Skip to comments.Is it rational to believe in God?
Posted on 12/22/2011 4:54:48 PM PST by WilliamIII
The world's most famous physicist Prof. Stephen Hawking has declared that God does not exist.
Hawking joins the opinion of several other world-class scientists like Richard Dawkins, Peter Atkins, James Watson, Victor Stenger and many others who deny the existence of God in the name of the latest advancements in physics, biology and other scientific domains. The so-called "New Atheism" (championed by Richard Dawkins) sees God as a delusion, a by product of the mind of superstitious and scientifically uneducated people. "Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing ... Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists and why we are here". This is the conclusion of The Grand Design, Hawking's latest book.
...Hawking states that a "law of gravity" exists and this (not God) creates the universe. Hawking surely also believes that gravity itself exists (since a law of gravity without "gravity" to describe would be meaningless). Now, if we say that X creates Y, we must presuppose the existence of X in the first place to bring Y into existence. Likewise, we must presuppose the existence of gravity to bring the universe into existence.
But Einstein's theory of relativity shows that this is illogical because it is like saying that gravity existed "before time" which is absurd. Did gravity spontaneously generate itself then?
(Excerpt) Read more at ph.news.yahoo.com ...
I have always felt that God was probably a mathematically or scientifically provable fact. It is just that God is so complex that we don’t have the ability to do so.
Golf clap, Dr. Hawking.
Tell me, is it rational to love or feel anything or anyone?
Prove to us that you feel a feeling or love someone.
If it were rational, there would be no such thing as faith. And if there were no faith, there would be no trust. And if there was no trust, there would be only fear.
And yet Scripture tells us that nature makes God evident to anyone who pays attention.
However, if science was left to explain the universe, there would be no love because love cannot be tangibly studied or weighed. Science cannot describe, measure or quantify love so it would have to declare that it didn’t actually exist either.
For the law was given by Moses, (everybody gets it, but nobody can do it) but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ (few get it, but it's free to everybody). John 1:17.
Sounds like G_d to me.
Some of us are content in not knowing how everything was created. We don't have to cling to some made up story to get through the day.
Not when you have had a revalation...
Is it rational to believe that we are all here ‘just because’, or that this planet and human beings are some kind of random happening?
You’d be crazy not to.
I think Poster 25 cuts right to the heart of the matter and puts the "universe creates itself" theory in perspective:
"It's kinda like a tornado .. tearing through a salvage yard and creating a corvette in it's wake!"
Hermetically sealed “rationality” that refuses to consider evidence that demands a verdict is, of course, irrational. We are witnesses to the Age of Rationality producing the Age of Irrationality.
The evidence keeps mounting that something happened in Israel about 2000 years ago.
The example I like to use is “throwing a stick of dynamite into a bauxite mine, and when the dust clears there’s a fully functional Boeing 747 sitting there fuelled up.”
Entropy by definition precludes the entire “self forming” idea of the universe, because order CANNOT come from disorder. There MUST BE an intelligence guiding material for it to make any sense.
And then of course we ask:
"How does Hawking know that God didn't create the conditions and coincidences that make the creation of the universe and life appear to be spontaneous?"
Think of an aborigine contemplating an automatic manufacturing machine churning out thousands of donuts an hour with no visible human intervention. Once the machine is tuned up and ready to go the operator can stand back and let the machine do its job. But to the aborigine the operation of the machine is unfathomable - it appears to "spontaneously create" donuts.
If you REALLY want to cut through the pure blather of guys like Hawking, and the dear departed, now sizzling and frying Chris Hitchens, forget about ooze and primorial “soup” and think about how such elegant, and intricate miracles as sight, taste and smell “just happened.
Everybody conveniently “forgets” that even Darwin, in “The Origin...” admitted that unless definite examples could be found which prove the evolution of the eye, his theory of evolution could not stand up. He realized the folly of claiming that something of so complicated and technical composition had just happened, unless one had “Exhibits A, B & C, etc. to substantiate it.
But old Darwin died and went on to face the God he’d denied, and his God hating, God denying accolytes ignored the above-cited admission of Darwin in his unscientific book, and continue to perpetuate the totally fabricated farce of evolution.
Also; poor, bumbling, lost-as-a-goose-in-an-ice-storm Darwin and his contemporaries; lacking the optics and electronic magnification to see the wonders and grandeur of the microscopic world, based their entire “chewing gum, spit and baling wire” lash-up of evolution, on the belief that a single “simple” cell was nothing more nor less than a glob of protoplasm very much like a tiny morcel of gelatin.
Modern technology has revealed how pathetically far they were from the truth, or any clue of actual science! Any ONE living, so-called “simple cell contains so much code within its DNA, that if it were unwound and printed out in normal typeface, the code in ONE cell would fill 1000 volumes of 600 pages each! So forget about slime and ooze. Answer the question of WHO WROTE THE CODE which DIRECTS cells to reproduce themselves! IMHO, that’s the MONEY question.
lol I remember that.