|
on the non-existence of a Creator God.
First off, as always, the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim of God's existence. A negative can't be disproven, unless it is logically inconsistent or there is evidence that contradicts specific attributes of such a being.
The Christian/Jewish/Muslim God, for example, is described in its respective holy texts as all-knowing(past, present, and future), all-powerful(can do anything), all-good and intervenes in the processes of the Universe(created it, answers prayers, performs miracles). This being is also described as having always been, and has existed and will exist for eternity.
There are problems with this version of deity, of course, some of them arguments that even Greek Philosophers postulated 2 thousand plus years ago. The problem of evil is the most common of these inconsistencies, if God is all-powerful and good, then why is their suffering in the world? Either he's not all good, which makes him either malevolent or apathetic to suffering or he's not all-powerful, in which case, why call him God? The argument of free will is usually invoked in this case, but it doesn't explain natural disasters, earthquakes, floods, wildfires, volcanic eruptions, plagues, etc. have nothing to do with free will, yet they all happen, according to natural processes without evidence that a God intervenes to protect it's followers.
Then there's the more abstract arguments, can an all-powerful God create a rock he can't lift? If not, then he's not all powerful, if so, then he's also not all powerful, and again, in that case, why call him God? A God that is all-knowing knows the future, even if its all possible futures, such a God is limited by those possibilities they already know, there's is nothing they don't know, and hence this God has no free will, which is predicated on not knowing everything. Again, this makes him no longer all-powerful, because there are limits on what this being can do, so again, why call him God?
Then there's the problem of intervention itself, there's no evidence for it, either in the past, or the present, God is attributed to have performed miracles, but again, no proof has been put forward for this that can't be explained in a way that doesn't violate natural processes. A cancer survivor who goes into remission is just that, no need to invoke God in that situation, when cancers have been known to go into remission quite a few times.
Some theists will then redefine God, but they encounter problems, because this God wouldn't be the God of the Bible, Torah, or Quran, but rather a God of the Deists, the First Cause. Again, this has problems, the first being where and when did this God come into being, and who created it? This God can't be all-good, for they don't intervene in the Universe, they are apathetic, and the other problems from above still exist for this being.
Then there are the Other Gods, the Gods of both old and more recent belief, Gods of mortality, some of malevolence and Gods of limits. Polytheistic Gods, Pantheistic, Animist, and other types of faith. These all have the same problem where did they come from, what evidence is there for their existence, and more importantly, why call them gods at all? A pantheistic God, a God that is literally everything can't do anything, might as well rename it matter and energy, for there is no difference between the two. The others are sometimes described as products of, rather than creators of the universe, old time superheros and supervillians, in other words. Beings of supernatural power, but not really Gods(except for Magneto, he controls electromagnetism for crying out loud!).
Hawking's postulation is that if there is evidence to back it up, our Universe never needed a first cause, a creator, at all, he postulated even in his famous book, a Brief History of Time, that even if God existed, he didn't have a choice as to when or in what matter the Universe was created. I think the key here is this, the firestorm that his statements made isn't so much the boldness of them, which is bold, but rather marks where theists put an invisible line in the sand for science to go. Science has been shrinking God for years, and now the First Cause, the last refuge, is being threatened by knowledge, and this cannot abide. For many decades now, science hasn't been able to explain what happened those first few seconds or so of the Universe's existence, science simply didn't have suitable theories to explain what happened, everything after those few seconds, yes, but not before that, to point zero of space and time. Now it seems on the cusp of that discovery, and now theists are scared.
What I find interesting about this is, where does faith come in? Why do you need science to strengthen it? Faith requires no evidence, if M-theory or some alternative does given a suitable explanation for the beginning of the Universe without the need for a First Cause, the nature of faith won't change, hell, for some reason I cannot fathom, many people's faith is strengthened more in the face of contrary evidence rather than no evidence at all. Look to the creationists, ignorant though they are, their faith rarely wavers in the face of contrary evidence, rather it is strengthened. So to those with faith I say, ignore Hawking, he's dealing with the real world, you aren't, never have been, so don't worry about it.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
