[FairfieldLife] Re: Hawking: God did not create the Universe
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_...@... wrote: For a scientist, Hawking makes a lot of stupid comments. He's either trying to sell his new book or is already senile. He's making science the new religion of the masses. His statements are full of of faith in theories that are not even proven. It's about time he stepped down as head of the science department of his university. JohnR wants Hawking to resign because he states (accurately) that no God is necessary when post- ulating the creation of the universe. One assumes JohnR would like all Buddhists in the world to resign from their positions as well, because they've been pointing out this obvious fact for centuries. Isn't it fascinating how quickly God freaks turn into Inquisitors when someone questions the exis- tence of their imaginary friend? :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifuxero@ wrote: The Intelligent Design key point - fine tuning - seems to be even less compelling as an argument, says Hawking. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100902/lf_nm_life/us_britain_hawking
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hawking: God did not create the Universe
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptyb...@... wrote: Very few scientists have any training in Western philosophy, much less Eastern. The same goes for training (or even basic classes) in the philosophy of science. Most of them look even more foolish when they open their mouths and demonstrate how totally ignorant they are about theology. They show a lot of arrogance and do so without any sense of self-reflection You make a good point IMO! Hawking says this apparently: Because there is a law such as 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, why we exist, Hawking writes. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going. There seems to be a lack of curiousity about what kind of thing a *law* might be. If so, that's very negligent from a philosophical point of view! In this physicist's tale, the *law* appears to *be* some kind of *thing* whose existence is in some sense *prior* to that of the universe. What a puzzle of ontology! This kind of thinking about laws seems to me to be just another turtle-style explanation for the existence of everything-as-we-know-it (ironic really, as Hawking refers to this in his Brief History of Time). Just replace turtles by laws: William James, father of American psychology, tells of meeting an old lady who told him the Earth rested on the back of a huge turtle. But, my dear lady, Professor James asked, as politely as possible, what holds up the turtle? Ah, she said, that's easy. He is standing on the back of another turtle. Oh, I see, said Professor James, still being polite. But would you be so good as to tell me what holds up the second turtle? It's no use, Professor, said the old lady, realizing he was trying to lead her into a logical trap. It's turtles-turtles-turtles, all the way! Then again, as well as the ontological headache, philosophy geeks will feel the need to scratch that darn epistemological itch triggered by talk of *laws*. A *law* implies some kind of non-trivial *necessity*. How could we ever *know* neccesity except in the trivial sense - when something is true by virtue of the meaning of words (all bachelors are unmarried men is necessarily true, but does not tell us anything about *reality*. only about the meaning of some words in English). I guess Hawking would say that his *law (laws?) are mathematical *things*, and the necessity of the fundamental laws of physics is the reflected glory of the necessity that the laws of mathematics appear to possess (is this so far from Plato?). But rather like 'turtles upon turtles', all this achieves is to shove the mystery of that peculiar thing necessity one level on i.e. from physics to mathematics. 'Cos when it comes down to it, our *knowledge* of mathematics is a very odd, puzzling thing indeed! (IMO of course, and only if you have an inclination to be bothered by such things. Probably better to just chop wood and carry water?).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hawking: God did not create the Universe
I'm not sure what exactly Hawking's position is on the creation of the universe, but I should point out that there are some physicists who don't believe that there ever was one. They are joined in this view by Buddhists, who believe that the universe has always been, is now, and will always be. In other words, there is no technical or scientific need to anthropomorphize the universe and assume that it either began at some point or will end at some point. Many humans -- including most religious people attached to their traditions' creation myths -- can't conceive of this. I find it no problem to conceive of an eternal universe. And once you do, the issue of What existed before Creation just fuckin' goes away, and along with it the need to postulate a God. Creation is IMO always being created, eternally, in many dimensions, some of them concurrent. I see no *need* to postulate a God, and a problem in doing so: Occam's Razor. Needing a God to explain things complicates something that has no need to be com- plicated, and thus is less likely than the simple explanation, that all of this is happening eternally in every moment, and that no imaginary friend ever had anything whatsoever to do with it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@ wrote: Very few scientists have any training in Western philosophy, much less Eastern. The same goes for training (or even basic classes) in the philosophy of science. Most of them look even more foolish when they open their mouths and demonstrate how totally ignorant they are about theology. They show a lot of arrogance and do so without any sense of self-reflection You make a good point IMO! Hawking says this apparently: Because there is a law such as 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, why we exist, Hawking writes. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going. There seems to be a lack of curiousity about what kind of thing a *law* might be. If so, that's very negligent from a philosophical point of view! In this physicist's tale, the *law* appears to *be* some kind of *thing* whose existence is in some sense *prior* to that of the universe. What a puzzle of ontology! This kind of thinking about laws seems to me to be just another turtle-style explanation for the existence of everything-as-we-know-it (ironic really, as Hawking refers to this in his Brief History of Time). Just replace turtles by laws: William James, father of American psychology, tells of meeting an old lady who told him the Earth rested on the back of a huge turtle. But, my dear lady, Professor James asked, as politely as possible, what holds up the turtle? Ah, she said, that's easy. He is standing on the back of another turtle. Oh, I see, said Professor James, still being polite. But would you be so good as to tell me what holds up the second turtle? It's no use, Professor, said the old lady, realizing he was trying to lead her into a logical trap. It's turtles-turtles-turtles, all the way! Then again, as well as the ontological headache, philosophy geeks will feel the need to scratch that darn epistemological itch triggered by talk of *laws*. A *law* implies some kind of non-trivial *necessity*. How could we ever *know* neccesity except in the trivial sense - when something is true by virtue of the meaning of words (all bachelors are unmarried men is necessarily true, but does not tell us anything about *reality*. only about the meaning of some words in English). I guess Hawking would say that his *law (laws?) are mathematical *things*, and the necessity of the fundamental laws of physics is the reflected glory of the necessity that the laws of mathematics appear to possess (is this so far from Plato?). But rather like 'turtles upon turtles', all this achieves is to shove the mystery of that peculiar thing necessity one level on i.e. from physics to mathematics. 'Cos when it comes down to it, our *knowledge* of mathematics is a very odd, puzzling thing indeed! (IMO of course, and only if you have an inclination to be bothered by such things. Probably better to just chop wood and carry water?).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hawking: God did not create the Universe
Still riffing on this, I think that many people's issue with an eternal universe is not that it postulates No God (although that pushes a LOT of buttons because It just isn't *done* to question God's existence), but because it implies No Purpose. I think that a lot of folks are drawn to the God Meme because they'd like to believe that life has a Purpose. And therefore *their* lives have a Purpose, as a subset of God's Purpose. Am I weird because I don't feel the need to believe that there is any Purpose behind it all? Even the vague one of Lila (play) or the hopeful one of Expansion of Self Awareness? If so, I'm weird. (This will come as no shock to many.) I'm not saying definitively that there is no purpose to Life, the Universe, and Everything (other than trying to figure out the question that Douglas Adams answered with 42). I'm just saying that if there is such a purpose, I for one have never seen documentation of it or proof of it, and that I need neither. I'd be as happy with No Purpose But The One You Make Up For Yourself. Your mileage may vary. I'm not trying to sell my view or convince anyone of it, merely to state it. Those who claim that I *am* trying to sell them something, or that there IS documentation of God's existence and His/ Her/Its hand in creating Creation in books they consider holy can go suck hiranyagarbha (the cosmic egg). :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: I'm not sure what exactly Hawking's position is on the creation of the universe, but I should point out that there are some physicists who don't believe that there ever was one. They are joined in this view by Buddhists, who believe that the universe has always been, is now, and will always be. In other words, there is no technical or scientific need to anthropomorphize the universe and assume that it either began at some point or will end at some point. Many humans -- including most religious people attached to their traditions' creation myths -- can't conceive of this. I find it no problem to conceive of an eternal universe. And once you do, the issue of What existed before Creation just fuckin' goes away, and along with it the need to postulate a God. Creation is IMO always being created, eternally, in many dimensions, some of them concurrent. I see no *need* to postulate a God, and a problem in doing so: Occam's Razor. Needing a God to explain things complicates something that has no need to be com- plicated, and thus is less likely than the simple explanation, that all of this is happening eternally in every moment, and that no imaginary friend ever had anything whatsoever to do with it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@ wrote: Very few scientists have any training in Western philosophy, much less Eastern. The same goes for training (or even basic classes) in the philosophy of science. Most of them look even more foolish when they open their mouths and demonstrate how totally ignorant they are about theology. They show a lot of arrogance and do so without any sense of self-reflection You make a good point IMO! Hawking says this apparently: Because there is a law such as 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, why we exist, Hawking writes. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going. There seems to be a lack of curiousity about what kind of thing a *law* might be. If so, that's very negligent from a philosophical point of view! In this physicist's tale, the *law* appears to *be* some kind of *thing* whose existence is in some sense *prior* to that of the universe. What a puzzle of ontology! This kind of thinking about laws seems to me to be just another turtle-style explanation for the existence of everything-as-we-know-it (ironic really, as Hawking refers to this in his Brief History of Time). Just replace turtles by laws: William James, father of American psychology, tells of meeting an old lady who told him the Earth rested on the back of a huge turtle. But, my dear lady, Professor James asked, as politely as possible, what holds up the turtle? Ah, she said, that's easy. He is standing on the back of another turtle. Oh, I see, said Professor James, still being polite. But would you be so good as to tell me what holds up the second turtle? It's no use, Professor, said the old lady, realizing he was trying to lead her into a logical trap. It's turtles-turtles-turtles, all the way! Then again, as well as the ontological headache, philosophy geeks will feel the need to scratch that darn epistemological itch triggered by talk of
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hawking: God did not create the Universe
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: Still riffing on this, I think that many people's issue with an eternal universe is not that it postulates No God (although that pushes a LOT of buttons because It just isn't *done* to question God's existence), but because it implies No Purpose. Yes, that, I'm sure. But what about Justice? Thinking out loud here, but... Just as you could scarcely claim a difference between an English football fan and a drunk, it seems there might similarly be little difference between, say, a Buddhist and an atheist. But I wonder if the difference is this: Is there (ultimately) *Justice* in the world? For an atheist the answer I think has to be no. Any justice is justice we create. And against the backdrop of an uncaring, unfeeling universe, you might well wonder what's the point? Person 'A' comes into Being out of nothing, acts like a selfish, sadistic, exploitative bastard all his/her life, then snuffs it. Person 'B' comes into Being out of nothing, does his/her best but gets thoroughly screwed by the likes of 'A'. And yet saint-like, always turns the other cheek, and never turns cynical or bitter. Or whatever (you get my idea). An atheist's universe couldn't care less presumably. But I think religious folks have faith that in the end it will turn out right somehow. Plenty of religionistas think in terms of Hell and Heaven as justice of course. But others might prefer to believe that 'A' types just need the opportunity to learn the error of their ways (more lifetimes perhaps?) to overcome their ignorance (which is their real sin). Just thinking then - what is the *real* difference between being religious or atheist? The issue of a created or non-created universe is probably not the main point. Darwin versus Creationism is also a red herring I'd say. I think Dawkins (and maybe Hawking) want hegemony. So they *reduce* religion to something that has the appearance of a bad physical theory, and then abrogate that to their patch. It's empire building.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hawking: God did not create the Universe
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/popular.html If you have never read it, then Max Tegmark's Parallel Universes is a mind blower. He's an astrophysical cosmologist at MIT who points out that cosmological theorizing still breaks down into Platonic and Aristotelian modes of thinking, which he then demonstrates with examples. One example of mind blowing is his demonstration of how to calculate the total number of atoms in our universe. Another is his demo of exactly how far away a complete copy of our entire universe would exist if the cosmos was limitless in its physical expanse. That means exact copies of you, me and Turq discussing this very point. His multiverse discussion of levels of enfoldment and complexity, of causality and correspondence will intellectually dissolve a lot of basic assumptions that we take for granted. http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/popular.html http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/popular.html --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@ wrote: Very few scientists have any training in Western philosophy, much less Eastern. The same goes for training (or even basic classes) in the philosophy of science. Most of them look even more foolish when they open their mouths and demonstrate how totally ignorant they are about theology. They show a lot of arrogance and do so without any sense of self-reflection You make a good point IMO! Hawking says this apparently: Because there is a law such as 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, why we exist, Hawking writes. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going. There seems to be a lack of curiousity about what kind of thing a *law* might be. If so, that's very negligent from a philosophical point of view! In this physicist's tale, the *law* appears to *be* some kind of *thing* whose existence is in some sense *prior* to that of the universe. What a puzzle of ontology! This kind of thinking about laws seems to me to be just another turtle-style explanation for the existence of everything-as-we-know-it (ironic really, as Hawking refers to this in his Brief History of Time). Just replace turtles by laws: William James, father of American psychology, tells of meeting an old lady who told him the Earth rested on the back of a huge turtle. But, my dear lady, Professor James asked, as politely as possible, what holds up the turtle? Ah, she said, that's easy. He is standing on the back of another turtle. Oh, I see, said Professor James, still being polite. But would you be so good as to tell me what holds up the second turtle? It's no use, Professor, said the old lady, realizing he was trying to lead her into a logical trap. It's turtles-turtles-turtles, all the way! Then again, as well as the ontological headache, philosophy geeks will feel the need to scratch that darn epistemological itch triggered by talk of *laws*. A *law* implies some kind of non-trivial *necessity*. How could we ever *know* neccesity except in the trivial sense - when something is true by virtue of the meaning of words (all bachelors are unmarried men is necessarily true, but does not tell us anything about *reality*. only about the meaning of some words in English). I guess Hawking would say that his *law (laws?) are mathematical *things*, and the necessity of the fundamental laws of physics is the reflected glory of the necessity that the laws of mathematics appear to possess (is this so far from Plato?). But rather like 'turtles upon turtles', all this achieves is to shove the mystery of that peculiar thing necessity one level on i.e. from physics to mathematics. 'Cos when it comes down to it, our *knowledge* of mathematics is a very odd, puzzling thing indeed! (IMO of course, and only if you have an inclination to be bothered by such things. Probably better to just chop wood and carry water?).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hawking: God did not create the Universe
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Still riffing on this, I think that many people's issue with an eternal universe is not that it postulates No God (although that pushes a LOT of buttons because It just isn't *done* to question God's existence), but because it implies No Purpose. Yes, that, I'm sure. But what about Justice? Thinking out loud here, but... Just as you could scarcely claim a difference between an English football fan and a drunk... LOL. ...it seems there might similarly be little difference between, say, a Buddhist and an atheist. Actually, in terms of ethics there is sometimes little difference. Many of the atheists I've met who label themselves *as* atheists have a remarkably similar definition of ethics to many of the Buddhists I've met. That is, that ethics come from within. A belief or non-belief in God does not change that. In both cases the people choose to live ethically for the simple reason that it matters to *them*, not to some supposedly all-seeing Daddy or some omni- present and equally watchful set of Laws Of Nature. It's the same notion as Doing A Good Job Is More Fun Than Doing A Shitty Job. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hawking: God did not create the Universe
So are you saying people are naturally good and will do the right (not shitty thing)? Or only Buddhists and atheists? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Still riffing on this, I think that many people's issue with an eternal universe is not that it postulates No God (although that pushes a LOT of buttons because It just isn't *done* to question God's existence), but because it implies No Purpose. Yes, that, I'm sure. But what about Justice? Thinking out loud here, but... Just as you could scarcely claim a difference between an English football fan and a drunk... LOL. ...it seems there might similarly be little difference between, say, a Buddhist and an atheist. Actually, in terms of ethics there is sometimes little difference. Many of the atheists I've met who label themselves *as* atheists have a remarkably similar definition of ethics to many of the Buddhists I've met. That is, that ethics come from within. A belief or non-belief in God does not change that. In both cases the people choose to live ethically for the simple reason that it matters to *them*, not to some supposedly all-seeing Daddy or some omni- present and equally watchful set of Laws Of Nature. It's the same notion as Doing A Good Job Is More Fun Than Doing A Shitty Job. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hawking: God did not create the Universe
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge no_re...@... wrote: So are you saying people are naturally good and will do the right (not shitty thing)? Or only Buddhists and atheists? I am saying that some people try to do the right thing, and that doing so has nothing whatsoever to do with whether they are Buddhists, atheists, or deists. They do it because it matters to them. Other people choose not to do the right thing. They do this because doing the right thing doesn't matter to them. Belief in God or non-belief in God has nothing to do with it. Neither does what any of them *say* they believe about doing the right thing. The only thing that matters is what they *do*. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Still riffing on this, I think that many people's issue with an eternal universe is not that it postulates No God (although that pushes a LOT of buttons because It just isn't *done* to question God's existence), but because it implies No Purpose. Yes, that, I'm sure. But what about Justice? Thinking out loud here, but... Just as you could scarcely claim a difference between an English football fan and a drunk... LOL. ...it seems there might similarly be little difference between, say, a Buddhist and an atheist. Actually, in terms of ethics there is sometimes little difference. Many of the atheists I've met who label themselves *as* atheists have a remarkably similar definition of ethics to many of the Buddhists I've met. That is, that ethics come from within. A belief or non-belief in God does not change that. In both cases the people choose to live ethically for the simple reason that it matters to *them*, not to some supposedly all-seeing Daddy or some omni- present and equally watchful set of Laws Of Nature. It's the same notion as Doing A Good Job Is More Fun Than Doing A Shitty Job. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hawking: God did not create the Universe
I don't think there is any guy in the sky micromanaging things which is what a lot of people believe. But one might call whatever the process of the universe's existence is in it's totality God or whang or whatever. Even the best and brightest of the human race is probably incapable of really conceiving the truth of the universe. We are sort of like weevils that have infested this planet and relatively have pea brains. We were probably engineered here as an experiment by extraterrestrials since no other species on this planet seems to be capable of the mess we create. TurquoiseB wrote: Still riffing on this, I think that many people's issue with an eternal universe is not that it postulates No God (although that pushes a LOT of buttons because It just isn't *done* to question God's existence), but because it implies No Purpose. I think that a lot of folks are drawn to the God Meme because they'd like to believe that life has a Purpose. And therefore *their* lives have a Purpose, as a subset of God's Purpose. Am I weird because I don't feel the need to believe that there is any Purpose behind it all? Even the vague one of Lila (play) or the hopeful one of Expansion of Self Awareness? If so, I'm weird. (This will come as no shock to many.) I'm not saying definitively that there is no purpose to Life, the Universe, and Everything (other than trying to figure out the question that Douglas Adams answered with 42). I'm just saying that if there is such a purpose, I for one have never seen documentation of it or proof of it, and that I need neither. I'd be as happy with No Purpose But The One You Make Up For Yourself. Your mileage may vary. I'm not trying to sell my view or convince anyone of it, merely to state it. Those who claim that I *am* trying to sell them something, or that there IS documentation of God's existence and His/ Her/Its hand in creating Creation in books they consider holy can go suck hiranyagarbha (the cosmic egg). :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: I'm not sure what exactly Hawking's position is on the creation of the universe, but I should point out that there are some physicists who don't believe that there ever was one. They are joined in this view by Buddhists, who believe that the universe has always been, is now, and will always be. In other words, there is no technical or scientific need to anthropomorphize the universe and assume that it either began at some point or will end at some point. Many humans -- including most religious people attached to their traditions' creation myths -- can't conceive of this. I find it no problem to conceive of an eternal universe. And once you do, the issue of What existed before Creation just fuckin' goes away, and along with it the need to postulate a God. Creation is IMO always being created, eternally, in many dimensions, some of them concurrent. I see no *need* to postulate a God, and a problem in doing so: Occam's Razor. Needing a God to explain things complicates something that has no need to be com- plicated, and thus is less likely than the simple explanation, that all of this is happening eternally in every moment, and that no imaginary friend ever had anything whatsoever to do with it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@ wrote: Very few scientists have any training in Western philosophy, much less Eastern. The same goes for training (or even basic classes) in the philosophy of science. Most of them look even more foolish when they open their mouths and demonstrate how totally ignorant they are about theology. They show a lot of arrogance and do so without any sense of self-reflection You make a good point IMO! Hawking says this apparently: Because there is a law such as 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, why we exist, Hawking writes. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going. There seems to be a lack of curiousity about what kind of thing a *law* might be. If so, that's very negligent from a philosophical point of view! In this physicist's tale, the *law* appears to *be* some kind of *thing* whose existence is in some sense *prior* to that of the universe. What a puzzle of ontology! This kind of thinking about laws seems to me to be just another turtle-style explanation for the existence of everything-as-we-know-it (ironic really, as Hawking refers to this in his Brief History of Time). Just replace turtles by laws: William James, father of American psychology, tells of meeting an old lady who told him the Earth rested on the back of a huge turtle. But, my dear lady,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hawking: God did not create the Universe
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: I don't think there is any guy in the sky micromanaging things which is what a lot of people believe. But one might call whatever the process of the universe's existence is in it's totality God or whang or whatever. Wouldn't work. Can you imagine the Baptist choir in Buttcrack, Mississippi singing Praise Whang from whom all blessings flow...? Just not gonna happen. :-) Even the best and brightest of the human race is probably incapable of really conceiving the truth of the universe. Amen, brother Bhairitu. We are sort of like weevils that have infested this planet and relatively have pea brains. We were probably engineered here as an experiment by extraterrestrials since no other species on this planet seems to be capable of the mess we create. An interesting scenario. We were probably the result of an experiment by the Space Brothers counterpart of BP. Some- where out there in space, some bureaucrat from this company is in front of that planet's Congress, explaining why things went so wrong.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hawking: God did not create the Universe
Huh? Post-ulating? It sounds indecent. Is this what they do with each other in Europe? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: For a scientist, Hawking makes a lot of stupid comments. He's either trying to sell his new book or is already senile. He's making science the new religion of the masses. His statements are full of of faith in theories that are not even proven. It's about time he stepped down as head of the science department of his university. JohnR wants Hawking to resign because he states (accurately) that no God is necessary when post- ulating the creation of the universe. One assumes JohnR would like all Buddhists in the world to resign from their positions as well, because they've been pointing out this obvious fact for centuries. Isn't it fascinating how quickly God freaks turn into Inquisitors when someone questions the exis- tence of their imaginary friend? :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifuxero@ wrote: The Intelligent Design key point - fine tuning - seems to be even less compelling as an argument, says Hawking. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100902/lf_nm_life/us_britain_hawking
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hawking: God did not create the Universe
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptyb...@... wrote: Huh? Post-ulating? It sounds indecent. Is this what they do with each other in Europe? It is indecent, and is considered such everywhere in Europe (and on a par with necrophilia) except The Netherlands. I'm into pre-ulating myself. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: For a scientist, Hawking makes a lot of stupid comments. He's either trying to sell his new book or is already senile. He's making science the new religion of the masses. His statements are full of of faith in theories that are not even proven. It's about time he stepped down as head of the science department of his university. JohnR wants Hawking to resign because he states (accurately) that no God is necessary when post- ulating the creation of the universe. One assumes JohnR would like all Buddhists in the world to resign from their positions as well, because they've been pointing out this obvious fact for centuries. Isn't it fascinating how quickly God freaks turn into Inquisitors when someone questions the exis- tence of their imaginary friend? :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifuxero@ wrote: The Intelligent Design key point - fine tuning - seems to be even less compelling as an argument, says Hawking. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100902/lf_nm_life/us_britain_hawking
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hawking: God did not create the Universe
Fair enough, but when does it start to matter to them, and where do they get the notion of what is the right thing to do? When one raises a child, do we say well you know the right thing to do, just do it! Or are they taught right from wrong, what are good actions and what are bad- manners, behavior, character development,do unto others, charity,kindness,goodness, strong value system.Where did the parents learn these good values/virtues? It has to come from somewhere, and for most, not all it comes from our culture, founded on, dare I say, Judeo Christian values. That's what this country was founded on, certain principles, right actions, not from feelings and what feels right. This is built into our DNA, but now in our post Christian secular culture, we think it just comes naturally within. Now we stop teaching right from wrong, we are taught other values, and it will be lost, and people won't know how to act. Action, I could care less what you think of me or label me, just treat me at least with some degree of civility. We are living in a culure of entitlement and victimhood, and when the money runs out, what is left? What does one fall back on? Strong character development? No, the trend doesn't look good. Wisdom is not valued anymore, we have a President who is devoid of wisdom, he is smart but nobody says, look at our president, he really reminds me of Washington or Lincoln. He had a great opportunity, but he seems distracted from wars, putting our military in harms way, and as far as fundamentally transforming our country, I see a tearing apart of our foundational fabric. But he has good intentions, it feels good and I guess nowadays that's all that counts, is happy talk! Consequences be damned. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge no_reply@ wrote: So are you saying people are naturally good and will do the right (not shitty thing)? Or only Buddhists and atheists? I am saying that some people try to do the right thing, and that doing so has nothing whatsoever to do with whether they are Buddhists, atheists, or deists. They do it because it matters to them. Other people choose not to do the right thing. They do this because doing the right thing doesn't matter to them. Belief in God or non-belief in God has nothing to do with it. Neither does what any of them *say* they believe about doing the right thing. The only thing that matters is what they *do*. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Still riffing on this, I think that many people's issue with an eternal universe is not that it postulates No God (although that pushes a LOT of buttons because It just isn't *done* to question God's existence), but because it implies No Purpose. Yes, that, I'm sure. But what about Justice? Thinking out loud here, but... Just as you could scarcely claim a difference between an English football fan and a drunk... LOL. ...it seems there might similarly be little difference between, say, a Buddhist and an atheist. Actually, in terms of ethics there is sometimes little difference. Many of the atheists I've met who label themselves *as* atheists have a remarkably similar definition of ethics to many of the Buddhists I've met. That is, that ethics come from within. A belief or non-belief in God does not change that. In both cases the people choose to live ethically for the simple reason that it matters to *them*, not to some supposedly all-seeing Daddy or some omni- present and equally watchful set of Laws Of Nature. It's the same notion as Doing A Good Job Is More Fun Than Doing A Shitty Job. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hawking: God did not create the Universe
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifuxero@ wrote: The Intelligent Design key point - fine tuning - seems to be even less compelling as an argument, says Hawking. The best argument I can think of for a lack of intelligent design at work in the universe is seeing Steven Hawking's mind trapped in that feeble body while my modest to lame brain is given a body dancing around the earth like a teenager. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@ wrote: Huh? Post-ulating? It sounds indecent. Is this what they do with each other in Europe? It is indecent, and is considered such everywhere in Europe (and on a par with necrophilia) except The Netherlands. I'm into pre-ulating myself. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: For a scientist, Hawking makes a lot of stupid comments. He's either trying to sell his new book or is already senile. He's making science the new religion of the masses. His statements are full of of faith in theories that are not even proven. It's about time he stepped down as head of the science department of his university. JohnR wants Hawking to resign because he states (accurately) that no God is necessary when post- ulating the creation of the universe. One assumes JohnR would like all Buddhists in the world to resign from their positions as well, because they've been pointing out this obvious fact for centuries. Isn't it fascinating how quickly God freaks turn into Inquisitors when someone questions the exis- tence of their imaginary friend? :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifuxero@ wrote: The Intelligent Design key point - fine tuning - seems to be even less compelling as an argument, says Hawking. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100902/lf_nm_life/us_britain_hawking
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hawking: God did not create the Universe
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge no_re...@... wrote: Fair enough, but when does it start to matter to them, and where do they get the notion of what is the right thing to do? A good question. Hopefully, in my ideal society, they never get a lecture on what is the right thing to do. Especially presented in terms of Do this and you'll go to heaven or Don't do this and you'll burn in Hell. The world has had several millennia to prove the wisdom of either Promise a reward in the next life if you do the right thing or Promise hell if you do the wrong thing. The whole of human history is the result -- an unending tapestry of people doing the wrong thing. It Just Doesn't Fuckin' Work. In my experience, only wanting -- as your own idea -- to do the right thing works. The carrot-on-a-stick promise of heaven or enlightenment has been proven not to work, and the whip of implied hell has similarly been proven not to work. Both merely perpetuated doing the wrong thing. When one raises a child, do we say well you know the right thing to do, just do it! I do, with the child I'm helping to raise. Or are they taught right from wrong, what are good actions and what are bad- manners, behavior, character development, do unto others, charity,kindness,goodness, strong value system. You mean taught what some people believe are right from wrong, what are the good actions and what are bad manners, etc., right? I think it would be more useful to teach the kids mindfulness, so as to more easily detect for them- selves which actions they perform raise their overall state of attention, and which actions they perform lower it. That's a skill they can use at any time, without having to rely on anyone else's view of right or wrong. Where did the parents learn these good values/virtues? It has to come from somewhere... No, it really doesn't. Morality has to come from somewhere. Ethics does not. There is a difference.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hawking: God did not create the Universe
For a scientist, Hawking makes a lot of stupid comments. He's either trying to sell his new book or is already senile. He's making science the new religion of the masses. His statements are full of of faith in theories that are not even proven. It's about time he stepped down as head of the science department of his university. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifux...@... wrote: The Intelligent Design key point - fine tuning - seems to be even less compelling as an argument, says Hawking. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100902/lf_nm_life/us_britain_hawking
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hawking: God did not create the Universe
Very few scientists have any training in Western philosophy, much less Eastern. The same goes for training (or even basic classes) in the philosophy of science. Most of them look even more foolish when they open their mouths and demonstrate how totally ignorant they are about theology. They show a lot of arrogance and do so without any sense of self-reflection. Hawkings is now a poster boy for this kind of shallow thinking. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_...@... wrote: For a scientist, Hawking makes a lot of stupid comments. He's either trying to sell his new book or is already senile. He's making science the new religion of the masses. His statements are full of of faith in theories that are not even proven. It's about time he stepped down as head of the science department of his university. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifuxero@ wrote: The Intelligent Design key point - fine tuning - seems to be even less compelling as an argument, says Hawking. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100902/lf_nm_life/us_britain_hawking
