Are we religious?

Now that's the most truthful statement I've heard yet!! "To each their own"

 

in the military, drill sergeants (40 years ago) were known from their grammar errors and malapropisms--one once said, "to own their each"--this became the subject of considerable discussion at the time and in the ensuing years I spent in the military--what could this guy have meant? none of the discussion was spiritual of religious in nature so I won't elaborate except to say, "to own their each"

 

Hanks said: Aren't the Bible and science telling us the same thing? So to those who are agnostic, isn't this inability, or forestalling, of making a decision to accept God, nothing but a personal decision to deny or forestall accepting the obvious?

Have a read of this Hank from the great physicist Professor Stephen Hawking. He's got a new book out:

God did not create universe: Hawking

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/god-did-not-create-universe-hawking-20100903-14rva.html

• THE Big Bang was the result of the inevitable laws of physics and did not need God to spark the creation of the universe, Stephen Hawking has concluded.
  
  '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.''
  
  He added: ''It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.''

 

Here's where Hawking slipped a cog. He says before there was creation there was a law of gravity. But gravity only exists where there is mass. Therefore mass had to exist as a condition for gravity to exist. The idea that gravity is the underpinning of creation circumvents the scientific truth that gravity cannot exist prior to creation of mass. Creation came, and with it gravity. Hawking has lost it.

 

Or ... to put it in spiritual terms: "The fool says in his heart "There is no God." "

 

Lol; and what the heck does Steven Hawking know and what place in past history does he hold?

 

You're joking right?

 

Nope; because I know who he is and respect all of his knowledge and contributions, but he is not somebody that I worship or will live my life according to or take his word as the gospel. That is probably "blasphemy" to most of you science geeks - lol.

 

LOL. So there's two choices here the way I see it. I can believe what some superstitious people wrote about 2000 years ago and worship that or I can take on board what an eminent very smart physicist has to say about the universe. Man, that is a tough decision. S

 

1.As we shall see, the concept of time has no meaning before the beginning of the universe. This was first pointed out by St. Augustine. When asked: What did God do before he created the universe? Augustine didn't reply: He was preparing Hell for people who asked such questions. Instead, he said that time was a property of the universe that God created, and that time did not exist before the beginning of the universe. [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 8]

2.Hubble's observations suggested that there was a time, called the big bang, when the universe was infinitesimally small and infinitely dense. Under such conditions all the laws of science, and therefore all ability to predict the future, would break down. If there were events earlier than this time, then they could not affect what happens at the present time. Their existence can be ignored because it would have no onservational consequences. One may say that time had a beginning at the big bang, in the sense that earlier times simply would not be defined. It should be emphasized that this beginning in time is very different from those that had been considered previously. In an unchanging universe a beginning in time is something that has to be imposed by some being outside the universe; there is no physical necessity for a beginning. One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job! [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), pp. 8-9.]


OK, Scott, are you going to believe what the "eminent very smart physicist has to say about the universe" in your quotes, or in mine? Sounds like two different folks, doesn't it? These quotes contradict one another. In A Brief History of Time, Hawking, rightly, understands that without mass, which once placed defines space and time "the laws of science, and therefore all ability to predict the future, would break down." Until there is mass, placed into space, there IS no future. That is because there is no time. And also without mass, there is no gravity. So with full development of his thesis, in 1988 Hawking tells us why the laws of science, and along with that the laws of gravity, break down and are meaningless before the big bang. But now, without developing the point or describing how it might be, Hawking tries to assert that one of those laws, the law of gravity, can exist outside of space and time, back before there was creation of mass and placement of mass within space, as defined as two units of mass positioned relative to one another. Yet he has no foundation for asserting that. He can't have foundation for that because the laws of science do not exist outside of nature. Nature is defined as the natural universe within which is contained all mass, space and time. Gravity is a derivative of mass, space and time, not a cause.

As I said, Hawking should have thought that one through a little better. Either Hawking was wrong before, or he is wrong now. Either way, these positions are mutually exclusive and therefore Hawking is demonstrated to be fallible. I expect that this latest position of his will turn out to be the unraveling of a stellar career of a brilliant scientific mind, and will be noted in later times as having been uttered during a period of revolt in his personal life, perhaps against the physical circumstances that define his condition. Sooner or later, that must wear on a man.

 

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html

http://creation.com/creation-scientists

http://www.creationists.org/outstanding-creation-scientists.html

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2010/09/04/archbishop-hits-back-at-hawking-over-creation-91466-27198615/

 

So it sounds like you're not into history then and paid much more attention to science in school, which is typical of most non-believers.

 

Superstitious people????? I don't think that walking under a ladder gives me bad luck, nor breaking a mirror, nor spilling salt, nor a black cat crossing my path. Thats kind of lumping people into a catagory. I was questionable about my beliefs before one moment in my life. The moment my father passed. He told me he wanted to go home..........I told him he could........ a few hours later.........something in the room changed, to this day I cannot put into words a description of the change, I only KNOW that there was one. I got up, went a laid down next to my father, put my head on his chest to listen to his last breaths of life here. I KNOW where he is, I KNOW what I felt that day,,,,,,,you can challenge it all you want, that doesn't mean a hill of beans to me because I KNOW what I felt. But.......that was not superstitious.
However, I respect and allow others to voice what they believe.

 

It is plain that Hawking is giving us one, perhaps, even last gasp effort, at providing a unifying theory of existence. But in doing so, he banks completely on the notion that gravity exists on its own, outside of nature. Because within nature the force due to gravity varies as to the mass of any object to which gravity is attributed, and does not exist where mass does not exist, it makes no sense that gravity can exist without certain mass outside of nature. This is what they call in American football, a 'Hail Mary Pass,' one that you throw when you are losing, betting the farm on one play from scrimmage, knowing that the end of the game is coming soon.

 

well just wait until you walk under a ladder again and then break your ankle stepping off the curb 30 seconds later! the only homerun I ever got in softball came right after I threw dirt over my left shoulder for luck (nevermind the error the outfielder made that allowed me to get to homebase!)

in all seriousness, what you experienced was no doubt profound, and I certainly wouldn't label it superstitious, but to many non Christians, and even many Christians, there may be an alternative way to view exactly the same experience--I don't challenge how you see it, I only say I might see it differently

 

I would much rather know about obtaining peace in this world and what the final score of my football game is - lol.

 

Closed minds have little to say except for their narrow view of the world.

As for football, my team won today. Did yours?

 

Howdy folks -- well, there is so much here to discuss I hardly know where to begin. And it's Sunday morning, I was in late and feel too sleepy to take on all of it at once.

Hank -- I like that you always really sink your teeth into things beyond the surface and give it your best shot even if I think you're incorrect. The problem with discussing things with you, however, is that you've already made up your mind, have a *fixed* set of beliefs -- most grounded in faith and thus just constructs of your own mind -- and all without a scrap of real evidence. It's very difficult to work with faith-based people in having a rational discussion because faith is not based on the rational or anything logical. IMHO, it is a land of make believe and magic where invisible friends exist and where anything goes because you belive in the supernatural. You are free to make things up that fit your belief. If something comes along that doesn't fit -- even where there is compelling evidence -- you argue against it, throw it out the window, and so never have to deal with anything uncomfortable that might challenge your faith. When we require no evidence and can freely fill the gaps with anything, and a person believes in this whole-heartedly, it's quite impossible to get anywhere. I can already hear people saying but it is you, Scott, who has the fixed belief. But I will bring it back to this as I always do: show me the evidence and give me something rational and I will change my mind on the spot.

Re Hawking and gravity etc. I will get back to you on that. I did, however, anticipate you asking something along the lines of "well, where did gravity come from then?" This is interesting that you would say this if you think about it. You believe in biblical creation and that a God or some deity was involved but you never address where the deity came from. Who created God? Where did this supernatural omnipotent being come from? Must have evolved from something or did he/ she/ it somehow jump the que and evolution need not apply in this case? You can't just make this up.

Chris -- I think you confuse science with scientology in a very big way. Scientologists are complete nutters IMO and any rational person would agree. There's nothing scientific about it. And Spock was way cool. How can you spoil his reputation by associating the logical one with scientology? Blasphemy!

>>> So it sounds like you're not into history then and paid much more attention to science in school, which is typical of most non-believers.

I love history but what does history have to do with what is accurate and true in this discussion? The Greeks believed in a number of gods. Why don't you honour that historical belief instead of now just settling for one god? I take it a step further and believe in one less than you and pay attention to where there is evidence and where rationality prevails.

Cara -- what I meant is that although the people who wrote the bible thousands of years ago no doubt had the best of intentions through most of it (though stoning someone for working on the sabbath sounds like the work of barbarians), they lived in a world where there was little factual knowledge about the world around them. They had no real tools (i.e. the scientific method) to understand things and so not surprisingly, superstition and all kinds of nonsense was the norm. Superstition is still rampant in 2010, and probably will be for another thousand years, but at least we have some things solidified thanks to science. The point is these people wrote that book were wearing some very heavy duty filters on their eyes about the world around them. While the book has some good messages in it, it's whole dealings with the origins of life and the universe etc reflect the times in which it was written.

The story of your father is very heart-warming and as Jim said profound for you. I won't try to tell you what any of it meant because it's your own personal experience but if I had to interpret it, I would have a very different explanation for why you felt the way you did -- what actually caused it.

Jack -- I would turn that around and suggest that it is faith-based believers who maintain a narrow view of the world because to accept something new in light of new evidence might require re-evaluating and reassessing a particualr faith. For most, that is unthinkable and far too scary and threatening.

 

I accept the word of God and his promises, and anyone who believes in him no matter what their religion is is ok in my book. And from what I have read in the past that Leonard Nimoy is or once belonged to the Church of Scientology, and alot of what they believe does involve science and scientific theories.