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 ...
Would not God also give to life forms he created the power and ability to adapt to that changing universe?
There is nothing in the materialistic view of the world which gives us hope. Hope comes only through the miracle of the Gospel.
There’s no need to prove God’s existence to Hawking or anyone else. He and they will eventually find out for themselves. That is why He says those who do not believe in Him are fools.
Hoyle’s Fallacy: the junkyard tornado, is a term for mathematician Fred Hoyle’s flawed statistical analysis applied to evolutionary origins.
I pray that men like Hawkings see the truth sometime prior to their earthly demise; repent; and accept Jesus as their Lord. Otherwise, he will be pontificating throughout eternity on questions like: Will time end? and How long can Hell burn before its source of fuel is exhausted?
“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.”
No you don’t. It’s the God given free will that allows you to do so.
Oh it’s rational to not believe in God I guess - that is - if you can describe what happens one second past the end of time and one inch past the end of space. If you can handle those questions - then I guess it’s ok to not believe in God.
As for me, I can’t even understand those questions, let alone answer them, so I’ll stick with God.
How is it that people who gain so much earthly knowledge eventually start oozing stupid like a Hollywood trollop?
I couldn’t even read the article because the title made me throw up in my mouth a little.
I wonder why the world is is such dire straights?
What IS Rational? Is Love rational? Is Hate rational? Is an emotionally affected person rational? Of course belief in God is not rational, God cannot be defined in human terms. Can anyone say what infinity is? Can anyone say what lies beyond the edges of the universe? Nothingness? Endless space? A place from where eternal watchers observe the lives of humans? “Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen” Faith in an heavenly abode is a substance that cannot be rationally quantified. Rationality can perceive the eternal if faith is allowed into the equation... it becomes a matter of personal preference. The unbeliever spends the rest of his life trying the prove his unbelief, while the believer spends the rest of his life contemplating eternal life.
It is irrational to believe we are here by accident.
I don’t think rationality has anything to do with it, it’s just something one is born with or without. Afterall, how does someone force themselves to believe? It’s either there or it ain’t.
The flaw was that goo-to-you evolution is so unlikely it makes the junkyard tornado thing look like a sure bet.
One thing I find amusing is that atheists often compare a belief in God to a belief in Santa Claus. While this comparison in itself is ludicrous even if there is no God (it's sort of like comparing the Laffer curve to a business plan to sell unicorn poop) what is really interesting is that belief in macroevolution requires such faith in so many things lining up perfectly that it's like believing the jolly old elf can visit all the world's children in 24 hours. I mean, really, if getting from the first microbe to you and me took 500 different mutations, what are the odds that they would all work out not only correctly, but in the way they did?
Even if there was no other evidence of a God, Hawking would be silly to call people of faith irrational, because it's completely rational to say "I'm playing the odds, because they're rather immense." If Pascal's wager was rational in the seventeenth century, how much more rational is it now when we know that the odds of being here in this form are trillions to one?
God offers. We choose or reject.
A lie. God offers. We choose to accept or reject.
In God’s Creation we see all the time how various life forms are able to adapt to changing conditions. But wolves NEVER “adapt” or evolve into bears; and Mallard ducks NEVER adapt or evolve into pea fowl; nor do salamanders adapt or evolve into alligators. MICRO evolution, more accurately, adaptation, occurs all the time within the confines of any given life form. But MACRO evolution, the changing from one species to another, IS A GIGANTIC CROCK.
It is the epitome of arrogance, in my mind, to ignore what God has clearly told us in His Word, and to go about concocting contrary scenarios in an attempt to appear to be the proverbial “smartest guy in the room.” MERRY CHRISTMAS.
The “who created God” question is answered in a fashion by Acquinas.
The problem of infinite regress of dependent causes, is solved by something which is uncaused.
Else you still have the problem.
The uncaused first cause argument is still used and has never been unproven.
It does not ‘prove’ the God of any religion of course. But it and other of Aquinas’s work come as close to the primary attributes of what most call “God.”
It’s an interesting study, and I recommend it to anyone interested in Reason and Religion and how the two do and don’t mix.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.