Did anyone notice Stephen Hawking contradicted himself?

err..I never said or assumed faith was bad. In fact I don't feel that way at all. I'm just trying to determine when something is faith and isn't faith based. I was being a bit facetious when I said 'science sucks' - again I was just trying to make the point that we have to differentiate between what is faith based and what isn't.

It would be more correct to say that I think the application of faith is incorrect to certain things, but I don't think faith itself is necessarily good or bad. Its valuation is a whole nother discussion!

btw, you have another possibility - maybe we are all part of a computer program made by humans in what we would consider our future from our current vantage point. So those future humans wouldn't meet the traditional definition of a God, but they would obviously have to have technological superiority to us to make us all feel like we were real etc..just an interesting aside..

So, to answer your question, why not believe in God. Well, two things. First, I don't know what that exactly is. The term 'God' has a lot of baggage with it. So, a creator? OK, so if a creator, I can hold that its possible, but I cannot just 'believe' it. Why? Because I don't know it. And what I don't know, I cannot just believe. Which I think is why we invented the word: possibility.

Which rolls to the second point. I don't think its psychologically possible to be genuine in a belief of something when your reason holds that it might not be true. In this sense of what I'm talking about, you don't have control of your reason just like you don't have control of what colours you see.

Now, I'm getting off the path here for a minute, but I think its important in explaining why people cannot 'just believe' - genuinely (important qualification there). In order for your reason to change, new evidence has to be given - new input that qualifies what you originally thought.

The way I see it, in this sense of the usage of reason, if you have doubts about the existence of God, you cannot reasonably, rationally believe (in the sense that I am using reason/rational). If you believe at this point, its more emotionally based, perhaps you would say more faith based.

I'm actually not sure of this last point. Its very difficult to get objective evidence to show that its correct. I could be wrong about it.

But more to the point, for myself, I never even get there. If my brain tells me hey this could be true or it might not be true based on an honest appraisal of the things I (think) I know (that 'rational/reasonable evaluation), then personally, I cannot just swing the pendulum to one side or the other. And I can echo your sentiment but turn it around a bit: What does it matter if I do believe? I'm not quite sure what I'm believing in in the first place and in the second place, even if it were to achieve a more coherent shape, who cares?

Its like believing without any hard evidence that Julius Cesar didn't like cabbage. I could believe it, but then I know in my mind that I don't really know do I? So, that's what I mean when I say that my reason has to honest and genuine - if I 'choose' to believe that JC doesn't like cabbage, I would really know that I really don't know. And here I do believe that in these types of positions, people say they believe and hide the truth from themselves that they don't really hold that conviction (for many reason - social approbation, perks for belief etc,) Anyway, to top it all off, what good would a belief do for me that he hates cabbage?

I think that's where your faith comes in. But like Dennis Miller once said (paraphrased), I'm not the type to have a evangelical experience with the archangel Michael in my bathroom mirror..

In fairness to Hawking, he did once admit (in the preface to a book I think) that he's made scientific mistakes in the past.
But some scientists refuse to admit they're wrong; for example Richard Dawkins said the human eye is "badly designed" and suggests improvements, yet even though biologists have pointed out he's wrong, he hasn't admitted being wrong as far as I know.

"...if the rods and cones were turned around to face the incoming light, as Dawkins requires, the pigment layer would have to be between the light and the light receptors, thus blocking vision altogether!"
http://creation.com/seeing-back-to-front

said- "So, to answer your question, why not believe in God. Well, two things. First, I don't know what that exactly is...
..Which rolls to the second point. I don't think its psychologically possible to be genuine in a belief of something when your reason holds that it might not be true."
--------------------------------------------------------

But if we factor Jesus (God's front man) into the equation, the chances of there being a God increase dramatically.
Jesus said he could do nothing without God's power working through him, and demonstrated it by bringing dead people back to life in front of the 5 million population of old Israel plus the Roman governor and garrison, that's a lot of eyewitnesses..
PS- even Richard Dawkins admitted "I can't be sure God doesn't exist"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html

There is almost no likelihood that a Jesus, such as we find in the Bible, even existed. There is even less likelihood you can make a case for a god.

About 50 books were written about Jesus by some of the disciples and others who were alive at the time, 37 of which were bound into one volume and called the New Testament.
And after they were published, NOBODY ever came forward from the snooty priests or Romans to say "Jesus never existed", because they knew they'd make laughing stocks of themselves because he was TOO BIG to be a myth.
Heck the 5 million population of Israel plus the Roman governor and garrison saw him strutting his stuff for 3 long years..

Well, I think we have to disagree that we can factor in Jesus. First of all, it wasn’t 5 million people. There’s no way 5 million people could have crammed into a space to see what was going on. That’s just the physics of space and people at the time; to my knowledge, they didn’t have jumbo-trons back then..So, please throttle down with the hyperbole.

Second, let’s get to the real point which is that the number makes no difference. Its written down somewhere that a certain number of people saw something. It could have been written that a bazillion people saw what you describe, that doesn’t make it any more true than if they wrote that only one person saw it.

There may be however, more credence to something if more than one person wrote about the same phenomenon. However, there are three caveats to our case in point

1. Miracles
2. Availability
3. Interest

First of all: Miracles. Anything that has to do with miracles is automatically subjected to a higher standard of proof. If it were written in some old paper that Julius Cesar liked Crab, i can hold to the possible truth of this because liking crab is not a miracle. However, if they said Julius regularly flew from Rome to Pompeii by flapping his arms, not so much..I need more proof than “it is written..”

Secondly: Interest. So, I said earlier that if more than one source accounted for a phenomenon it would give more credibility to its being true. Well, first you have to get past #1. Then when you get to here, you have to note that the bible was written at different times. That because these people lived in the same areas they probably would have access to the same writings. They certainly would have access to the same myths, legends and general happenings that were communicated via word of mouth. Hence it is more likely to me that any coherence among writings is due at least in part to access to other writings and general word of mouth. So, if 10 people talked about a miracle, that probably came from one source and was essentially just copied and perhaps elaborated on.

Thirdly, all these people writing these things about J were invested, interested people. Do I really need to say more on this topic that would convince you that this earns negative marks for truth? (note I don’t say that it means it’s NOT true, just that, especially when it is something controversial, it makes something more dubious the more interested the party.)

Btw, this last point isn’t some criticism aimed specifically at the bible. It is just the way that all honest historians and otherwise approach any given historical media, including stuff written yesterday. And relative to that, I can tell you that there is vehement disagreement over so called ‘factual’ things that were written in the 20th century. How much more crappy is our evelaution of something written 2 thousand years ago! Again, if the stuff isn’t about miracles, we can tentatively hold its truth until other evidence shows otherwise. But for miracles, there is nothing in our experience that can be shown to be empirically true (and this is backed up by my own experiences – though perhaps not by yours) – and I am here talking about the kind of miracles that by their nature could be shown empirically to be true were they to happen today, NOT the kind of miracle, like say, you changing your mind based on what I’m saying..! : )

So, no, even if I believed a fella named Jesus existed and was crucified, those are all non miracles. People do exist, the romans did crucify. However, I need a lot more to believe that he turned water into wine, raised the dead etc..so for me, he is a non factor..

btw, I am with RD about not being sure about a Creator existing. Its possible and in my view is a gazillion more times likely to exist than the God of your bible..

I hope you all had a great labor day weekend. I'm not sitting in front a PC typing out arguments over a 3 day weekend...

Anyways, this whole paragraph above you wrote is kind of confusing. So are you saying you are an agnostic? So you said you don't believe in God because you don't know what that exactly is. So why you believe in the Big Bang? Can you claim you know exactly what it is? Well, if you are an agnostic, then you would believe neither a God nor any unproved science -- problem solved. You wrote a lot of stuff saying that you cannot just believe "God" or Caesars doesn't like cabbage for that matter. However, you said nothing about why you believe in science? Didn't I just show you in my previous post that theories we have today also requires some sort of "belief?"

Put it your way, we can't define "God" but neither can we define and reconcile many things in science.

I think your "hatred" for religious text is unfounded. Just because something is written 2000 years ago, doesn't mean it should automatically be discounted. If you say this then why not completely discounting Darwin's Origins of Species? It is written before DNA was discovered. Obviously, he was right on common ancestry, but evolving from single cell to sea life, to primates and then to humans? That is a bit of a stretch as we now understand that DNA actually doesn't "like" to be mixed and matched.

Taking it back a few thousand years, ancient Chinese medicine could actually cure a lot of disease that modern medicine cannot. Unfortunately, due to the social structure back then, most of it has been lost. I have witnessed some unbelievable things with my own eyes. A neighbor of mine was diagnosed with stage 3 cancer by 3 different hospitals that told him there's no cure and he has about a year to live. He went back to his village to consult what you'd probably call a "quack " doctor who practices medicine passed down from his family. A few month of herbal therapy and his cancer was completely cured. This isn't just one isolated coincidence, my own cousin was diagnosed with brain tumor, not by CT or MRI, but by a similar practician of old Chinese medicine. It was so hidden that an initial MRI was overlooked and upon this discovery a second MRI finally confirmed it.

So I would not so easily discount ancient text just because YOU think everything modern is superior. Suppose you are visiting the 1st century earth. To them, you are like a god. Are you going to teach them quantum mechanics, astrobiology or reveal to them the secret of the universe? It's like you trying to teach your 2 year old advanced calculus. If you haven't notice, the most important lessons when you grow up is not how much science you understand, but can you fit to be part of this society. So from the day you are born, your parents teach you good behavior, ethics and what it takes to become party of our society. Do they teach you astrobiology? Probably not -- you learn that in school, on your own. Same thing with the bible -- it mainly teaches ethics and good behavior. The rest, mankind will have to discover for themselves. What's the point and how can you ever learn anything if I hand you over everything on a silver plate?

I think mankind now is like being in the teenage years. Arrogant, and yet ignorant. They think they know everything there is to know and that they are "mature adults" that could make all the right decisions.

Catbeasy said- "I need a lot more to believe that he turned water into wine, raised the dead etc..so for me, he is a non factor"
--------------------------------------------------------

If Jesus was a shadowy figure seen just by his chums and a few others you'd have a point, but he was seen by a lot more people than that, and I don't think they were hallucinating..

“I've spoken openly to the world..I said nothing in secret" (John 18:20)
"Large crowds from Galilee, the Ten Cities, Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan followed him" (Matt 4:25)
"And the common people heard him gladly" (Mark 12 :37)
And he drew audiences of over 5000 and 4000 at two appearances alone (Matt 14:13, Matt 15:32), numbers that even the Rolling Stones would envy..

I don't think the point was that Jesus was a shadowy figure as you put it. I could fully believe he was a real person, doing the itinerant preacher thing to all the people you say he was..if you carefully read my statement, the sticky part isn't so much that he was a real person doing real person things, it was that he was doing unreal things.

And 4000 or 5000 people didn't all write about him, through no fault of their own, most were probably illiterate. So, writing that 5000 or 10,000 people saw something doesn't mean that 5000 or 10000 people actually saw something.

I don't know, there's just not enough evidence to know either way about Jesus' existence. Although, like I said, it doesn't matter. I could fully believe that Jesus existed and that he went to a tax collectors house. There's not much there that's controversial. But raising the dead? There's just not enough evidence that breaks the margin needed for evidence of miracles. You can't just say or write that a million people saw this. Jesus is barely mentioned outside of interested people within a somewhat acceptable timeframe (Josephus).

Also, there were dozens, probably hundreds, maybe thousands (if you extrapolate all of the accounts that have been destroyed) of accounts of folks running around doing miracles at that time. Are they all true? Some of them? How to pick?

So, in my view, Jesus probably existed as a preacher of some sort. He probably wasn't 'shadowy', though I certainly do believe that his importance has been inflated as all the folks who wrote about him were interested people and perceived him as Saviour before they wrote about him. Not a good way to achieve credibility.

Your belief in a specific god that did specific things in a specific place is faith based. Not rational. No proper historian would give the kind of belief-credence to a character like Jesus to someone they didn't have an interest in. And they don't! As such, you don't need facts, you don't need validation. Your own scripture says that God gives a measure of faith and by faith you are saved.

p.s. yes, numbers the Rolling Stones would envy when they were first starting out!

Catbeasy said- "Your belief in a specific god that did specific things in a specific place is faith based"
----------------------------------

No, I've never believed blindly in anything in my life, I like to weigh up all the pros and cons first then make an informed decision, it stems from my scientific background and curious nature, and I only wish more people would do the same..
Astronomers scan the heavens wondering if there's alien life out there and whether they've visited earth, overlooking the fact that they may have been and gone!
The Bible is a fascinating chronicle of eyewitness testimonies of interaction between offworld beings and the human race spanning many centuries, so surely every open-minded person should want to check Jesus out?
Jesus said- "I know where I came from and where I am going, but you have no idea where I come from or where I am going....you are of this world, I am not of this world...though you do not believe me, believe the miracles...I'll tell you things hidden since the creation of the world" (John 8:14/ 8:23/10:38/Matt 13:35)

Believe the miracles that involved thousands, but no other recorded history of them. What's wrong with this picture?
Loaves and fishes, anyone?

There are 50 books (at least) written about the Tooth Fairy. The Tooth Fairy also does miracles.

Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy the same way you believe in Jesus?

Not by faith alone. You have to behave as you are taught which for most is difficult. We give in to desires and temptation. There's a fundamental difference between a figure like Jesus, or Budda or Muhammad and "tooth fairy". Prominent religious figures taught ethics or the philosophy of ethics and deep down we know what they said is probably right and therefore we believe in them and through their teachings we can become better. If all is pure faith, then why don't most men believe and worship the devil? I mean it is easier right? Give in to your temptation and put it in John Milton's words "I'd rather reign in hell then to serve in heaven".

said- "John Milton's words "I'd rather reign in hell then to serve in heaven"
--------------------------------------------------------

Milton got it wrong, Jesus said he wants PALS, not fawning lackeys..-
"You're my friends if you follow me. I don't call you servants, but I call you friends"- (John 15:15)

No, I don't have an issue with people 'checking Jesus out'.

What I take issue with is the rationalizations most folks go through in their belief. The reason you believe you don't have blind faith is that you have convinced yourself of the evidence for something. That same reason doesn't operate the same for similar things that, for whatever reason, you don't have any emotional commitment to.

In my view you conflate your natural curiosity for science and cosmology for belief in something that you would never belief in were the same exact thing written in a book today. Or maybe you would. From what you wrote, I don't really know the extent of your credulity.

The point is that you only really know from what is written. No one comes to a knowledge of Jesus and the Judeo-Christian God rationally. They have to be told about the specific dogmas. Those dogmas are translations from a bunch of old writings, which you happen to belief the truth of. Why?

Because they make sense to you on some emotional level. More likely because the morality espoused makes sense to you and once that moral sense is heightened, everything else becomes plausible. And buying into that someone loved you so much they died for you further increases that emotional connection.

But really at root, it either happened or it didn't. That cannot be accessed rationally and neither can it be accessed through historical analysis for the reasons I mentioned in my previous post. What's left is faith. Whether you consider it 'blind' or to what degree it is entirely faith dependent depends on how willing you are to accept that the presented evidence, taken without religious connotation is horrible. This is how it would be viewed by a historian without any knowledge of religion.

A bit simplistic. People have histories. There are many reasons for people's behavior, not all of it evident. It is a typically religious idea to frame everything in terms of temptation and overcoming or giving in. Most people become the way they are from a long history of interaction with their environment and a not so insignificant contribution from their genes.

From this perspective, I don't even know how to respond rationally to the idea of "why not give in, its easier". It's not necessarily 'easier'. For some folks doing the right thing (as you put it) is easier than not doing the right thing due to many different factors of their upbringing. We cannot do anything we want. We have strictures on our psyches.

said- "Believe the miracles that involved thousands, but no other recorded history of them. What's wrong with this picture?
Loaves and fishes, anyone?"
----------------------------------------------

The bully-boy Romans and snooty jewish priests ran the show in those days so naturally they cracked down on any mention of that Jesus bloke who they killed.
Nevertheless at least 39 books were written about him by brave individuals, 27 of which were later bound into one volume and called the New Testament..

asked- "Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy the same way you believe in Jesus?"
------------------------------------------------

You can believe in the TF if you like chum, but include me out..

said- "..it either happened or it didn't. That cannot be accessed rationally and neither can it be accessed through historical analysis"
-----------------------------------------------------------

Huge numbers of Israelis plus the Roman garrison saw and heard Jesus strutting his stuff for 3 long years, you can believe they were all hallucinating or lying if you like, but include me out..
And remember, after Jesus's death and the first gospels began to be written, not a single person (not even from his enemies) ever came forward to say "It never happened".
Why was that?