A Matter of Gravity by Professor John Lennox, Nonsense by Stephen Hawking is dispelled Options

[RenaissanceMan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=222ihLZlujQ

[Dan]

Dr. Lennox seems hung up on the idea that since physical laws are descriptions of universal dynamics and not "creators" of the universe, some magical force must be necessary to explain why the universe exists. God did it! Funny that he isn't concerned about how God came about. Who/what done God? I guess that's just part of the magic of God, that there ain't no need to worry about who/what done God! Why? Because, dummy, God is magical!

[Trip like I do]

when god falls out of the sky

[RenaissanceMan]

Dr. Lennox seems hung up on the idea that since physical laws are descriptions of universal dynamics and not "creators" of the universe, some magical force must be necessary to explain why the universe exists. God did it! Funny that he isn't concerned about how God came about. Who/what done God? I guess that's just part of the magic of God, that there ain't no need to worry about who/what done God! Why? Because, dummy, God is magical!

You missed something, Dan. Something extremely, profoundly obvious. Like Richard Dawkins, you seem hung up on the idea that God "needs" a creator. As Dr. Lennox states so obviously, if someone created God, then God wouldn't be God, would He? You like this infinite regress:

Who made God?
Well then who made the maker of God?
Okay, who made the maker of the maker.....

To you, it's makers all the way up.

So, you punt to a "quantum vacuum," never asking who made the quantum vacuum, and all the laws of nature.

A few decades ago, you atheists claimed there could be no God on account of the Universe is just too big, too complex, and it would be too wasteful just for us humans. So therefore, >>> no God.

Then along came the scientific observation of large number coincidences. Impossibility on a documented scientific scale. Atheists' answer: Simple! An infinite number of universes, all different.
One universe was too big, too wasteful back then. Infinite number of universes today>>>> JUST right!

You atheists call this "science." In fact, it is Infinite Lying.

[RenaissanceMan]

when god falls out of the sky

Oh look! A Scientologist.
You don't need God when you have Barack Obama. He'll take care of your every need.
I mean, unless you're Stephen Hawking. Then things are a little sticky. No joy in this life, and
of course no life after it either, for you or Stephen.

[Dan]

Dr. Lennox seems hung up on the idea that since physical laws are descriptions of universal dynamics and not "creators" of the universe, some magical force must be necessary to explain why the universe exists. God did it! Funny that he isn't concerned about how God came about. Who/what done God? I guess that's just part of the magic of God, that there ain't no need to worry about who/what done God! Why? Because, dummy, God is magical!

You missed something, Dan. Something extremely, profoundly obvious. Like Richard Dawkins, you seem hung up on the idea that God "needs" a creator. As Dr. Lennox states so obviously, if someone created God, then God wouldn't be God, would He? You like this infinite regress:

Who made God?
Well then who made the maker of God?
Okay, who made the maker of the maker.....

To you, it's makers all the way up.

So, you punt to a "quantum vacuum," never asking who made the quantum vacuum, and all the laws of nature.

A few decades ago, you atheists claimed there could be no God on account of the Universe is just too big, too complex, and it would be too wasteful just for us humans. So therefore, >>> no God.

Then along came the scientific observation of large number coincidences. Impossibility on a documented scientific scale. Atheists' answer: Simple! An infinite number of universes, all different.
One universe was too big, too wasteful back then. Infinite number of universes today>>>> JUST right!

You atheists call this "science." In fact, it is Infinite Lying.

The claim that God needs no maker is pure magical thought if ever there was any. I make no claim concerning the quantum vacuum or any other popular "athiest" explanation of origins, I only say that scientific inquiry is a far sight better than reference to magic. Face it, InquisitionMan, the idea of the "unmade maker" is not based on any rational argument, it is based simply on the need avoid cognitive dissonance that is inevitable when one rejects a logical approach to answering logical problems (such as the problem of origination).

[Dan]

Now that I have a bit more time to waste on you, put this in your pipe and smoke it

You missed something, Dan. Something extremely, profoundly obvious. Like Richard Dawkins, you seem hung up on the idea that God "needs" a creator. As Dr. Lennox states so obviously, if someone created God, then God wouldn't be God, would He?

Now there's some amazing proof by contraction. Here's the logic paraphrased:
1. God needs a MetaGod to create Him
2. But then, God isn't really God if He needs a MetaGod.
3. But (get ready for the masterstroke of logic) God is God!
4. Ergo, there ain't no MetaGod!
5. Ergo, God doesn't need a creator.
QED

You like this infinite regress:

Who made God?
Well then who made the maker of God?
Okay, who made the maker of the maker.....

Clearly it is ridiculous to have such an infinite regress, therefore we are left only to conclude that God need not be subject to a logical explanation that involves causality. The universe needs a cause, but God does not because if he did than my brain would explode. Makes perfect sense, in a somehow-unexplainable way.

or...

maybe we can conclude that the idea of a magical creator is little more than lipstick on a pig. Sweeping under the rug. The universe needs a cause (because it ain't God), but God does not need a cause ('cuz he's God! dammit!)

So, you punt to a "quantum vacuum," never asking who made the quantum vacuum, and all the laws of nature.

No, I didn't. Maybe some other people do, but I disagree with them. The idea that "The quantum vacuum did it" is just as silly as "God did it" in that they are both subject to the unanswered question "Then who or what done the quantum vacuum / God?"

Scientists who use the argument "The quantum vacuum did it" are no better than you. Maybe that's why they bug you so much. At some level, you know they are on a suspect foundation. The irony is delicious.

A few decades ago, you atheists claimed there could be no God on account of the Universe is just too big, too complex, and it would be too wasteful just for us humans. So therefore, >>> no God.

I never said that. That is equivalent to saying there must be a God on account of the Universe is just too big, too complex, and it would be too impossible for it to emerge out of a simple set of objects and relations. Complexity theory be damned! Complex stuff that goes to church is just waaaay too complex to emerge out of physical material according to its basic interactions.

Then along came the scientific observation of large number coincidences. Impossibility on a documented scientific scale.

What documented scientific scale? Are you suggesting that the universe cannot be beyond current human documented observations? Maybe you just need to rethink your scales a bit. The 14.7 billion years of the observable universe is not a proven limit in time past, only a limit in how far back the available information goes.

Atheists' answer: Simple! An infinite number of universes, all different.
One universe was too big, too wasteful back then. Infinite number of universes today>>>> JUST right!

I believe no such thing. This is simply a fad of modern mathematical physicists who certainly are enamored with M-theory and the idea that the landscape of string theories, when taken as a literally existing palette, could make every possible tuning including the tuning of our universe.

You atheists call this "science." In fact, it is Infinite Lying.

I call this a hypothesis. Science is a method whereby one comes up with hypotheses however one pleases and then tests them using available evidence. Since there is no test of the landscape theory of the string theorists, they cannot claim a scientific validation of their hypothesis. In short, the multiverse hypothesis is still no more than a hypothesis.



The bottom line, Mr. InquisitionMan, is that your chosen adversary, the Straw-Man Atheist, cannot answer the question of origination any better than you. Your answer is magic, the Straw-Man Atheist's answer is some other kind of magic as you point out or maybe it is denial or perhaps diversion. In any case, no matter how wrong this Straw-Man Atheist is, you are wrong too. Magic is not a reason, it is not a rational conclusion. It is just an illusion that you hold dear so that you can continue to pray to your imaginary friend who promises to save you from your fears.

[Dan]

I am struck by the sleight of mind played by Lennox who seems to be less focused on a general argument for an eternal divine creator (as such a creator may be rather mysterious) than on identifying that creator as the dad of Jesus H. Christ. Why? Why not Krishna? Why not Baal? Why not the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Why J.C.? If all we can philosophically determine is that an eternal "divine" being is a reasonable idea, then how do we continue on to the Jesus Train? Because of the supposed "historical evidence"? Puhleez. It's not like these stories might result from some sort of wishful thinking of backward fisherman and goat herders who, along with their contemporaries, felt existentially threatened by the Roman empire and really really really hoped that their messiah would come fix stuff. Jesus really was reanimated because we have a nice bible story about it! And to think this is his trump card for pushing Christianity. As I understand it, there is also lots of "historical evidence" for Krishna, but Lennox doesn't seem to be defending the Bhagavad Gita or the idea of reincarnation. I guess it is just too hinduey for his tastes, and anyway the "historical evidence" apparently isn't truthy enough to consider as "rational". And to think that such a sophisticated mathematician/philosopher as Lennox could be so obviously dim-witted. Talk about lurking cognitive dissonance. I guess Lennox isn't aware that he is a poster boy for the genetic fallacy. After all, he is a genius mathematician/philosopher who knows lots of math and languages and stuff. Sort of like God, he doesn't need to make sense because he is so great.

[P JayS]

I am struck by the sleight of mind played by Lennox who seems to be less focused on a general argument for an eternal divine creator (as such a creator may be rather mysterious) than on identifying that creator as the dad of Jesus H. Christ. Why? Why not Krishna? Why not Baal? Why not the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Why J.C.? If all we can philosophically determine is that an eternal "divine" being is a reasonable idea, then how do we continue on to the Jesus Train? Because of the supposed "historical evidence"? Puhleez. It's not like these stories might result from some sort of wishful thinking of backward fisherman and goat herders who, along with their contemporaries, felt existentially threatened by the Roman empire and really really really hoped that their messiah would come fix stuff. Jesus really was reanimated because we have a nice bible story about it! And to think this is his trump card for pushing Christianity. As I understand it, there is also lots of "historical evidence" for Krishna, but Lennox doesn't seem to be defending the Bhagavad Gita or the idea of reincarnation. I guess it is just too hinduey for his tastes, and anyway the "historical evidence" apparently isn't truthy enough to consider as "rational". And to think that such a sophisticated mathematician/philosopher as Lennox could be so obviously dim-witted. Talk about lurking cognitive dissonance. I guess Lennox isn't aware that he is a poster boy for the genetic fallacy. After all, he is a genius mathematician/philosopher who knows lots of math and languages and stuff. Sort of like God, he doesn't need to make sense because he is so great.

On two separate occassions God spoke audibly with many people hearing that Jesus was God's son if I remember correctly. There is a need to appreciate written records.

[Joesus]

Need would be subject to belief. Records based on beliefs are not always true for all.
Interpretations of reality handed down from one to another often tend to lose their originality thru personal judgments of what something should look like, even tho one has no direct experience.

[Magister Hayk]

Jesus H. Christ.

I will highly appreciate if you explain the usage of the letter H in this context Mr. Dan.

[Magister Hayk]

Very interesting discussions gentlemen.

[Dan]

Jesus H. Christ.

I will highly appreciate if you explain the usage of the letter H in this context Mr. Dan.

H = Holy as in, Holy Moly!

[Magister Hayk]

Jesus H. Christ.

I will highly appreciate if you explain the usage of the letter H in this context Mr. Dan.

H = Holy as in, Holy Moly!

Thank you for clarifying the issue.

[P JayS]

Need would be subject to belief. Records based on beliefs are not always true for all.
Interpretations of reality handed down from one to another often tend to lose their originality thru personal judgments of what something should look like, even tho one has no direct experience.

The records are based on eye witness and the belief in the record seems to be what is lacking.

My daughter can remember the words of a song when she first hears it. The song is on the record but her ability to accurately repeat is natural. People living closer to perfection like the early Hebrews could no doubt keep their stories straight between them all until Moses compiled them in writing to be read by larger numbers of people.