In response to Hawking's new stated position on God

[IAmZamzam]

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

More or less. In any event I'll bet it's in violation of the board rules. vale's lily needs to pipe down a little.

 

[IAmZamzam]

All this calling for me to "present my arguments", while quite deliberately ignoring my gratuitous repetition of one of them, though they were all laid out there in black and white from the start. Not that I think it will be any less ignored if I repeat it again, but fool that I am, here goes:

SOMETHING HAS TO EXIST FIRST BEFORE IT CAN PERFORM ANY SORT OF ACTION OR FUNCTION, BE IT CREATION OR ANYTHING ELSE. AND IF IT ALREADY EXISTS, IT HAS ALREADY BEEN CREATED. THEREFORE, SELF-CREATION IS IMPOSSIBLE.

 

[جوري]

In any event I'll bet it's in violation of the board rules.

That is a question for the mods considering a long history of posts from the parties involved and not a mere thread!

and even though the edited version is now reflected in your post excluding the part of interest, I was neither your 'cheer leader' as per Trumble, in fact I merely questioned the validity of his claims rather than his comments on yours, nor am I taking your side, in fact my objection comes from a long history of vehemence and exasperation as often expressed by both parties simply to oppose any Muslim!

 

[IAmZamzam]

Even though the edited version is now reflected in your post excluding the part of interest, I was neither your 'cheer leader' as per Trumble, in fact I merely questioned the validity of his claims rather than his comments on yours, nor am I taking your side, in fact my objection comes from a long history of vehemence and exasperation as often expressed by both parties simply to oppose any Muslim!

I know what it's like to feel that way. But you did more than question. You've, in fact, done little but insult people most all the way through. I appreciate your position and your effort, but you need to either dampen your passion, perhaps by taking a step back and giving yourself time for a metaphorical deep breath and then maybe coming back here after a few days, or else channel your passion through something other than venom.

 

[جوري]

I know what it's like to feel that way. But you did more than question. You've, in fact, done little but insult people most all the way through. I appreciate your position and your effort, but you need to either dampen your passion, perhaps by taking a step back and giving yourself time for a metaphorical deep breath and then maybe coming back here after a few days, or else channel your passion through something other than venom.

This is the way I express my 'passion' I don't see it as an insult as it is an observation and more so of what is written than the individual, again from a long history of events of which you weren't present-- and I find this a good outlet for such expressions as to what goes on in daily life against Islam and Muslims by like minded individuals.. My being here is separate from your personal efforts for you to appreciate it in any regards (thanks either way) simply because someone made a comment that you feel links your posts to mine, doesn't make it so, it doesn't mar your endeavors as disjoined from mine. It is otherwise a public forum for each to express their views!

 

[IAmZamzam]

This is the way I express my 'passion' I don't see it as an insult as it is an observation and more so of what is written than the individual, again from a long history of events of which you weren't present-- and I find this a good outlet for such expressions as to what goes on in daily life against Islam and Muslims by like minded individuals.. My being here is separate from your personal efforts for you to appreciate it in any regards (thanks either way) simply because someone made a comment that you feel links your posts to mine, doesn't make it so, it doesn't mar your endeavors as disjoined from mine. It is otherwise a public forum for each to express their views!

Saying "if you enjoy useless back and forth drivel then welcome to his playground" is not merely making observations: it is making fun of someone, plain and simple. But it's an issue for the mods and we're getting sidetracked again. Not that it much matters, I suppose, since my disproof of self-causation (probably along with every other individual point I made in the OP) will go unaddressed till kingdom come. Which wouldn't be a bad thing, only (mark my words) three pages from now, if this thread goes on that long (please God no), trumble and Hugo will still be insisting that they're not the ones dodging anything because they'll still be continuing to act as though I haven't made myself clear. It's an ancient debating tactic: ask for clarification where things have been clear from the start, justifying it by completely ignoring what was said from the first, and just keep pretending that the references to and repetitions of these original statements that are the only answers possible in such a situation are dodges. Repeat as often as necessary. I really should keep to what I said a page ago and not post again unless there is finally something on-topic to post about.

 

[جوري]

Saying "if you enjoy useless back and forth drivel then welcome to his playground" is not merely making observations: it is making fun of someone, plain and simple.

Not at all, again, if you should follow each of his posts/threads, you'd have in fact ended up thanking me for such an observation for the exact same conclusion that you've reasoned out in the end.
be that as it may, I didn't intend you with that comment otherwise I'd have quoted you-- it was meant as a general rule for those entering into this with the desire to a sound distillate rather than engage in endless vain discourse.. not unlike what is going on at the moment!

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Not that it much matters, I suppose, since my disproof of self-causation (probably along with every other individual point I made in the OP) will go unaddressed till kingdom come.

I inevitably disagree with much of what you wrote in your opening post, but I will address this point, seeing as you feel it's being ignored, only to say that I am also suspicious of Hawking's reasoning here - at least on the evidence I've seen so far. I've not read the book yet; I've just seen a few reviews (and to be honest, though I hope to read it one day, there are many things on my reading list before it). Self-causation is a huge thing to suggest and attempt to explain - I've certainly never been able to accept it whenever it features in theistic arguments - and from what I can gather he's basing his explanation in part on results that he hopes will arrive in the future.

Having said that, quotes like the following give such a bald and brief statement of what simply must be a larger argument that it's difficult to form any firm conclusion about the argument's validity:

"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."

There are so many assumptions there that nobody could reasonably use it in this form as an argument for atheism. I think it's also premature to attempt to refute such an argument before reading it in full.

Peace

 

[CosmicPathos]

hawking has lost it. that is what happens when ego reaches ones head.

 

[Trumble]

Such misrepresentation. I wonder if you read the entire OP at all.

Just to put your mind at rest, yes I did.

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”.

Feel free to substitute any of those things for 'gravity' (with the possible exception of the diner), and try and answer my point in #49?

Not only did I say what arguments I was responding to every time, I used direct quotations.

Yes, you used direct quotations. Unfortunately none of those quotations include arguments, nor is any summary of Hawking's arguments anywhere to be seen. I'm assuming you actually know what an argument is?

I cannot aid a lack of reading comprehension. You’re just going to have to deal with that on your own.

Oh, dear.. waffle time. My reading comprehension is just fine, thank you.

SOMETHING HAS TO EXIST FIRST BEFORE IT CAN PERFORM ANY SORT OF ACTION OR FUNCTION, BE IT CREATION OR ANYTHING ELSE. AND IF IT ALREADY EXISTS, IT HAS ALREADY BEEN CREATED. THEREFORE, SELF-CREATION IS IMPOSSIBLE.

Shouting won't make any difference. That is, indeed, an argument although it's relevance to Hawking remains obscure. Which takes us back to #49 (which you clearly didn't read - now that is ironic!) Let me clarify, in case that is needed. Your second premise is that if something already exists, it has already been created. I have pointed out to you that there is at least one thing that exists that according to your own logic cannot have been created, causation itself. You have said there is another entity that also was not created, God. We now have two very different counter examples to show that that premise cannot be universally true, as well as no reason not to suspect there might be more (including the fundamental physical forces, which would seem not unpromising candidates), therefore your argument is invalid.

Your conclusion might still be true, of course, despite that. Which is why, in the context of what the thread is supposedly about, we really should consider whether gravity (or any other forces) that Hawking or anybody else may claim are responsible for 'creation' do, indeed, need to have been created themselves. As there seems to be no reason to assume that is the case, the relevance or otherwise of that conclusion to what Hawking is saying can be assessed only against the background of his arguments. Self-creation of exactly what? And why is that dependent on the existence of gravity? Who knows? Those who have read the book, presumably. If, as the quote suggests, his claim is that the universe can "create itself from nothing" because of the existence of a force like gravity, in what way does that differ logically from a claim that the universe can create itself from nothing because of the existence of God?!

 

[IAmZamzam]

Uncreated and self-created are two different concepts, Trumble. As for "causation itself", that is merely semantics, because "causation" as a collective noun is not a single thing but just a type of thing that happens. It's like asking me how I explain the cause of running. There is no one cause of running, only what caused any individual person to begin any individual act of swiftly and alternatingly putting one foot before the other on any given occasion in which running occurs. Likewise, there is no single cause of causation "itself", only the causes of individual instances in that all but perpetual string--the dog chased the cat, the cat chased the rat, the rat ate the cheese, you know how it goes--that interconnected web of causation stretching back toward the Big Bang or whatever, in which all spacetime events themselves equally ultimately stem from an omnitemporal, omnipresent Causer whose absence of a definite point in spacetime and material reality removes Him from causal necessity. The universe never created itself from nothing, nor could it. Only something itself not found in the physical cosmos could have created it.

Self-creation of what? Who cares. I've shown about a googolplex times that nothing can create itself and my logic is so irrefutable that no one's even pretended to try to refute the argument itself. Would it help if I made the terms broader and simpler to get people to stop overlooking it?

1. In order for something to perform an action (causation/creation or anything else), it has to exist. Nonexistent things can't do anything. Because they're not even there in the first place.
2. If something already exists, it has already been caused or created.
3. Therefore, nothing can cause/create itself, since in order to do so it would have had to perform actions before it existed.

 

[Trumble]

As for "causation itself", that is merely semantics, because "causation" as a collective noun is not a single thing but just a type of thing that happens.

There is no such thing a 'merely semantics'. And it is totally irrelevant whether it is a single thing ('the law of cause and effect') or a type of thing, it is still a single thing or a type of thing that was neither created nor caused. Just like God. And just like, well... what else? You seem to have some sort of block on addressing that point.

Self-creation of what? Who cares.

That rather depends on how interested you actually are in the supposed topic which in your case, apparently, is not in the slightest. Hawking is (presumably) not offering an abstract philosophical argument as to whether things in general can create themselves or appear 'out of nothing', but a specific scientific and mathematical one in relation to the creation of the universe. It is therefore essential to examine what he actually means.

I've shown about a googolplex times that nothing can create itself and my logic is so irrefutable that no one's even pretended to try to refute the argument itself. Would it help if I made the terms broader and simpler to get people to stop overlooking it?

As I have already explained, '2' is not universal (due to the existence of counter examples) and therefore your argument is unsound; I'm afraid it's not me doing the 'overlooking'. So, no, yet another repetition of your 'irrefutable logic' doesn't 'help' in the slightest.

 

[IAmZamzam]

There is no such thing a 'merely semantics'.

I beg to differ! So, I think, would anyone else, would everyone else.

And it is totally irrelevant whether it is a single thing ('the law of cause and effect') or a type of thing, it is still a single thing or a type of thing that was neither created nor caused. Just like God. And just like, well... what else? You seem to have some sort of block on addressing that point.

And yet you claim you read my posts carefully! I said:

Uncreated and self-created are two different concepts...There is no single cause of causation "itself", only the causes of individual instances in that all but perpetual string--the dog chased the cat, the cat chased the rat, the rat ate the cheese, you know how it goes--that interconnected web of causation stretching back toward the Big Bang or whatever, in which all spacetime events themselves equally ultimately stem from an omnitemporal, omnipresent Causer whose absence of a definite point in spacetime and material reality removes Him from causal necessity. The universe never created itself from nothing, nor could it. Only something itself not found in the physical cosmos could have created it.

That was ONE POST AGO. And here you go speaking as though I have a block on the issues of what couldn’t have been caused, why and how it’s the only thing in that set, and about that “the cause of causation” blather. I’m telling you, I am teetering on the edge of ceasing to bother responding to you at all.

That rather depends on how interested you actually are in the supposed topic which in your case, apparently, is not in the slightest. Hawking is (presumably) not offering an abstract philosophical argument as to whether things in general can create themselves or appear 'out of nothing', but a specific scientific and mathematical one in relation to the creation of the universe. It is therefore essential to examine what he actually means.

No it’s not, unless he means something other than what he said, which claimed that anything could ever be self-creating, and that’s exactly what I was disproving. Whether an argument is scientific, philosophical, abstract, non-abstract, or anything else, if it claims something provably impossible, it is equally out in all cases.

As I have already explained, '2' is not universal (due to the existence of counter examples) and therefore your argument is unsound; I'm afraid it's not me doing the 'overlooking'.

Since the only reasons you gave as a counter to #2 are themselves things I did indeed address and which you staunchly continue to pretend I haven’t, there is no possible conclusion anyone reading this could make (or probably has made, unless that person is you) but that you are indeed the one doing the overlooking. Even if gravity were uncaused, we were talking about self-causation, not uncausation, which is not only an entirely separate concept but also mutually exclusive.

So, no, yet another repetition of your 'irrefutable logic' doesn't 'help' in the slightest.

And oddly enough, still yet no one has refuted it.

 

[tango92]

something which is uncreated should have no boundaries. gravity, always acts a certain way, is based on rules etc one asks where did those rules come from? why are they the way they are?

 

[Trumble]

Since the only reasons you gave as a counter to #2 are themselves things I did indeed address and which you staunchly continue to pretend I haven’t

No, you haven't. I'm not 'pretending' anything. You just cannot escape your own pomposity long enough to accept that as you pretend to be responding to Hawking your 'argument' cannot be addressed except in relation to what Hawking says.

And oddly enough, still yet no one has refuted it.

Oddly enough, I have.

I’m telling you, I am teetering on the edge of ceasing to bother responding to you at all.

Probably just as well. You seem to have nothing else to say.

 

[Hugo]

... web of causation stretching back toward the Big Bang or whatever, in which all spacetime events themselves equally ultimately stem from an omnitemporal, omnipresent Causer whose absence of a definite point in spacetime and material reality removes Him from causal necessity. The universe never created itself from nothing, nor could it. Only something itself not found in the physical cosmos could have created it.

One can see you point but it is no more than speculation and unprovable as there seems no way to show that something not in the cosmos exists.

Now it is easy to agree with you say that in physics the notion of cause and effect and the presumption that something from the future cannot influence something in the past. But there are some cracks, for example radioactivity. An atom, such as radium will eventually decay, and in the process it will emit energy. But there is no known triggering event that could serve as the cause of this decay event. In a large collection of radium atoms the rate of decay can be accurately predicted, but the identity of the decayed atoms cannot be determined beforehand. Their decay is random and uncaused.

Another crack in this belief system has been produced by quantum mechanical events such that the same sequence of causal events (or causal factors) regularly produces different effects (i.e. results), but the results may repeat themselves in some random (unknowable) sequence. You can argue of course that there must be a cause but unless you can find it all we can say is the evidence so far does not in the cases I mentioned support the causation idea.

 

[Argamemnon]

IMHO, it's hardly fair appropriate to accuse one of the leading scientists of our times of being 'illogical', floating strawmen and all the rest of it on the basis of somebody else's comments on his book, and a couple of small quotes. Read the book, then do it. In addition, it's very hard to take seriously any author that suggests such a person is "losing his capacity for original and rational thought" just because he happens to present an opinion the author happens to disagree with. You are obviously capable of presenting a reasonable argument without resorting to ad hominem rubbish, so why not do so?

Scientists are not always honest or knowledgeable. Here is an amazing admission by Professor Richard Lewontin who is one of the world's leaders in evolutionary biology.

"‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen [but see the difference between origin and operational science—Ed.]."

 

[IAmZamzam]

One can see you point but it is no more than speculation and unprovable as there seems no way to show that something not in the cosmos exists.

Now it is easy to agree with you say that in physics the notion of cause and effect and the presumption that something from the future cannot influence something in the past. But there are some cracks, for example radioactivity. An atom, such as radium will eventually decay, and in the process it will emit energy. But there is no known triggering event that could serve as the cause of this decay event. In a large collection of radium atoms the rate of decay can be accurately predicted, but the identity of the decayed atoms cannot be determined beforehand. Their decay is random and uncaused.

Another crack in this belief system has been produced by quantum mechanical events such that the same sequence of causal events (or causal factors) regularly produces different effects (i.e. results), but the results may repeat themselves in some random (unknowable) sequence. You can argue of course that there must be a cause but unless you can find it all we can say is the evidence so far does not in the cases I mentioned support the causation idea.

I repeat: you have your ghost in the machine, I have mine. Both ghosts are things outside of what our personal knowledge shows to be the norm: at least the theistic one is not obligated to be otherwise by its own logic.

Or pardon me, nontheists have their ghost and we have ours. Really, you've been talking so much like one and taking their side so consistently that I have honestly forgotten on several occasions when responding to you that you're a Christian. That's not a quip or an exaggeration: it's the literal, serious truth.

 

[Karl]

If you believe in the cosmos then you believe in God. As the old Greek ancients said the time before God was the chaos. God gave order to the universe creating the cosmos. So without God there would only be eternal chaos.
God creating order out of the chaos is called the creation of the cosmos. So if you don't believe in God you must believe the creation never happened and we are still in a state of chaos. Which is impossible as a state of chaos means totally unstable atomic bonds, time and space random mayhem, all waves of energy totally random total disorder on all levels. So we could not exist in that state. So God must exist but I suppose the argument could be what exactly is God? I think we can't really get our heads around that one. So we have many religions and squabble about what is the truth like little children fighting over toys.

 

[Hugo]

I repeat: you have your ghost in the machine, I have mine. Both ghosts are things outside of what our personal knowledge shows to be the norm: at least the theistic one is not obligated to be otherwise by its own logic. Or pardon me, nontheists have their ghost and we have ours. Really, you've been talking so much like one and taking their side so consistently that I have honestly forgotten on several occasions when responding to you that you're a Christian. That's not a quip or an exaggeration: it's the literal, serious truth.

Try not always to be so sure of yourself especially when you think about what others might say or do or belive. I know nothing of any ghost in my machine and all I ever do or at least try to do is separate what is scientific from what is lets call it supernatural as I don't think the two mix, especially the supernatural with science. So my stated position is that I see nothing wrong with cause and effect but I am also aware there are what I called cracks in the idea and so there are areas were I simply don't know.

Just as an example, if I were say looking at the authenticity of Biblical or Qu'ranic text then my position is that I have to shut out of my mind any notion that these are or might be from God because to do so is to pre-judge the issue and impose a view that cannot be verified. So instead I take the scientific route and can carbon date the papers, looking at the form of writing, the ink used, the thickness of the ink, history of transmission and so on. I might also use textual criticism or compare it with literature of the time. But ALL I am doing is grounded if that is the right word in establishing that the text is authentic from the period and I offer no opinion one way or the others as to its putative supernatural author. This of course does not mean I will not treat it from a personal point of view as God given but I MUST separate out that from what can be established in terms let's call it material evidence.