirit) lives in the hearts, minds and lives of all believers!! Get on board!!:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: