Thread: Who do you "pray" to?

Originally Posted by jcd

I've never had a problem with any of this.

I only get my knickers in a twist when scientific claims are made.

What other people believe on faith privately is none of my business, I butt out.

Interestingly, I was reading a "brief history of time" by Stephen Hawking a few years ago, and one of the more interesting points I found was when he was discussing his "proof" of the big-bang theory (his doctoral work). The problem was that as you said earlier everything after the big-bang followed scientific/natural patterns, but in order for the big bang to occur all the laws of physics had to be broken, thus "proving" the existence of God. According to Hawking the Catholic church immediately adopted his information. At the time of the book writing, Hawking was trying to DISPROVE his own proof of the Big Bang, because it resulted in a singularity.

Also, a clear point is that no matter what evidence one can find, there can be no disproof of God, because the very nature of omnipotence is that even if you can scientifically prove that everything has followed a natural sequence of events, you cannot prove that the natural sequence was created by God.

My quabble with "science" is that no matter what the evidence it is a predetermined assumption that there is no God so any evidence that points toward a God is automatically rejected in search of something else. For instance Hawking working to disprove his own work because it indicated the work of an omnipotent being. I can understand the purpose of science is to investigate all possibilities, but if there is even *some* evidence for God (or the flying spaghetti monster or anything) then it should remain on the table as an option?

Originally Posted by bbshriver

Interestingly, I was reading a "brief history of time" by Stephen Hawking a few years ago, and one of the more interesting points I found was when he was discussing his "proof" of the big-bang theory (his doctoral work). The problem was that as you said earlier everything after the big-bang followed scientific/natural patterns, but in order for the big bang to occur all the laws of physics had to be broken, thus "proving" the existence of God. According to Hawking the Catholic church immediately adopted his information. At the time of the book writing, Hawking was trying to DISPROVE his own proof of the Big Bang, because it resulted in a singularity.

[...]

My quabble with "science" is that no matter what the evidence it is a predetermined assumption that there is no God so any evidence that points toward a God is automatically rejected in search of something else. For instance Hawking working to disprove his own work because it indicated the work of an omnipotent being. I can understand the purpose of science is to investigate all possibilities, but if there is even *some* evidence for God (or the flying spaghetti monster or anything) then it should remain on the table as an option?

What evidence (gathered via scientific method), might I ask, points towards a God? You are saying that science does not consider the evidence that there is a god based on an assumption that it makes saying that there cannot be one? Aren't these inverses of each other? You have it backwards. There is no evidence of a God that can be documented via scientific experiment, so science can make the assumption that there is no God when formulating theories down the road. If that changes at some point, then all theories not disproven by that point must be re-examined. So, to answer your question, for me, the possibility of a God is still there, but (as I said in an earlier post) limited to the events prior to the big bang theory. This rules out any supernatural occurrences surrounding Abraham, Moses, Noah, David, JC, etc, etc etc.......

I also read Hawking's book, and while he does try to disprove and prove many different things as they relate to the big bang, he does not say that he is trying to expressly disprove the existence of a god. In fact, he leaves the book (in the latest revision as I had just bought/read the book within the last two months or so) open ended stating that the events that lead up to and trigger the big bang are unexplainable via the laws/theories/experiments/studies that science has up to this point. So, therein lies possibility of divine intervention. The object of science is to find answers. The underlying theme of "A Brief History of Time" is the quest for a unified/universal theory through which all things can be explained. If there was legitimate reason to believe that the answer was "GOD", then science could accept it. The problem is that there is no reason.

[QUOTE=bbshriver;430878]Also, a clear point is that no matter what evidence one can find, there can be no disproof of God, because the very nature of omnipotence is that even if you can scientifically prove that everything has followed a natural sequence of events, you cannot prove that the natural sequence was created by God. [QUOTE=bbshriver;430878]

This is incredibly convenient for the believers. What's the point in even arguing if that's the case? "You can't disprove the existence of my God, because its very nature is such that it does not allow for disproving!"

Also, I don't see how you can call this a "clear point", seeing as how there is an age-old debate surrounding the validity of the claim. I'd call it muddy, at best.

V/R,

Ogie

I'm confused as to how that would be muddy. "Omnipotent" is pretty self explanatory.

Regarding my other assertions, in *that* post I was not referencing the Christian God, (although that is firmly my position), but merely the idea that there exists no "explainable" reason for the big-bang or before, and the theory of an omnipotent being would easily answer that, and therefore should be an open option until something better can be proposed/tested/proven.

Another thing I recall Hawking discussing is the fact that the 2 general physical models are not compatible. I believe this was quantum physics versus relativity. If you try to explain large systems using quantum mechanics it does not work, and if you try to explain small systems with relativity it does not work. Though maybe I'm thinking of Newtonian in there. It's been about 3 years since I read the book so my memory is a little fuzzy. I was a physics major for a while in college but dropped that in favor of engineering so never really got into the higher level theory stuff.

Eric Rasmusen's Weblog: The Dawkins-Lennox debate in Oxford

Originally Posted by bbshriver

I'm confused as to how that would be muddy. "Omnipotent" is pretty self explanatory.

Omnipotent is the description believers use, and I know full well what it means. However, the point was not the use of the word, it was how you can justify the existence of something as clear (or easily understandable) just by labeling it as "omnipotent".

Unless, of course, you were just defining the word "omnipotent" in which case I completely agree.

Either way, at this point, I'm going to try to remove myself from the thread.

Thanks,

G

My 'clear point' was that you cannot disprove the existence of an omnipotent being. I was not justifying the existence, just saying that you can't disprove it. sorry for the confusion.

Originally Posted by Oglethorpe

Omnipotent is the description believers use, and I know full well what it means. However, the point was not the use of the word, it was how you can justify the existence of something as clear (or easily understandable) just by labeling it as "omnipotent".

Unless, of course, you were just defining the word "omnipotent" in which case I completely agree.

Either way, at this point, I'm going to try to remove myself from the thread.

Thanks,

G

you cannot disprove that I'm not behind you

fact is I move so fast that you'll never turn around fast enough to catch me

and I don't cast a reflection or shadow

and I'm silent

and I know when you are going to turn around

Originally Posted by bbshriver

My 'clear point' was that you cannot disprove the existence of an omnipotent being. I was not justifying the existence, just saying that you can't disprove it. sorry for the confusion.

This is the whiole argument for the invisible pink unicorn though. And Russel's teapot.

Originally Posted by bbshriver

My 'clear point' was that you cannot disprove the existence of an omnipotent being.

Of course you can't, there is one

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Of course you can't, there is one

No there isn't. And if there is, she knows I'm just kidding (hey, that Pascal guy had a good point, right?)