In response to Hawking's new stated position on God

**IAmZamzam** · 09-02-2010

I ordinarily don’t do this. Through gradual tapering I’ve more or less stopped responding to atheists altogether, at least in forums or other places where there’s an immediate and direct back-and-forth. (This is why I may well never write another “Atheistic Chestnuts Refuted” article, for instance.) There are two reasons. First, because most of the atheists you’ll talk to respond to your arguments with nothing more than talk that is little different from the insults of an elementary schooler, and their behavior otherwise is no less immature or appalling. They even use directly childish idioms and reference points, each more puerile and needlessly obnoxious than the last. (For instance, take their cliché analogies to God: Santa Claus, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, invisible pink unicorns...stop and think for a minute how odd it is to hear this coming from the mouths of grown-ups.) Some of them try to rationalize away their constantly insulting way of speaking by saying that humor helps to open the mind or that anyone who believes the “silly” things we do deserves to be mocked ruthlessly (apparently their sense of justice is no more advanced beyond the fifth grade than their sense of humor); others make no apologies but still get just as defensive anyway when you label their horrible behavior for what it is. I’m not saying that there aren’t civil atheists out there: probably there’s a lot of them, and years ago I was close friends with one. But the more vocal ones almost always seem to be the ones who mock and deride instead of reason: this trait reaches far beyond the ubiquitous forum trolls who exist among people of every stripe and goes all the way into many if not most of their most esteemed, “professional” scholars.

The second reason is that you can’t win with these sorts anyway since they’re constantly shifting their ground or fortifying themselves with catch-22’s. The modern atheistic intellectual zeitgeist is little more than a mass of self-contradictory double standards which leave no conceivable means for even a theoretical possibility to slip in from any quarter of anything making the holders of these standards change their minds. If one or two extraordinary events happen then the skeptics say that of course that doesn’t indicate anything because it’s obviously a fluke instead of a sign or divine intervention because after all, it’s not like such unlikely things happen all the time; if they do end up happening all the time then these people say that of course it doesn’t mean anything because it’s obviously just the statistical effect called clustering: an epidemic of extraordinary things has to happen to someone eventually. A lot of these skeptics walk around saying, “I’ll believe it when I see it,” yet if they do see something themselves they pass it off as a hallucination or some other sort of phantasm or illusion. They complain (rightly, perhaps) of atheists always being depicted, in fiction and even in real life, as being merely prejudiced by some emotional or psychological impetus like a personal trauma or something, but at the same time they go around talking about religious faith like it is automatically and inherently a purely emotional or psychological phenomenon, or even a mental illness. Some of these atheists (many of them the same people who on other occasions demand miracles as proof) claim that if something were to break the laws of physics then that would just necessitate a redefinition of those laws—again, leaving no room for any persuasion that there was divine intervention. Something in reality that doesn’t fit your worldview? Just patch it up by redefining a word.

Most egregiously of all, they criticize creationist “science” (again, rightly) of bringing the subject of the supernatural into science when by definition science is the study of the natural world only and therefore it’s like mixing oil and water, but then many of these same people also say that they disbelieve in God because there is no scientific evidence for Him. It’s no use pointing out to them that if scientific proof of the supernatural is impossible then so is scientific disproof of the supernatural, or that it is unreasonable and irrational in the first place to say that you disbelieve in God, a supernatural Being and therefore something that wouldn’t and couldn’t yield scientific evidence of His existence even if He did exist, because there is no scientific evidence for His existence. Oh, they’ll get the self-refuting and mind-closing discrepancy involved but somehow they still won’t get what’s wrong with holding to it. Do you see my predicament now? How are you to argue with a man who insists that something can’t be in the next room behind a locked door because his methods of studying this room have disclosed no reason to think that the object is here in it, even though he very well knows this is not where the object could possibly be if it exists, and he doesn’t care (or even takes pride) in how beside the point his reasoning is? And that’s not even close to the worst thing you have to deal with when trying to reason with these folks. It’s difficult and seemingly pointless to go on—in person, at any rate.

Every now and then, though, I come across a piece of anti-theism propaganda that is so very asinine, unoriginal, and nigh unreadable behind the words FALLACY being written all over it a thousand times in giant bold letters—and yet so likely to be talked about endlessly--that I know a refutation seems necessary and even with my ordinary distaste for such things I can hardly resist anyway. Such a piece is Stephen Hawking’s recent cant about God having no role in the universe. This is one of those articles that is so drenched in illogic that it seems necessary to go through it bit by bit:

STEPHEN HAWKING: GOD HAS NO ROLE IN UNIVERSE, by Theunis Bates

LONDON (Sept. 2)—Entering the ongoing debate between faith and science, renowned British scientist Stephen Hawking claims that modern physics has now proved that God played no role in the creation of the universe.

In a new book—“The Grand Design,” co-written with American physicist Leonard Mlodinow—the theoretical physicist sets out to demolish Sir Isaac Newton’s claim that an "intelligent and powerful Being" must have shaped the universe, which he believed could not have emerged from chaos. Hawking and Mlodinow rule out the possibility of divine intervention, saying that new theories have made the idea of a supernatural creator redundant.

I refer you to what I said above. Science, the study of nature, could no more prove anything about supernature one way or the other than linguistics could prove a mathematical formula. I suppose the idea is that nauseatingly old “God of the Gaps” nonsense, which posits that the real purpose of theism is to explain things that science has not “yet” explained. I’ve always had two serious problems with this theory. First, there’s the absurd literalism and historical snobbery involved with the implications and typical explanations or supports of the idea. Second, science has, in the end, not explained diddly squat as a replacement for how nature works as opposed to divine agencies or whatever. All science has done is put the words "the forces of nature" in as a placeholder and pretend that it already is what it is a placeholder for, and for that matter that these words even have a definition in the first place—or at least one that’s specific, coherent, articulate, and meaningful enough to have any practical value whatsoever so that it really makes any difference whether the definition is there or not. The concept of “the forces of nature” is a non-explanation—indeed, it’s really a non-concept. Descriptions are not the same thing as explanations. Saying the word “force” does not supply any new information. It doesn’t even communicate anything. Science can describe, to some degree, what gravity or electromagnetism does, but not what it is, or what causes it. The laws of the universe are just patterns of consistent behavior for which science has no actual explanation whatsoever, just semantics masquerading as explanations. These people notice a common type of occurrence, affix a label to it, and then say, “There, now the occurrence is explained.” Well, maybe they don’t go so far as to put it directly into words like that: one wouldn’t want to openly reveal the malarkey for what it is and force oneself to face the reality of one’s ignorance and, worse, one’s denial.

Not to mention that even if a fact does render something redundant, that is not the same as rendering it untrue. Or that these “forces of nature” themselves form an arabesque of pattern and organization to begin with which in every other instance is an evident mark of design. We are a colony of microscopic creatures living in one isolated corner of a vast Persian rug, and once we’ve seen enough of our corner to notice some patterns in the rug which form the basis and structure that our little “world” stands on, a few of us come up with names for these patterns, pretend the names are themselves existential and causal accounts, and then, most puzzlingly of all, use these names as evidence that we must not be on a woven thing of any sort. Because consistency is a sign of lack of design, apparently. At least when you give it a name which allows people to forget that you’re not talking about anything in the first place more specific and explanatory than things behaving consistently in certain ways. Such is “the forces of nature”.

But wait, if we read on then we see that Mr. Hawking isn’t saying that: no, it’s worse. He’s saying that not only was there no weaver, the rug wove itself:

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," the pair write, in an extract published in today's London Times. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going."

Except that there must have been something to light the paper with, and something to have ignited it and set it to the paper. It seems ridiculous that I should actually have to explain that and why things can’t create themselves, let alone out of nothing, but all right. For one thing, something has to exist before it can perform any action or function such as creation. And if it already exists to begin with, that means it’s already been created, and furthermore...oh, enough of this. Like I said, it shouldn’t bear explaining. (Additionally, even if it were not necessary to invoke God, that would not mean that He’s not there. “Necessary” and “real” are two very different concepts, and thus to say that an absence of necessity indicates an absence of reality is to speak in non-sequiturs.)

"The Grand Design," which goes on sale next week, is a significant shift away from Hawking's previous comments on the divine. In his 1988 best-seller, “A Brief History of Time,” he suggested that it was possible to believe in the concept of God as creator and also hold a scientific view of the universe. "If we do discover a complete theory...of why it is that we and the universe exist...it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we would know the mind of God," he wrote.

And in a 2007 interview, he appeared to portray himself as an agnostic. "I believe the universe is governed by the laws of science," he told the BBC. "The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws."

The “mind of God” statement is open to various possible interpretations. Indeed, many people have suspected Hawking of being a flat-out atheist all along, who didn’t want to admit to it because it would mean a drop in book sales or reputation. He has been maybe a little vague and evasive on the subject, and I do seem to remember reading at infidels.org or somewhere a few years back, in some article about how more atheistic celebrities should proudly proclaim their atheism rather than keep it a secret, that...I can’t remember the author’s name for the life of me, but whoever it was put months of “tremendous pressure” (i.e. obnoxious poking, prying and pestering instead of letting the poor man have his right to privacy) on Hawking until finally his secretary said, “When Mr. Hawking says ‘God’ he is referring to the forces of nature.” I don’t know if that’s true or not—it was only secondhand information from a secretary who may have just been trying to shut that badgering fellow up—but in any case, whatever Hawking believed Bates should not just declare a flip-flop in Hawking’s position on theism when his previous position was not at all clear and he himself has not said anything about changing his mind.

Hawking now argues that Newton's assertion that the laws of nature cannot alone explain the existence of life and the universe started to fall apart in 1992, when astronomers discovered the first extrasolar planets (planets beyond our own solar system) orbiting other sunlike stars.

"That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions—the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass, far less remarkable, and far less compelling evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings," he writes.

“Just to please us”?! I’ll be generous and assume that was a silly little careless poor choice of words. As for the rest, it’s all that same endlessly repeated line about how modern knowledge of science somehow means less evidence of teleology because the individual (and usually, mostly abandoned per se) straw man argument is treated or implied as standing for all teleological thought. Usually this is done by saying that the theory of evolution itself has disproven the teleological position; now Hawking is speaking as though the likelihood of life on other planets has, and in mere reference to the ancient words of Isaac Newton. This makes Hawking no better than the creationists who attack selected, oversimplified statements written by Darwin himself as if that could refute the entire theory of evolution. I have already discussed above why the “forces of nature” are more likely to be signs of design than of undesign, and I have discussed it further, with refutations of the inevitable counter-arguments, in the other thread where I gave the excerpt from my own book in progress. If—pardon me, when—I must explain it all over again, it should be in another thread still, because to go into it here would be prolix and slightly off topic.

Hawking believes that other universes, as well as other solar systems, are also likely to exist. But if God's purpose was to create mankind, he wonders, why would He make these redundant and out-of-reach worlds?

If that doesn’t make you wonder why even the most intelligent nontheists in the world cannot formulate intelligent arguments, I don’t know what will. Apparently Hawking is one of those nontheists who automatically equate belief in God with belief that God made the world only to make humans, or mainly to make humans. Another straw man, though not at all of an uncommon stripe: nontheistic literature is replete with attacks on theism itself by way of attacking individual, select beliefs of certain groups of theists. Lots of theists do not believe that God made the world just to make mankind: indeed, the notion is explicitly denied in the Koran, which was written in the Dark Ages: “The creation of the heavens and the earth is certainly greater than the creation of humans, though most humans don’t know it.” (Surah 40, verse 57) This is one of the dangers of ignorance and stereotype: they strike even the smartest people, making them think such manifest malarkey as that “X existing in the first place=X having certain motives” is a necessary truth that is so obvious as not even to be considered. Heck, God’s role as creator and designer doesn’t even indicate that any viewpoint about His motives at all, religious or unorthodox, is necessarily correct.

Second of all, what makes other worlds redundant? The Koran, again, stated that there are many earths (surah 65, verse 12). Even if we are alone out there, the vast size of the universe beyond us—which we know we can only barely begin to detect, the detectable parts alone being unimaginably cyclopean—is anything but redundant: it just goes to show how us how great and inconceivable its Creator would be. There is nothing redundant about a master who needs nothing yet who still creates people out of the kindness of His heart coming up with a few more servants: if anything, it stands to reason. And what the heck could the worlds being out of reach of each other (if they even are, for a more technologically advanced and long-lived species than our own) have to do with it?? There may be another colony of microscopic organisms living farther away from us here on this great Persian rug than we can ever hope to reach, but that doesn’t change the fact of the arabesque in the rug itself. And besides, it’s not like the existence of intelligent life on other planets is even proven in the least yet, though Hawking seems to be taking the matter purely for granted.

Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and high-profile atheist...

Okay, stop right there. Dawkins may be high-profile in the literal sense of being famous, but only in that sense. The implication here seems to be that he is a respected member of the intellectual community and yet I don’t even know of very many atheists who take him seriously. I think very little of him myself.

...welcomed the book, telling the Times that Hawking had developed a theory of Darwinism for the entirety of nature, not simply the creatures that live within it. "That's exactly what he's saying," Dawkins told the paper. "I know nothing of the details of the physics, but I had always assumed the same thing."

I spoke too soon. It looks like they did go ahead and tow the “evolution automatically refutes a teleological view of the universe” line after all in addition to the rest. I really should have seen this coming.

However, religious commentators have criticized Hawking's theorizing, saying he can never hope to explain what is essentially unexplainable.

"If all the physical laws had been explained and proved—which is a million miles from the case—our understanding of the actions of God would not be one whit greater: his existence and his actions are of a different order," writes Quentin de la Bedoyere, science editor of the U.K.'s Catholic Herald newspaper. "Most particularly it would not touch the question of how something existing comes out from nothing. That is a question which science cannot answer, and will never answer, because nothingness is not within its domain. ... Neither [Hawking], nor you, nor I will ever explain creation, except through faith."

He was doing so well until that final sentence. But because he messed up there and said that “faith” line, he has allowed the psyches of thousands of atheists reading his words to focus on that one thing and overlook the common sense of the rest. A week after reading the quote, it will be the only thing they remember him saying.

Stephen Hawking has given many signs lately that in the best case scenario what brilliance he may have once genuinely had is slipping, and in the worst case scenario he is losing his capacity for original and rational thought, or isn’t bothering to use said capacity. One of his other most recent articles is just one long cliché about how aliens probably exist and will probably be hostile toward us and must be of vastly superior intelligence and so on. Barring all the other errors involved, you’d at least think that he of all people would understand that the only thing necessary for a race to develop interstellar travel is not superhuman intelligence but only intelligence that’s at minimum approximately human, given that the human brain has not grown definitely and noticeably more intelligent in the few thousand years we’ve been really developing our technology, and obviously still will not have if in a few more thousand years we’ve taken it to new levels like interstellar travel ourselves. It just takes a mind like our own and a lot of dedicated time and practice, not an inherently greater intellect. Perhaps it is dedicated time and practice that Mr. Hawking has fallen out of, because for the reasons I have given (and I’m really only scratching the surface) he hasn’t given any more sign of applying mental effort to the subject of theism either. As Stephen King wrote in On Writing, no one can be as intellectually lazy as a really smart person. Nevertheless, Hawking’s words are good for one thing: they go to show that even the most intelligent nontheists in the world can’t come up with any argumentation that’s even remotely new, logical, or even interesting.

**Trumble** · 09-07-2010

Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman

Thank you for doing the job of repeating myself yet again for me.

I don't suppose there's any chance of you pointing out this 'line of reasoning' supposedly quoted from Hawking and/or 'represented' by Bates (see #36) for the first time, is there?!

**Hugo** · 09-07-2010

Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman

If science is not the study of the natural world, then what is it? How can the supernatural enter into it? This sort of purported ambiguity in the very notion of science is the sort of thing that allows young earth creationist pseudo-science to thrive.

Who can say - my point was that it was your definition of science and as far as it goes I would go along with it but I remain open minded. I suppose what I am saying is that in say mathematics we can probe beyond what we can 'see' and this indeed is one of the reasons science exploded over the last 300 years - we don't have to sit around waiting and hoping for some data we can theorise about it and predict what data might be there and I gave a number of examples where this was true. Of course all this can be misused or misapplied but as always we fight reason or supposed reason with reason. So if someone holds to some theory or other that is fine as long as they appreciate it is always provisional and allow for the possibility of falsification.

It is simply amazing how so many people can boast rather than blush at the idea of modern science, by their own admission and interpretation, defying common sense. Our minds are the measure of what we conclude only--or should be the primary measure if not the sole one. Logic is the foundation of science, and therefore a necessary thing in it not to be faulty.

Not entirely sure what you mean here: If you mean all science is provisional then I agree but if you are saying all science defies common sense then that sounds like stupidity? Take for example, Paul Dirac, one of the founders of Quantum mechanics though perhaps most widely know for his famous equation and without that you would not for example have your mobile phone today.

If checking claims with the original source were the only means of confirming them, courtrooms and historians would have a lot harder time than they do.

In a court of law then we might very well look at the weight of evidence and balance of probabilities. But no one could go into a court of Law and cite God as a witness s what I have been saying. If I say God has spoken to me then you or anyone can take it or leave it there is no compulsion whatever to believe it or what I tell you God said. So I might say that God has told me that Bill is demon possessed and that is why he is acting strangely but although this indeed may be correct explanation there is no way I or anyone can show it to be true or false. If you know of some way of identifying when shall I say God speaks then share it with us?

Predicting outcomes is proving things now? Throwing around the term "a priori" like that is just as pointless and inapplicable as throwing around the term "ad hominem". Scientific deductions have nothing whatever to do with the "slapping the lable 'force' on things and leaving it at that" issue: indeed, it seems to exist to prevent any deductions from being made. It's a lazy gloss-over.

Again I am at a loss here. The whole point one supposes of a theory is that it is predictive. So If I quote Ohms law then I can a priori work out values of voltage, resistance and current and then go to the lab and see if it holds up to direct inspection. So here I am unsure if you understand the notion of deduction itself?

Your very words betray the emotional nature of your rationale. And were said rationale correct, it would still be starkly, even evasively, beside the point as far as this discussion goes. Even if God were an utter sadist and His design for the sole purpose of driving us crazy, it would not erase His existence. When we can agree to have established that rudimentary fact, then we can move on to the ethics of the being in question. It is useless to consider your opinion of a person's character when the issue at hand is whether he is real at all. And in this thread, very off topic.

To make any judgement at all one unavoidably needs emotions. I am not saying that our shall I say visible emotions are at work but it does seem to be inescapable (always happens) that the brain processes stimuli via the thalamus, neocortex (the "thinking brain") and then routed to the amygdala (the "emotional brain"). It is also I think known that if the amygdala is damaged in some way patients loose all ability to react normally or make decisions. If something can be simply analysed rationally it seems to me we should all come to the same conclusions but that does not seem to be the case does it even when we have exactly the same evidence? I think Mozart is sublime but my wife thinks all his pieces sound the same. So it seems to me your words betray a lack of understanding of how judgements are made.

We may not know how they arise, but they are still definitely caused events and not self-creating. We've been over the reasons why.

How are you so sure? Quantum theory is used all the time to make precise calculations so its reliable but Quantum field theory tells us that short-lived pairs of particles and their antiparticles are constantly being created and destroyed in apparently empty space - out of nothing. Now we still wait for evidence but if you take the position this can never be true you have effectively closed your mind and made it the measure of all things.

**Zafran** · 09-07-2010

Salaam

although it is still ramadan - I have to add that most of science is inductive and not deductive. Any theory or "reliable" experiment relies on inductive reasoning. Another point I would like to add is that science clearly does not have all the answers - there are simple things that we humans believe to be preety accurate although science would not be able to empirically verify it - For example the past ancestor times 1000 with no empirical (or historical) proof to back up for there existence. Even though we cannot empirically prove that the ancestor existed - most of us would be certian that there was one.

peace

**IAmZamzam** · 09-11-2010

Originally Posted by Hugo

Who can say - my point was that it was your definition of science and as far as it goes I would go along with it but I remain open minded. I suppose what I am saying is that in say mathematics we can probe beyond what we can 'see' and this indeed is one of the reasons science exploded over the last 300 years - we don't have to sit around waiting and hoping for some data we can theorise about it and predict what data might be there and I gave a number of examples where this was true. Of course all this can be misused or misapplied but as always we fight reason or supposed reason with reason. So if someone holds to some theory or other that is fine as long as they appreciate it is always provisional and allow for the possibility of falsification.

You seem to be awfully conversant about a subject that is supposedly so hard to define.

Not entirely sure what you mean here: If you mean all science is provisional then I agree but if you are saying all science defies common sense then that sounds like stupidity? Take for example, Paul Dirac, one of the founders of Quantum mechanics though perhaps most widely know for his famous equation and without that you would not for example have your mobile phone today.

I am saying exactly what I said. "Provisionality" doesn't even begin to enter into it. Stop trying to read between the lines: more often than not, they are exactly the blank space they look like.

In a court of law then we might very well look at the weight of evidence and balance of probabilities. But no one could go into a court of Law and cite God as a witness s what I have been saying. If I say God has spoken to me then you or anyone can take it or leave it there is no compulsion whatever to believe it or what I tell you God said. So I might say that God has told me that Bill is demon possessed and that is why he is acting strangely but although this indeed may be correct explanation there is no way I or anyone can show it to be true or false. If you know of some way of identifying when shall I say God speaks then share it with us?

How did I just know you would tow that line? Hyper-focus on one word of my analogy and use it to evade the point with one of your own which happens to share the same keyword? The law does not recognize the supernatural, because it is based in material sorts of evidence only, and so your courtroom question is as loaded as it is irrelevant. All I said is that checking a claim with its original source is not the only means of verifying it, and I'm not going to let you sidetrack us from that, because it is a simple fact that you know very well is true. (Besides, even if you could check a claim with its original source, that doesn't automatically verify it anyway: the reliability of the source would be another question. We have to use our reason first and foremost.)

Again I am at a loss here. The whole point one supposes of a theory is that it is predictive. So If I quote Ohms law then I can a priori work out values of voltage, resistance and current and then go to the lab and see if it holds up to direct inspection. So here I am unsure if you understand the notion of deduction itself?

Whatever. But you'll never be able to get far with a deduction (that of self-causation) which goes against the very basis of all logic in the first place. You may as well be trying to write a dissertation disproving linguistics itself. I have already explained in my OP why it is logically impossible (not merely against "common" sense, IMPOSSIBLE) for that to occur, and you have still yet to show me how it is wrong. And you never will.

To make any judgement at all one unavoidably needs emotions.

Maybe the way your mind works. Or the way you think it does.

I am not saying that our shall I say visible emotions are at work but it does seem to be inescapable (always happens) that the brain processes stimuli via the thalamus, neocortex (the "thinking brain") and then routed to the amygdala (the "emotional brain"). It is also I think known that if the amygdala is damaged in some way patients loose all ability to react normally or make decisions.

You do not understand the complex and extremely interconnected way the brain works. Needless to say, the different parts of the brain are not as segregated as you depict. It's one thing to see one of them at a time being stimulated in a CAT scan; it's another thing altogether to see how they operate with each other. Taking a route through a country on a car trip does not automatically entail picking up someone on the road there and taking them with you the rest of the way. My father is a psychiatrist, he could explain it better than I can. Maybe if you request I could consult him the next time I see him?

If something can be simply analysed rationally it seems to me we should all come to the same conclusions but that does not seem to be the case does it even when we have exactly the same evidence? I think Mozart is sublime but my wife thinks all his pieces sound the same. So it seems to me your words betray a lack of understanding of how judgements are made.

You seem to be saying that all matters of fact in the world are really only an illusory opinion. If that's the case, why do you hold any definite beliefs of your own at all? Do you really think that ten people reasoning on the same subject with their minds entirely drained of emotion at the moment will always come to the same conclusion? That emotion is the sole source of fallacy? We are not constructed to be that infallible in our mental processes on any level.

How are you so sure? Quantum theory is used all the time to make precise calculations so its reliable but Quantum field theory tells us that short-lived pairs of particles and their antiparticles are constantly being created and destroyed in apparently empty space - out of nothing. Now we still wait for evidence but if you take the position this can never be true you have effectively closed your mind and made it the measure of all things.

Your mind is just as much the measure of all things as my own. So is everyone else's. Were that not true, science itself neither could exist nor could have any reason to. Atheistic science touters have decided that until further evidence disproves it they'll assume that the unknown cause of certain fundamental quantum things is nonexistent. I assume that until the notion is disproved they are all just one more thread on the rug each, ultimately caused by the Weaver. They have their ghost in the machine: I have mine. The problem is, (a) I'm the one of us assuming what goes in accordance with easily demonstrated fundamentals of reasoning, and (b) while we theists are often labeled "delusional" by the sorts of skeptics I spoke of in the OP's opening paragraphs, we're still the only one of the two parties who accepts that we see a ghost in the machine, while the other make believes that theirs is just the machine itself.

P.S. I'm no physics expert (not by a mile) but I seem to remember an atheist fairly convincingly refuting Quantum Field Theory at infidels.org. It's one of the few convincing things you'll ever find there.

**CosmicPathos** · 09-11-2010

When Antony Flew changed his position regarding God, atheists attributed it to the decline in his mental faculties. In the same way we can attribute the change in Hawking's position to be a decline in mental faculties, more so when he has been struck with a disease of neurological nature.

**Hugo** · 09-11-2010

Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman

I am saying exactly what I said. "Provisionality" doesn't even begin to enter into it. Stop trying to read between the lines: more often than not, they are exactly the blank space they look like.

I don't follow you here - do you agree that all science is provisional in that we one supposes will never know everything so must be open for what might be round the corner? But do you have any confidence in science?

All I said is that checking a claim with its original source is not the only means of verifying it, and I'm not going to let you sidetrack us from that, because it is a simple fact that you know very well is true. (Besides, even if you could check a claim with its original source, that doesn't automatically verify it anyway: the reliability of the source would be another question. We have to use our reason first and foremost.)

Well you will have to explain what you mean. Now if its a scientific claim then I can check it scientifically. If its about what happened or what someone said ones first recourse is to find and verify the source or the original if that is possible and if not get as close to it as one can. Now I am not sure but you may be alluding to the point that it might be possible to say verify what someone said but at the same time what they said may be untrue or itself require verification. So you might be able to verify that I said "there are fairies at the bottom of my garden" but such verification does not make what I said true - is this your point?

But you'll never be able to get far with a deduction (that of self-causation) which goes against the very basis of all logic in the first place. You may as well be trying to write a dissertation disproving linguistics itself. I have already explained in my OP why it is logically impossible (not merely against "common" sense, IMPOSSIBLE) for that to occur, and you have still yet to show me how it is wrong. And you never will.

It make no sense to me to say that deduction goes against the basis of logic. Like any logical construct it falls or stand by the truth of its premises and this is I suppose what you mean. But surely there is nothing wrong in forming premises as say Einstein did with relativity and look for their proof later - that is what theorisation is.

You do not understand the complex and extremely interconnected way the brain works. Needless to say, the different parts of the brain are not as segregated as you depict. It's one thing to see one of them at a time being stimulated in a CAT scan; it's another thing altogether to see how they operate with each other. Taking a route through a country on a car trip does not automatically entail picking up someone on the road there and taking them with you the rest of the way. My father is a psychiatrist, he could explain it better than I can. Maybe if you request I could consult him the next time I see him?

Well I doubt anyone knows exactly how the brain works although what I presented is what is thought to be how the brain acts and one kind of proof is that if the amygdala is damaged a person loses all ability to make judgements even though they can reason perfectly well. Speak to you father and I am sure he will tell you that apart from damage to the brain almost nothing is known as to what causes mental illness and all psychiatrists do is treat symptoms.

You seem to be saying that all matters of fact in the world are really only an illusory opinion. If that's the case, why do you hold any definite beliefs of your own at all? Do you really think that ten people reasoning on the same subject with their minds entirely drained of emotion at the moment will always come to the same conclusion? That emotion is the sole source of fallacy? We are not constructed to be that infallible in our mental processes on any level.

No I don't think I said that but I do hold the view that a fact does not necessarily always lead to the same conclusion. There are of course natural facts like gravity which we cannot avoid and nominal facts which we can. So you might treat God as a fact but I might not. So fallacies arise either because the premises cannot be established or the reasoning itself is faulty and if emotion is there it show itself perhaps in what one might accept as true so we are back to judgement again since we cannot 'drain' ourself of it. But we could be here for days discussion the hundreds of fallacies that we know about.

Of course we are all limited by our mind but that is not the question, the question is do I know it, do you know it and is that awareness evident in what we say?

**IAmZamzam** · 09-11-2010

Originally Posted by Hugo

I don't follow you here - do you agree that all science is provisional in that we one supposes will never know everything so must be open for what might be round the corner?

I agree with it, but it has nothing to do with what I said.

But do you have any confidence in science?

Like so many academic fields it's headed by corrupt intelligentsia, and is often little more than a bloodthirsty race to get your results published first. But that doesn't change the fact that it does sometimes yield truth; however, one must remember that its starting with only secular premises, while necessary, is also potentially misleading. In short, I have more confidence in science in the abstract than I do in scientists.

Well you will have to explain what you mean. Now if its a scientific claim then I can check it scientifically. If its about what happened or what someone said ones first recourse is to find and verify the source or the original if that is possible and if not get as close to it as one can. Now I am not sure but you may be alluding to the point that it might be possible to say verify what someone said but at the same time what they said may be untrue or itself require verification. So you might be able to verify that I said "there are fairies at the bottom of my garden" but such verification does not make what I said true - is this your point

I'm very tired of explaining what I mean and very sorry that I can't make it clear to you, but you're in the ballpark.

It make no sense to me to say that deduction goes against the basis of logic. Like any logical construct it falls or stand by the truth of its premises and this is I suppose what you mean.

I said nothing of deduction itself, only of its use to a premise that goes against the foundation of logic that it stands on.

But surely there is nothing wrong in forming premises as say Einstein did with relativity and look for their proof later - that is what theorisation is.

You can theorize about anything, but that don't make it so. Do I have to repeat what I said in my opening post about why self-causation is impossible? Are you so unwilling to scroll up there and read it again? Or is your silent absence of refutation of it telling enough by itself?

Well I doubt anyone knows exactly how the brain works although what I presented is what is thought to be how the brain acts and one kind of proof is that if the amygdala is damaged a person loses all ability to make judgements even though they can reason perfectly well. Speak to you father and I am sure he will tell you that apart from damage to the brain almost nothing is known as to what causes mental illness and all psychiatrists do is treat symptoms.

He is always the first to say that psychiatrists don't really know much for sure, yes. A lot of psychiatrists are like that, I think. If only most of the other scientists would catch up. Lip service in the direction of the obvious does not amount to sincere recognition of it, and I perhaps see more dogmatism from quantum physics (or at least from those who tout it) than anything else in all of scholaticism despite it supposedly being the least certain of all. It's a favorite ploy of atheists. (To them, just to give one example, "quantum fluctuation" is magically transformed into a synonym for "uncaused event". But let's not get into that right now. I'm sick of it.)

No I don't think I said that but I do hold the view that a fact does not necessarily always lead to the same conclusion. There are of course natural facts like gravity which we cannot avoid and nominal facts which we can. So you might treat God as a fact but I might not.

Either He exists, or He does not. That is a fact. There is no escaping the dichotomy. A or not-A. It's not like just "sort of" exists or anything.

So fallacies arise either because the premises cannot be established or the reasoning itself is faulty and if emotion is there it show itself perhaps in what one might accept as true so we are back to judgement again since we cannot 'drain' ourself of it. But we could be here for days discussion the hundreds of fallacies that we know about.

Something tells me we're going to be here for days anyway.

Of course we are all limited by our mind but that is not the question, the question is do I know it, do you know it and is that awareness evident in what we say?

I already said that I know it, and so did you. Question asked, question answered. Jeez.

**IAmZamzam** · 09-11-2010

Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman

For one thing, something has to exist before it can perform any action or function such as creation. And if it already exists to begin with, that means it’s already been created.

End of story. No soup for you. NEXT!

**Trumble** · 09-12-2010

You are very casual in assuming that 'a law like gravity' falls within the set of things that can be (and therefore, according to you, must have been) 'created' according to the laws of cause and effect. We know that another set of things exists, with at least one member, causality itself as the idea that could have been 'created' is obviously absurd, as well as being denied by your own logic. You claim that set has another member, God. So why not gravity?

**Hugo** · 09-13-2010

Bit puzzled, in all your post you display a kind of authority about what you say, can you say why you are so sure? The trouble with certainty or wanting certainty is that whilst it might be comforting to ones ego if nothing else it can shut down your mind.

Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman

Like so many academic fields it's headed by corrupt intelligentsia, and is often little more than a bloodthirsty race to get your results published first. But that doesn't change the fact that it does sometimes yield truth; however, one must remember that its starting with only secular premises, while necessary, is also potentially misleading. In short, I have more confidence in science in the abstract than I do in scientists.

This is the kind of thing I mean - where is your evidence? Of course there is corruption and bad science and fraud but the very fact we know about them testifies that in the end the truth will emerge, but give us some references so we can see where you base this allegation. Do you extend this idea outside science to say theologians? I have no idea what a 'secular premise' is supposed to be, it sounds like you are saying that there is a secular gravity or ohms law - can you explain?

I said nothing of deduction itself, only of its use to a premise that goes against the foundation of logic that it stands on.

Can you give an example? Logic might be described as a process of deciding when an argument is valid and part of that is the premise (starting points, things that we accept as true as far as the argument is concerned. Premises may be descriptive (Hugo is a man) or prescriptive (Hugo must become educated) and from this we can reach conclusion. There of course some standard forms according to Aristotle: Modus Ponendo Ponens, Modus Tollendo Tollens etc. Now the point is that any argument is valid when there is no way (meaning no possible way) that the premises could be true without the conclusions also being true. However, when one argues inductively it is unfortunately true that the premises can be all true and yet the conclusion false and that is why deduction is to be preferred. So what you say make no sense to me unless you have other foundations for logic or perhaps you take the Russell position that all logic is ultimately flawed?

You can theorize about anything, but that don't make it so. Do I have to repeat what I said in my opening post about why self-causation is impossible? Are you so unwilling to scroll up there and read it again? Or is your silent absence of refutation of it telling enough by itself?

Yes of course but theorisation is just one way of exploring a topic effectively, no one pretends that the very act of theorisation make something true, that would be absurd. I cannot see you have shown self-causation is impossible by telling us that a rug can't weave itself. You may be right and all that I think anyone else is saying that certain kind of theorization might suggest otherwise so the jury so to speak is out and we just have to wait and see - but that is the game we are in we need to theorise and at the same time be sceptical and I cannot see what is wring with that?

**IAmZamzam** · 09-13-2010

As someone said above, it is highly indicative that no one has been responding to the actual arguments I made in the paper. Every question, every counter, every back-and-forth, has only been an off topic sidetrack. I reiterated this with my last post, and of course everyone is still ignoring it, as they will if I make nine more posts in a row giving the same quote (or any other from the OP). I am tired of indulging your evasions. If you want to talk about why gravity is caused or anything like that, start another thread. Unless I finally see some on-topic responses here, I'm out of this one.

**جوري** · 09-13-2010

actually Hugo is perpetually confused .. whatever it is you are arguing for or against, he'll find a way to have a polarized view, just to cement his otherwise useless presence on the forum...
and now the latest, he was so certain, but now he is deeply troubled by your certainty and your authority sounding display of it.. it is tedious and at times plenty hilarious.. if you enjoy useless back and forth drivel then welcome to his playground!

**Trumble** · 09-14-2010

Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman

As someone said above, it is highly indicative that no one has been responding to the actual arguments I made in the paper. Every question, every counter, every back-and-forth, has only been an off topic sidetrack. I reiterated this with my last post, and of course everyone is still ignoring it, as they will if I make nine more posts in a row giving the same quote (or any other from the OP). I am tired of indulging your evasions. If you want to talk about why gravity is caused or anything like that, start another thread. Unless I finally see some on-topic responses here, I'm out of this one.

Oh, please., spare us the sanctimonious twaddle. :rolleyes: 'Why gravity is caused or anything like that', if you are referring to my post above, is about as on-topic as you can get, assuming of course you still wish us to believe your 'arguments' in the OP have anything to do with those of Hawking, to which you claim to be 'responding'. Hawking is talking about, amazingly enough, GRAVITY!

The only poster evading anything is you; I doubt you are even fooling your cheerleader any more (if you ever were!) Try answering the point raised in #49. Try telling us what arguments you are actually 'responding' too as well.. yes, I'm repeating myself yet again, but sadly you keep refusing to give an answer. It is rather traditional in debating a response to a position to know what that first position actually is, after all.. wouldn't you agree?

**Hugo** · 09-14-2010

Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman

As someone said above, it is highly indicative that no one has been responding to the actual arguments I made in the paper. Every question, every counter, every back-and-forth, has only been an off topic sidetrack. I reiterated this with my last post, and of course everyone is still ignoring it, as they will if I make nine more posts in a row giving the same quote (or any other from the OP). I am tired of indulging your evasions. If you want to talk about why gravity is caused or anything like that, start another thread. Unless I finally see some on-topic responses here, I'm out of this one.

Well just present your questions/arguments one at a time and let see how we go. But in the meantime perhaps you would like to consider the following list where each theorisation was met by it seems people like you who are so sure of themselves and all subsequently proved true and momentous.

1. Electromagnetism by Faraday in 1821
2. Bayes theorem in 1764
3. Gyroscopes in 1903
4. Imaginary numbers in 1560
5. Epigenetics in 1926
6. Prions in 1972
7. Heliciobacter pylori as a cause of ulcers in 1984
8. Digital telecommunications in 1930

**جوري** · 09-14-2010

Originally Posted by Hugo

Well just present your questions/arguments one at a time and let see how we go. But in the meantime perhaps you would like to consider the following list where each theorisation was met by it seems people like you who are so sure of themselves and all subsequently proved true and momentous.

1. Electromagnetism by Faraday in 1821
2. Bayes theorem in 1764
3. Gyroscopes in 1903
4. Imaginary numbers in 1560
5. Epigenetics in 1926
6. Prions in 1972
7. Heliciobacter pylori as a cause of ulcers in 1984
8. Digital telecommunications in 1930

perhaps you'd like to consider the following theorized true proven laughable and hilarious.

1- the belief was that the failure to menstruate caused the uterus to travel around the body, eventually negatively influencing the brain as such the treatment for 'hysteria' was a hysterectomy!
2-August Breisky rejecting the idea of washing hands before delivering infants as a way to reduce mortality further calling the idea as "the Koran of puerperal theology'' amusingly pompous on top of ignorant. which isn't uncommon amongst westerners!
3-Urbain Jean Joseph Le Verrier discovery of the 'vulcan' the non-existing planet
4-Anaximander, Hippolytus, and Anaxagoras hypothesis on spontaneous generation
5- Johan Joachim Becher phlogiston theory
6-Einstein’s Static Universe

amongst many, I don't have the time to list failed theories and Quakeries to make a non-point as they can all be so easily googled.. Question is do you have a point? have you ever had a point? Will you ever get a point and make it worthwhile instead of taking up web-space on unrelated drivel both to the topic and to the person(s) of whom you are addressing.. So strange how we notice this from you on almost every thread. I hope to God you can find a vocation that offers some service to mankind, as I can think of no greater ill than to be an ignoramus and fancying yourself an Illuminati!

all the best

**Hugo** · 09-14-2010

Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

perhaps you'd like to consider the following theorized true proven laughable and hilarious.

1- the belief was that the failure to menstruate caused the uterus to travel around the body, eventually negatively influencing the brain as such the treatment for 'hysteria' was a hysterectomy!
2-August Breisky rejecting the idea of washing hands before delivering infants as a way to reduce mortality further calling the idea as "the Koran of puerperal theology'' amusingly pompous on top of ignorant. which isn't uncommon amongst westerners!
3-Urbain Jean Joseph Le Verrier discovery of the 'vulcan' the non-existing planet
4-Anaximander, Hippolytus, and Anaxagoras hypothesis on spontaneous generation
5- Johan Joachim Becher phlogiston theory
6-Einstein’s Static Universe

You should try to read what people wrote and if you had done that you would see that I mentioned things that were thought by the establishment to be of no value but subsequently they were all proved right. You in contrast mentioned things that were thought to be true and subsequently shown to be wrong - though how you considered them "..true proved.." is anyone's guess. It is not unusual to get things wrong and almost every scientist does that sometime and here one might point to the great Muslim polymath Ibn Sina and his The Canon of Medicine which of course now is of little value to anyone but he would have understood that science progresses by seeking knowledge whatever its source. The point is one has to sceptical, one has to see each result as provisional with an open mind but not at the same time be so arrogant about what you know that you miss what others are saying.

**جوري** · 09-14-2010

Originally Posted by Hugo

You should try to read what people wrote and if you had done that you would see that I mentioned things that were thought by the establishment to be of no value but subsequently they were all proved right. You in contrast mentioned things that were thought to be true and subsequently shown to be wrong

I have read what you've written, hence my comment, did you have a point with what you've spewed here? Who are you in the scheme of things to render something dynamic or ludicrous? any theory can be phenomenal or can fizzle and we've seen how they have fizzled, only you seem to believe that you hold the secret to finding out what is phenomenal and what is ludicrous, in an equally absurd fashion to the turd who made the 'koran' akin to naivete.. apparently the naivete with his to keep and twice as he'll not escape from history which has highlighted his name a synonym to stupidity and perhaps your name some day if you are so lucky to make your foolishness more public!
You aren't anymore enlightened or theoretically accurate than anyone who theorizes, you seem to think that putting English words together has some value but in all actuality outside of the all too frequent refuse you part with, you are unable to think of an original idea or challenge one.. All you do is list ISBN's to books I guarantee you haven't read as is obvious from what you write and what we have caught you writing previously. You have NO credibility, none whatsoever!

- though how you considered them "..true proved.." is anyone's guess.

I imagine that to be a mutual thing, although at least I have a higher education with which to discern the bull, what about you, what do you have to consider something proven true or false? you couldn't even get two statistics questions correctly on a thread that you've preferred to otherwise drown in unrelated logorrhea!

It is not unusual to get things wrong and almost every scientist does that sometime and here one might point to the great Muslim polymath Ibn Sina and his The Canon of Medicine which of course now is of little value to anyone but he would have understood that science progresses by seeking knowledge whatever its source. The point is one has to sceptical, one has to see each result as provisional with an open mind but not at the same time be so arrogant about what you know that you miss what others are saying.

What you say and repeatedly is of no value and that is the point we have been collectively trying to make, and collectively showcasing why.. as to why these morsels are obvious to everyone but you is truly anyone's guess...

good luck with all of that!

**czgibson** · 09-14-2010

Greetings,

Yahya Sulaiman, perhaps you could read the following and clarify for us:

Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

I have read what you've written, hence my comment, did you have a point with what you've spewed here? Who are you in the scheme of things to render something dynamic or ludicrous? any theory can be phenomenal or can fizzle and we've seen how they have fizzled, only you seem to believe that you hold the secret to finding out what is phenomenal and what is ludicrous, in an equally absurd fashion to the turd who made the 'koran' akin to naivete.. apparently the naivete with his to keep and twice as he'll not escape from history which has highlighted his name a synonym to stupidity and perhaps your name some day if you are so lucky to make your foolishness more public!
You aren't anymore enlightened or theoretically accurate than anyone who theorizes, you seem to think that putting English words together has some value but in all actuality outside of the all too frequent refuse you part with, you are unable to think of an original idea or challenge one.. All you do is list ISBN's to books I guarantee you haven't read as is obvious from what you write and what we have caught you writing previously. You have NO credibility, none whatsoever!

I imagine that to be a mutual thing, although at least I have a higher education with which to discern the bull, what about you, what do you have to consider something proven true or false? you couldn't even get two statistics questions correctly on a thread that you've preferred to otherwise drown in unrelated logorrhea!
What you say and repeatedly is of no value and that is the point we have been collectively trying to make, and collectively showcasing why.. as to why these morsels are obvious to everyone but you is truly anyone's guess...

good luck with all of that!

Now THAT is what I call an ad hominem. What do you think?

Peace

**جوري** · 09-14-2010

Originally Posted by czgibson

Greetings,

Yahya Sulaiman, perhaps you could read the following and clarify for us:

Now THAT is what I call an ad hominem. What do you think?

Peace

To the readers at large, is what I call a 'deus ex machina'!
what do you think? the minute the poor sap is at a loss of something substantial as pertains to the topic, he'll focus on 'English' or derail the thread in an attempt to save another sap's ill-thought refuse.. and then PM you if your lucky to protest your observations on his asthenic logic in a public fashion as deserved!

**IAmZamzam** · 09-14-2010

Originally Posted by Trumble

Oh, please., spare us the sanctimonious twaddle. :rolleyes: 'Why gravity is caused or anything like that', if you are referring to my post above, is about as on-topic as you can get, assuming of course you still wish us to believe your 'arguments' in the OP have anything to do with those of Hawking, to which you claim to be 'responding'. Hawking is talking about, amazingly enough, GRAVITY!

Such misrepresentation. I wonder if you read the entire OP at all. This is what it said:

“’Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing,’ the pair write, in an extract published in today's London Times. ‘Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.’”

Except that there must have been something to light the paper with, and something to have ignited it and set it to the paper. It seems ridiculous that I should actually have to explain that and why things can’t create themselves, let alone out of nothing, but all right. For one thing, something has to exist before it can perform any action or function such as creation. And if it already exists to begin with, that means it’s already been created, and furthermore...oh, enough of this. Like I said, it shouldn’t bear explaining. (Additionally, even if it were not necessary to invoke God, that would not mean that He’s not there. “Necessary” and “real” are two very different concepts, and thus to say that an absence of necessity indicates an absence of reality is to speak in non-sequiturs.)

It’s not enough that the word “gravity” is in it. The whole thing (in that part of the paper, anyway) was about self-creation. My point would have remained the same had Hawking said, instead of “gravity”, “the electro-weak force”, “the strong nuclear force”, “the mathematical transitive law”, or “Eat at Joe’s”.

Originally Posted by Trumble

The only poster evading anything is you; I doubt you are even fooling your cheerleader any more (if you ever were!) Try answering the point raised in #49. Try telling us what arguments you are actually 'responding' too as well.. yes, I'm repeating myself yet again, but sadly you keep refusing to give an answer. It is rather traditional in debating a response to a position to know what that first position actually is, after all.. wouldn't you agree?

The irony kills me. If that question doesn’t prove you didn’t read the article, nothing can. Not only did I say what arguments I was responding to every time, I used direct quotations. If it helps to ignore all proper nouns in the article, or replace them with “John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt”, feel free to do so. I cannot aid a lack of reading comprehension. You’re just going to have to deal with that on your own.