[onlooker]

In their book "The Grand Design Stephen" Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow claim they have demonstrated God does not need to exist. Well, in fact it seems their arguments are crud and illogical. Would any of you like to take a stab at arguing why God should or should not exist.

My take is this Science has not offered any convincing argument as to why God does NOT need to exist. So, given that anything at all exists, given the rather orderly and seemingly intelligent design of the Universe and coherent Laws that govern it as well as the miraculous existence of life especially sentient intelligent life like ours, my opinion is a Supreme Being does exist who is the programmers or architect of this and/or other Universes. Now, how and why does God exist? Well, his existence presupposes and transcends a why and a space/time continuum.

See more at: http://strangenotions.com/hawking-proof-for-god

[Outcast_Searcher]

In their book "The Grand Design Stephen" Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow claim they have demonstrated God does not need to exist. Well, in fact it seems their arguments are crud and illogical. Would any of you like to take a stab at arguing why God should or should not exist.

My take is this Science has not offered any convincing argument as to why God does NOT need to exist. So, given that anything at all exists, given the rather orderly and seemingly intelligent design of the Universe and coherent Laws that govern it as well as the miraculous existence of life especially sentient intelligent life like ours, my opinion is a Supreme Being does exist who is the programmers or architect of this and/or other Universes. Now, how and why does God exist? Well, his existence presupposes and transcends a why and a space/time continuum.

See more at: http://strangenotions.com/hawking-proof-for-god

1). Maybe if you don't want to appear to be "crud" [sic], do a bit of proof reading.

2). You're making the same sort of emotional and unscientific argument against this science that AGW deniers make against AGW being real or climate science being scientific.

To both points, the irony is palpable.

[onlooker]

I beg to differ. On this question nobody till now can offer empirical evidence to prove or disprove God exists Thus, we are left with opinion in which one holds no more weight than another by definition.
On the issue related to climate science we have hard facts and proven laws arrived at via the scrutiny of the scientific method. So, for anyone to discount some of the conclusions already reached by a broad segment of the scientific community, they must forcefully and rationally offer a reasonable and logical basis to do so. The onus is on the naysayer to refute the sound science behind the conclusions of many scientists

[Plantagenet]

Science has not offered any convincing argument as to why God does NOT need to exist.

IF the flying spaghetti monster doesn't do anything, then it doesn't matter if it exists or not.


Michaelagelo's famous painting of the flying spaghetti monster on the ceiling on the Sistine Chapel

[Outcast_Searcher]

Science has not offered any convincing argument as to why God does NOT need to exist.

IF the flying spaghetti monster doesn't do anything, then it doesn't matter if it exists or not.


Michaelagelo's famous painting of the flying spaghetti monster on the ceiling on the Sistine Chapel

You are quoting Onlooker, not me, BTW.

[Outcast_Searcher]

I beg to differ. On this question nobody till now can offer empirical evidence to prove or disprove God exists Thus, we are left with opinion in which one holds no more weight than another by definition.
On the issue related to climate science we have hard facts and proven laws arrived at via the scrutiny of the scientific method. So, for anyone to discount some of the conclusions already reached by a broad segment of the scientific community, they must forcefully and rationally offer a reasonable and logical basis to do so. The onus is on the naysayer to refute the sound science behind the conclusions of many scientists

Just as AGW deniers need to refute climate science with evidence, the "God is real" believers need to refute the astronomical, cosmological, etc. scientific evidence that there is no need for dieties with evidence (any actual evidence would be a fine start) that such dieties exist.

That's how science works. Evidence. You're still using only emotion and rhetoric.

[onlooker]

No, not really OS. The question of God has been recognized by many to lie outside the purview of Science. The fact that Science has shown cause and effect and the existence of rigid Physical/Mathematical laws to explain phenomenon and particular questions about the Universe does NOT discount in any way the existence of God. Especially, what I am trying to get at is the issue of God lacks a methodology to ascertain definitively his existence or his non existence. Sorry, you cannot pin me down here with appeals to provide some proof or something. This is a non sequitur.

[AdamB]

In their book "The Grand Design Stephen" Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow claim they have demonstrated God does not need to exist. Well, in fact it seems their arguments are crud and illogical. Would any of you like to take a stab at arguing why God should or should not exist.

Anything outside of mathematics can be argued or disproved. Which is why religion, and religious belief (like say peak oil) can be whatever the waco of the day says it is.

I'll take Hawking's word for it if only because he is familiar with math, I lack the desire and ability to come anywhere close to his understanding of math, so his take on the topic will be superior to mine, and anyone else's on this website because there aren't any Hawkings here. Plenty of religious belief in bell shaped curves and whatnot, but no mathematicians of Hawkings caliber.

My take is this Science has not offered any convincing argument as to why God does NOT need to exist.

What does need have to do with it? People need God to exist, not science. Why you might ask? Because most people can't accept their insignificance in the greater scheme of things without having a mental breakdown.

[onlooker]

What does need have to do with it?-- Everything. Unless, Science can show God is Not required for the Universe to exist, well then you cannot rule out the possibility of God's existence

[jedrider]

What does need have to do with it?-- Everything. Unless, Science can show God is Not required for the Universe to exist, well then you cannot rule out the possibility of God's existence

Quantum Mechanics says that God plays dice. What more needs to be said? I think we've been dealt a good hand, but every gambler that was ahead eventually runs out of luck.

[ROCKMAN]

"well then you cannot rule out the possibility of God's existence". The rules of logic state that one can never prove anything does not exist since the automatic rebuttal is that you haven't looked in the right place.

IOW not finding anything does not prove it might exist. It only proves you haven't found it.

[Cog]

[Subjectivist]

Mathematics beyond the level of basic arithmetic is not nearly as immutable as you seem to think. Counting is a humans way of making sense of their surroundings, and basic arithmetic operations are ways to manipulate that understanding to serve the mental universe constructed by the humans who use it. This is all well and good, but when you pass differential calculus and get into theoretical mathematics the numbers cease to be directly connected to the physical universe around you.

The higher math of theoretical physics is used to describe not the physical universe you can observe and test, but rather wholly constructed universes where the very fundamentals are manipulated to make the math come to the desired outcome.

The physical universe you experience has four cooridnates in space-time, height, width, depth, and duration. Theoretical physicists and mathemeticians add as many additional theoretical dimensions as necessary to fit whatever model of the universe they have dreampt up.

Because common arithmetic is the root of theoretical mathematics Joe6p is fooled into thinking it has the same basis in physical reality. However its entire basis is theoretical reality, the universe as theoretical physicists and mathematicians think it should be, not as they can prove it is. Theoretical physicists created the Big Bang theory to explain an expanding universe, but now the math might not actually support expansion. So they invented the theory of dark matter and dark energy to explain why the galaxy doesn't behave the way the math said it should. Instead of recalculating the math to figure out where they went wrong they just created extra dimensions to nake everything sum up correctly.

If you diligently seek God you will find Him. If you refuse to accept the possibility of his existence you will never see Him even if He stands directly in your path.

[Plantagenet]

If you diligently seek God you will find Him. If you refuse to accept the possibility of his existence you will never see Him even if He stands directly in your path.

That sounds very reasonable. So you believe that God (or Allah) makes himself invisible when he senses that nonbelievers are coming down the path towards him?


Cheers!

[Ibon]

If you diligently seek God you will find Him. If you refuse to accept the possibility of his existence you will never see Him even if He stands directly in your path.

Is he or she a being or a metaphysical state?

[Subjectivist]

If you diligently seek God you will find Him. If you refuse to accept the possibility of his existence you will never see Him even if He stands directly in your path.

Is he or she a being or a metaphysical state?

The former, who helps you find the latter.

[Cog]

Maybe observation collapses God's wave function.*




*I'm just kidding God. I'm not one of these heathens.

[SeaGypsy]

Logic (observation) dismantles the Bible (& other religious 'wave functions).

[Outcast_Searcher]

No, not really OS. The question of God has been recognized by many to lie outside the purview of Science. The fact that Science has shown cause and effect and the existence of rigid Physical/Mathematical laws to explain phenomenon and particular questions about the Universe does NOT discount in any way the existence of God. Especially, what I am trying to get at is the issue of God lacks a methodology to ascertain definitively his existence or his non existence. Sorry, you cannot pin me down here with appeals to provide some proof or something. This is a non sequitur.

And you can say the universe is made of purple unicorns because you think so. And you can say science has nothing to say about it because it lies outside the purview of science. And I'll say you having an opinion, doesn't make it so.