-
Posts
-
rudeboy, you should check things carefully before posting.
I said that I believe that Love created the cosmos, and that without it we couldn’t continue.
First, that is what I believe. It could well be wrong. I don’t approach these things with the same certainty you do. Scientists don’t approach things with your level of certainty.
Secondly, check what hawking says before you accuse me of making it up.
For example, my memory of this quotation in the full context
“Science can’t prove that God doesn’t exist, but it makes God unnecessary.”
is where he argues that. If not in this quotation (of whihc I am 95% certain, he argues it elsewhere – when i have time I’ll find it.
You really should stop assuming that because you don’t operate with someone else’s beliefs, then that person must be a liar or feeble-minded.
. I’ve been thinking of people like you and rudeboy and ‘Morgan’ as among those who spat in the face of Jesus and taunted him whereas I was above all that.I spat in the face of Christ too and mocked him,..
Stop this nonsense, either engage in sensible debate or don’t engage at all. It’s like having a conversation with someone suffering hallucinations debating the merits of a talking giraffe ordering afternoon tea at Mrs Miggins tea shop. I don’t accept Jesus, the bible or any other religious mantra brought into debates so your entire post content starts from a base of wet sand before it even begins.
rudeboy, you should check things carefully before posting. I said that I believe that Love created the cosmos, and that without it we couldn’t continue.”
.
Again this is rubbish with no scientific basis or logic to it
I said that I believe that Love created the cosmos, and that without it we couldn’t continue.
???
The quote you included from Hawkings is not the same as you implying Hawkings believes in ” another type of God” . You can’t just come out with statements such as ” The cosmos was started with love ” quoting a book written by man to substantiate it without being challenged. I look at the cosmos, see isolated barren worlds incapable of sustaining life with millions of lifeforms on our ball of rock either starving or ravaged with disease and question this madness like any sane person would. There is nothing “loving ” about the universe- a place so hostile to life that the earth is the only thing capable of sustaining it … providing you haven’t been shot, ravaged with disease, born into poverty, or killed by ” an act of God ” with typhoons , tsunamis and hurricanes of course. Thats not love in my eyes.. maybe you wear a rosier shade of glasses than me.
1 member liked this post.
Sure, that’s your belief about the cosmos.
Many – many – have held that. It’s been a crucial belief of people like Woody Allen, and it was elaborated by Western European philosophers about a hundred years ago. I could drop names but that would infuriate Ms M, who;s convinced I’m an intellectual show-off.
Your belief has as much basis as mine.
That’s the nature of belief.
But check again.
Hawking didn’t believe in any God. It was that lack of belief whihc directed his research into Time and Space through the Brief History period and, after he showed that his approach was wrong, it directed his research after a hiatus.
So when i say Hawking didn’t believe in any God, is that clear for you?? If not, please say.
What I am saying is that he believed – not demonstrated, but believed – that his research into the laws of the universe as impervious to any outside action would not. could not, disprove God – but would demonstrate that we would have no need to believe in God.
I could go further but really that’s all that needs to be said here. Do you think I got him wrong? If so, please direct me to a link or quotations which says so.
Now what I’m saying is that the type of God which Hawking was trying to show was unnecessary is not the type of God I believe in anyway.
Rather than throwing out terms like rubbish, think about that carefully and clearly (I know you can think clearly, I’m not at all insulting you). If you think that what I’m saying is faulty in logic, just say so, and I’ll accept what you’re saying or I’ll try to counter-argue.
If you think that what I’m saying is rubbish, and you can’t prove it isn’t – and I doubt very much that you can – then all you’re saying is that you don’t agree with me. We can all call each other names because the other person doesn’t agree with us, and that seems to be what you’re doing
A
Sure, that’s your belief about the cosmos. Many – many – have held that. It’s been a crucial belief of people like Woody Allen, and it was elaborated by Western European philosophers about a hundred years ago. I could drop names but that would infuriate Ms M, who;s convinced I’m an intellectual show-off. Your belief has as much basis as mine. That’s the nature of belief. But check again. Hawking didn’t believe in any God. It was that lack of belief whihc directed his research into Time and Space through the Brief History period and, after he showed that his approach was wrong, it directed his research after a hiatus. So when i say Hawking didn’t believe in any God, is that clear for you?? If not, please say. What I am saying is that he believed – not demonstrated, but believed – that his research into the laws of the universe as impervious to any outside action would not. could not, disprove God – but would demonstrate that we would have no need to believe in God. I could go further but really that’s all that needs to be said here. Do you think I got him wrong? If so, please direct me to a link or quotations which says so. Now what I’m saying is that the type of God which Hawking was trying to show was unnecessary is not the type of God I believe in anyway. Rather than throwing out terms like rubbish, think about that carefully and clearly (I know you can think clearly, I’m not at all insulting you). If you think that what I’m saying is faulty in logic, just say so, and I’ll accept what you’re saying or I’ll try to counter-argue. If you think that what I’m saying is rubbish, and you can’t prove it isn’t – and I doubt very much that you can – then all you’re saying is that you don’t agree with me. We can all call each other names because the other person doesn’t agree with us, and that seems to be what you’re doing A
Stating what you are writing is rubbish isn’t calling you names, I’ve no interest in playground insults as I’m sure you aren’t.
You state your beliefs are as valid as mine, yet you use the template of your beliefs as your interpretation of facts summarised from a book written by man 2000 years ago whilst I use actual evidence and logic. No one can prove or disprove anything, but the balance of probability is always forcing the onus on someone to prove something than disprove it. Hawkings used his understand of physics , the cosmos which is far greater than yours or mine to come to an informed view that on the balance of probability there is no God and describes himself as an atheist. You can state how ever many times as you want about ” differing Gods ” but those are the cold facts whether you choose to accept them or not.
I said that faith couldn’t be put in words, but sometimes you can get close.
And I said, it can be put very well into words.
“Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence”.
He wasn’t understanding the God I believe in.
Neither do you understand the God I believe in.
Scientists don’t approach things with your level of certainty.
When the scientist turn the ignition on in his new car, he is quite”certain” it will start.
When the scientist hits his space bar on his PC, he is quite “certain” it will create a space in the text on his screen.
Ms M, who;s convinced I’m an intellectual show-off.
I’m less convinced.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!