We Romans have a lot of gods. We've got a god for everything except premature ejaculation ... but I hear that's coming soon ...
Posted on 05/27/2016 8:56:34 PM PDT by amessenger4god
One of the silliest statements I've seen here. In the context of the physical world, which is what Hawking deals with, what could be more complex than the concept of God?
Describe God and explain the physical processes used to create our universe.
Attributing everything you don't yet understand about the physical world to the doings of some supernatural entity isn't simple, it's a cop out.
The fool has said in his heart there is no God. What does this say about Hawking? That he is a brilliant fool.
I'm afraid this design argument doesn't really work for me.
It seems that to recognize design there must be un-designed things for us to compare to. We distinguish things obviously designed by man from naturally occurring artifacts.
In a universe created by God, by definition everything is "designed" and therefore the term becomes meaningless. If everything in the universe has the same attribute (design), then that attribute has no descriptive value at all.
Can you name anything in the universe not designed by God?
Actually I believe most "Christian" religions believe that God is utterly simple. He has no parts because to loose a part would mean that He is less than God and if He is able to gain a part He was not God in the first place.
Clear THINKING: Well put.
Everything that exists has aspects of its existence that are not understandable to it. That holds for humans. That which can be understood is God and the source of the design of the universe.
What is not understandable is the how and why that origin of all existence. The way my mind works in this reasoning process is the basis for my belief in God. It's illogical to try to understand or explain the nature of God. We can only learn the nature of its creations.
Hinduism has some 330 million gods, goddesses of human, animal, "cosmic" being and any mixture thereof. My husband said, after we visited India, that he was POSITIVE that someone there was worshiping a '56 Chevy as "god." They make ANYONE/THING as "god."
Some wives even make their husband "god." Oh yuck.
We Romans have a lot of gods. We've got a god for everything except premature ejaculation ... but I hear that's coming soon ...
You would have been a GREAT China-man. The Chinese have gods for EVERYTHING, even premature ejaculation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Chinese_gods
There are 110 PAGES of Chinese gods, with a notation of "There may be more by now."
The older cultures, India and China, are quite proud of their age. For them, like cheese, the older the better. Harhar. Thus, they are both mired in ignorance, but, they are "blissful" about it.
Romans love their cars and wine...nothing odd about that! Their cars, though beautiful, don't work very well but their wine is scrumptious!
Yours is an excellent question and your good mind will enjoy a deeper study of the design argument. Your reaction to the writings of Dr. Jason Lisle on this subject would be most interesting. The comment writers at Creation Evolution Headlines, crev.info, often bring up this idea. Let me know what you think.
The answer to your question is, “Anything and everything designed by someone else.” You cannot, however, accept this answer if I understand your “definition” of God. But if that concept of God is correct, then I can ignore your ideas since they are programmed into you, and any reaction I may have to them is also programmed into me. You can ignore everything I just said, but you won’t be able to, and it won’t matter whether you do or not.
Perhaps the only thing that exists that is not of Gods design.is the idea that there is no God.
While that may be satisfying to some on a philosophical level it doesn't simplify things here in the physical world in the least.
How did this entity with no parts create all of the solid world around us? To say it was all just created without specifying a mechanism is invoking magic, which I guess seems simple if you don't really think about it too much.
I'm not arguing against God as the creator, just the notion that it's a simple concept.
Can't you read? I said what would the Mod Squad think?
Yes, this is a paradox. The scholastics who articulated the simplicity of God had no modern understanding of the mathematics of infinity or things like Gödel Incompleteness, but they sensed truth and expressed it in terms that were suited to their time.
The author made the claim that invoking God was a simple solution to understanding physical creation. An absurd notion.
I’ve recently decided to fully embrace the multiverse and all it can offer. Since there are an infinite amount of universes now, that is more than enough to go around for each and every one of us. Now everyone can have a unique place where they can believe anything they want. I make first claim to this one cause it seems the most interesting and all my stuff is here. Since it is now mine, I’ll be imposing my will upon it so expect some changes very soon. Of course, if you don’t like it here, you can always go find one to your liking, just have to ask Professor Hawking how to get there. Happy hunting! :)
I recall a television show where one character said “You point to any item in the Sears catalog and somewhere someone want to have sex with it or worship it as a god.”
Let's assume that he wasn't serious when he said, "from nothing," but that he meant only "from no matter." So Hawking says that once upon a time the universe [space-time manifold] did not exist. There is a "beginning" or "finiteness" to time," and therefore an "outside" to time. And the laws of physics somehow exist outside of time. He equates the "creation of the universe" with the "becoming of matter." And logically prior to this "becoming" stands a principle, a set of laws described by quantum theory. (This is logically prior, not prior in time. Time commences with the becoming of matter.)
So: Law precedes Matter and is the cause of it. This makes the Law the formal cause - i.e., "the form-specifying principle" - of that which would otherwise be formless. By bringing form to "formless matter" the Law brings matter as we know it into being. And we're back to Aristotle!
Formless matter, the πρώτη ὕλη (prote hyle),is incorporeal because it is no actual body -- though it is the necessary underlying condition for bodies. So the prime matter is formless or chaotic and because it has no physical existence we can call it a "void."
So according to Hawking, there was a beginning; and in the beginning was the Law and the Law was all there was; and without the Law nothing came to be. And the Law was an immaterial being that was pure λογοϛ. And this Law gave form to the void of pure potency, prime matter.
Wait a minute.....
Something about that sounds awfully familiar. Didn't someone say all that and say it more poetically a long time ago?
But I don't think Hawking realized he was paraphrasing that.
Heh.
BTW, I radically shortened and simplified this from Mike Flynn's Journal. Hawking proves the existence of God! Great fun! So, quantum this:
Lol.
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.