tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8412258257554972283.post3799522939712587273..comments2023-09-19T12:39:41.178+01:00Comments on + Science and Values: Hawking's book fails to disprove GodDissentershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13052264110134848970noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8412258257554972283.post-26595699887472576572011-09-26T01:34:40.158+01:002011-09-26T01:34:40.158+01:00") Why is it important that the "uncause...") Why is it important that the "uncaused first cause" be what some people describe as God?"<br /><br />If there is (as there must logically be) a first cause that is transcendent enough to exist uncaused, it may or not fit any particular person's conception of "God".Daniel Bhttp://www.austintxmathtutor.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8412258257554972283.post-46941398545505198462010-11-12T01:43:27.793+00:002010-11-12T01:43:27.793+00:00Hello. Just to be up front, I'm not religious-...Hello. Just to be up front, I'm not religious- I'm spiritual. I've just read Victor J. Stenger's "God: The Failed Hypothesis". For the most part I disputed what he wrote, but I admit I've been left with a few doubts about the existence of a divine Creator. I so appreciated reading this site; it has re-installed my intuitive belief that there is, indeed, an intelligent agent who has created this amazing universe. Thank you.Lisa Aymontnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8412258257554972283.post-27184978773179777902010-09-26T10:19:45.885+01:002010-09-26T10:19:45.885+01:00Great article. Thanks!Great article. Thanks!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8412258257554972283.post-37462447940886258612010-09-13T11:52:12.408+01:002010-09-13T11:52:12.408+01:00Thank's John - that was really my point as wel...Thank's John - that was really my point as well.Dissentershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13052264110134848970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8412258257554972283.post-19387115035771444932010-09-13T00:42:02.320+01:002010-09-13T00:42:02.320+01:00I may have misunderstood you, but at least miracle...I may have misunderstood you, but at least miracles have a cause - Hawking's Grand explanation doesn't even have that.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17496161581317710863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8412258257554972283.post-27535405290162467592010-09-11T09:43:18.542+01:002010-09-11T09:43:18.542+01:00A good point John. Metaphysically speaking, how do...A good point John. Metaphysically speaking, how does Hawking's view differ from belief in miracles? If matter can alter its state, or start to exist for no reason then why cannot matter come into existence or change its state under the will of God.Dissentershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13052264110134848970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8412258257554972283.post-29147032717680706812010-09-11T09:28:56.617+01:002010-09-11T09:28:56.617+01:00If something can truly come into existence for no ...If something can truly come into existence for no reason i.e. a causeless beginning, then all scientists had better do the most honourable and logical act and give up the scientific project. Science depends on explanations built upon the metaphysical principle of cause and effect and it cannot operate if this weren't true.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17496161581317710863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8412258257554972283.post-48658431419039642052010-09-10T19:03:53.257+01:002010-09-10T19:03:53.257+01:00Matter ans anti-matter are believed to pop into ex...Matter ans anti-matter are believed to pop into existence in the vacuum of space. But it is a mistake to think the vacuum is nothing. It has a minimum energy of hf/2.<br />Secondly, what is also required is intelligent causality, not just physical causality to account for the mathematical precision of laws of nature.Dissentershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13052264110134848970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8412258257554972283.post-8208869715038806402010-09-10T14:52:53.821+01:002010-09-10T14:52:53.821+01:00The assertion that there must be a first cause has...The assertion that there must be a first cause has already been proven false. That's why Hawking said philosophy is dead. The phenomenon of spontaneous creation has been scientifically observed (detected/measured) on the atomic scale as previously predicted by quantum mechanics. There's no need to invoke God any more.Smathnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8412258257554972283.post-17898989716165351922010-09-09T02:44:17.252+01:002010-09-09T02:44:17.252+01:00Aren't you a little too quick on the draw to p...Aren't you a little too quick on the draw to post an article with this title without actually reading the book?<br /><br />Nevertheless, you're probably right the book does not disprove God. But it also does not mow my lawn. But since it set out to do neither, it seems rather deceptive to call it a failure in either regard.Bo Gardinerhttp://www.greenwoodblog.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8412258257554972283.post-87458994746577762862010-09-07T05:36:48.732+01:002010-09-07T05:36:48.732+01:00Toronto,
I think your questions deserve an answer...Toronto, <br />I think your questions deserve an answer.<br /><br />1) Why can't the "uncaused first cause" be the effect we have described as gravity?<br /><br />Answer 1.<br /> If gravity is an effect then it has a cause, so it cannot be the first cause.<br /><br />2) Why is it important that the "uncaused first cause" be what some people describe as God?<br /><br />Answer 2.<br />The first cause produces everything else; so it is creative. The creation of all things is a singular event and not the result of some natural process that is repeated over and over again. Only a free being can produce singular events, and only an intelligent being can produce singular events that have a purpose. Since the universe acts according to laws that make life possible, it seems to be the product of a intelligent being who designed the universe to fulfill that purpose. If indeed the universe was designed and created for a purpose that includes us, it is extremely important that we know exactly how we fit into that plan.<br /><br />3) Why can't God be the ..result.. Of the "uncaused first cause"?<br /><br />Answer 3. <br />It is not logically consistent to claim that a God who created all things according to His plan is in fact the result of some irrational process. Intelligence either exists eternally, or it has no cause and therefore does not exist. Since you exist and are intelligent, there must be an intelligent being capable of causing your existence; and that being is God.<br /><br />4) If 3 were true, everything witnessed about God would be true except that he was not the first cause. Should we try to find out?<br /><br />Answer 4.<br /># 3 cannot be true. If God is not the first cause then nothing said about God is true because God does not exist.<br /><br />5) If we find out God was not the "uncaused first cause", what changes? <br /><br />Answer 5.<br />Then we would know that there is no meaning or purpose to life; and that we are just highly evolved animals destined for extinction.Lamonthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17534269474358121464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8412258257554972283.post-12519266994770653152010-09-06T14:19:25.816+01:002010-09-06T14:19:25.816+01:001)Why can't the "uncaused first cause&quo...1)Why can't the "uncaused first cause" be the effect we have described as gravity?<br /><br />2)Why is it important that the "uncaused first cause" be what some people describe as God?<br /><br />3)Why can't God be the ..result.. of the "uncaused first cause"?<br /><br />4)If 3 was true, everything witnessed about God would be true except that he was not the first cause. Should we try to find out?<br /><br />5)If we find out God was not the "uncaused first cause", what changes?Torontonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8412258257554972283.post-40517939616949360782010-09-06T12:09:29.136+01:002010-09-06T12:09:29.136+01:00Contra the headline writers and commentators (such...Contra the headline writers and commentators (such as yourself), Hawking did not say he had disproved God. In the sentence you quote from him, he has only updated Laplace's famous dictum "I have no need for that hypothesis."Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09698934106397111684noreply@blogger.com