Did God create the universe??

I just watched a episode of Curiosity on the discovery channel. Stephen Hawkins a cosmologist, was giving his thoughts on God not existing. He based his theory on modern day science. The conclusion that he came up with was that the universe started from nothing. So everything within the universe, even down to our perfect condition planet which supports an abundance of life is all just a coincidence. He also said if there's not a god then the chances of life after death is slim to none. KMC what's your take on the matter?

just not the universe but every thing smallest and the greatest at earth at heaven and between them visible and invisible all are created by Almighty GOD.
_________
Tie Downs

I believe that he did. Some people don't. But creation makes more sence then anything else I had heard.

The problem with the media's portrayal of the creation/evolution debate is that it seems to intentionally keep the sides as polarized as possible. So for example, the only advocates for evolution that you hear from are people like Daniel Dennett and Stephen Hawking who say forthright that there "is no god" and that "everything is an accident." And on the other end of the spectrum you get people like Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, etc. etc... who say that everything was created in full in 6 days. Now, neither ONE of those options makes any damn sense!! It's no wonder we can't reach a half-reasonable consensus!

But in fact, the two sides are completely compatible (why can't they be??) and much more nuanced and subtle than media wants it to be. The REAL Evolution Debate is a good link for breaking it down into a much more nuanced issue. Now, obviously the world is older than 6,000 to 10,000 years old (or whatever the current fundamental Christian number is), otherwise we wouldn't even be able to see star light! It wouldn't have reached us yet. And on the other hand, WE are intelligent, living, breathing beings, so we can't be the product of a mechanical and meaningless universe (I shall site Alan Watts on that note). So as you can see, neither side on it's own makes sense. There has to be a marriage of the two.

Now, the problem comes when people make an unwarranted jump into thinking that the "GOD" that they sense exists is the God of the Bible. Which is ludicrous. Just because there's a God, does that mean he's got a big white beard and is judging everything you do and say? Hell no. No sensible person actually believes that. God is spirit and much more subtle and personal than that.

It is time to EVOLVE our understanding of GAWD. 😉

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Now, the problem comes when people make an unwarranted jump into thinking that the "GOD" that they sense exists is the God of the Bible. Which is ludicrous. Just because there's a God, does that mean he's got a big white beard and is judging everything you do and say? Hell no. No sensible person actually believes that. God is spirit and much more subtle and personal than that.

Actually, the problem is, because God is almost certainly a fictional entity, there is much room to define it as ambiguous or however else it isn't defined in the Bible.

When a scientist says god does not exist, they are more than likely speaking of the God that the vast majority of the Jewish/Christian/Muslim population of the world believes exists, that is, physical manifestation of a higher body directly involved in the world of man.

These "God as some abstract spirit entity" definitions are specious for their own reasons, but largely go unaddressed by scientists because people rarely try to force science and science education to conform to its ideals. God-as-spirit is essentially no different, in terms of effect on the world, than is nonexistant God, so to scientists, there is almost no need to even address it as a concept. In general, scientists are happy to let people believe nonsense so long as they are free to do their research. People like Hawking and Dawkins become outspoken on the issue because religious communities take umbrage with their work, not because of any inherent desire to fight against religion, for the most part.

Originally posted by inimalist
Actually, the problem is, because God is almost certainly a fictional entity, there is much room to define it as ambiguous or however else it isn't defined in the Bible.

Really, now? 😬

I see it like this:

"Actually, the problem is, because God is almost certainly a real entity, there is much room to define It as ambiguous or however else it isn't defined in the various religious texts."

Originally posted by inimalist
God-as-spirit is essentially no different, in terms of effect on the world, than is nonexistant God, so to scientists, there is almost no need to even address it as a concept. In general, scientists are happy to let people believe nonsense so long as they are free to do their research.

Yeah, that's a good point. I see what you're saying, but research could be conducted on religion! The great debate is really whether or not Science and Religion are compatible. And they are. They just have to make some concessions in order to get along (which neither is willing to do). For example, Religion needs to stop believing ludicrous things like walking on water and science has to recognize an inner depth that could only be defined as some supernatural entity and there would course be ways to measure it scientifically, because with anything going on in the brain there is a physiological component. It could be the most fascinating research.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Yeah, that's a good point. I see what you're saying, but research could be conducted on religion! The great debate is really whether or not Science and Religion are compatible. And they are. They just have to make some concessions in order to get along (which neither is willing to do). For example, Religion needs to stop believing ludicrous things like walking on water and science has to recognize an inner depth that could only be defined as some supernatural entity and there would course be ways to measure it scientifically, because with anything going on in the brain there is a physiological component. It could be the most fascinating research.

There are OBE researchers (real scientists...not quack crystal doctors or some stupid shit) that honestly believe we can study the "Transcendent" and are trying their best to do so. They think that they can scientifically study the realm of "God"...so to speak. I find that humorous, silly...and somewhat humbling. Some of these scientists are just genuinely interested in science regardless of what it is. "What, there might be an afterlife? Let's study it, measure it, quantify it, and publish our work." WTF? 😆

Originally posted by dadudemon
Really, now? 😬

I see it like this:

"Actually, the problem is, because God is almost certainly a real entity, there is much room to define It as ambiguous or however else it isn't defined in the various religious texts."

real things have observable qualities

the fact that God almost certainly isn't real is one of the reasons that so many interpretations about what it might be like are able to exist without there being any real evidence to claim one is superior to the other

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Yeah, that's a good point. I see what you're saying, but research could be conducted on religion! The great debate is really whether or not Science and Religion are compatible. And they are. They just have to make some concessions in order to get along (which neither is willing to do). For example, Religion needs to stop believing ludicrous things like walking on water and science has to recognize an inner depth that could only be defined as some supernatural entity and there would course be ways to measure it scientifically, because with anything going on in the brain there is a physiological component. It could be the most fascinating research.

much of this research has been done, the religious experience located generally in the superior temporal lobe. This is also where significant experiences looking at art or the stars tend to be located, is a region of great importance for regulating emotions, and is involved in something called temporal lobe epilepsy, which often has the result of people feeling as though they are God.

To this date, and after extensive testing over many decades, there is not even a suggestion of good evidence for anything supernatural, ESPECIALLY in the brain. Most people, in my experience, find neuroscience to actually be too materialist in how it explains human behaviour, because they become uncomfortable with the idea of the "self" or the inner dualist being an entire fabrication of inter-connected systems within the brain. I've left lectures and overheard students in the class vehemently deny that they might not have the volitional control they thought they did. Studying the brain is likely to present far more mechanistic explanations for human experience than it is to produce evidence of the supernatural.

How familiar are you with modern neuroscience research, as you do seem to be making a fairly strong claim against it...

Yeah, well that kind of thing is perhaps a bit silly. But I'm thinking more along the lines of measuring and looking at the brain as people meditate, give thanks, love, show compassion... etc. And I think to some degree studies have been carried out on such things. I do know that research is done on meditation at least.

Originally posted by dadudemon
There are OBE researchers (real scientists...not quack crystal doctors or some stupid shit) that honestly believe we can study the "Transcendent" and are trying their best to do so. They think that they can scientifically study the realm of "God"...so to speak. I find that humorous, silly...and somewhat humbling. Some of these scientists are just genuinely interested in science regardless of what it is. "What, there might be an afterlife? Let's study it, measure it, quantify it, and publish our work." WTF? 😆

and their research is full of terrible methodology and statistics, and even then, proves to be entirely inconclusive.

they should take a page from homeopathy or social psych and just fabricate the data.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Yeah, well that kind of thing is perhaps a bit silly. But I'm thinking more along the lines of measuring and looking at the brain as people meditate, give thanks, love, show compassion... etc. And I think to some degree studies have been carried out on such things. I do know that research is done on meditation at least.

sure, they find entirely mechanistic explanations for the changes in conscious experience associated with meditation, and further research is almost certain to expand our understanding of the mechanisms as opposed to discovering something supernatural

I don't mean to make any claims against modern neuroscience. I'm just merely trying to suggest that science and religion could collaborate if they so wished.

Originally posted by inimalist
real things have observable qualities

I agree, which leads me to believe there is a higher probability of God existing than not.

Originally posted by inimalist
the fact that God almost certainly isn't real is one of the reasons that so many interpretations about what it might be like are able to exist without there being any real evidence to claim one is superior to the other

The "fact" that God almost certainly is real is one of the reasons that God has a vast amount of commonalities in almost all religions, even if it is necessary aggregate between multiple gods. The fact that humans squabble over which technicalities are right and which are not just shows us that humans can be contentious.

My favorite rebuttal to what I said is this: "That or belief in mystical beings that explain the unexplained is the natural process of development in an intelligent, highly social species."

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I don't mean to make any claims against modern neuroscience. I'm just merely trying to suggest that science and religion could collaborate if they so wished.

how would this benefit science at all?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree, which leads me to believe there is a higher probability of God existing than not.

The "fact" that God almost certainly is real is one of the reasons that God has a vast amount of commonalities in almost all religions, even if it is necessary aggregate between multiple gods. The fact that humans squabble over which technicalities are right and which are not just shows us that humans can be contentious.

actually, if it were simply choosing a flavour between Jesus, Allah and Moses, I'd be with you, but my point was made to someone presenting the "God-is-the-undefinable-abstract-spirit", which is different in kind form these other interpretations.

In fact, Leech's specific point was about how limited that interpretation of what a "God" is actually is. The only definitional quality we know about his God is that it is, specifically, not the same kind of thing you would see in the major monotheisms.

Originally posted by dadudemon
My favorite rebuttal to what I said is this: "That or belief in mystical beings that explain the unexplained is the natural process of development in an intelligent, highly social species."

maybe, however, the earliest forms of religion were not monotheistic or in fact, contained few "Gods" as we would understand them. It might be true that the brain we evolved with seeks to connect events, and a meta-explanation that transcends all events may increase what is known as "secondary control", however, I would never argue that a God is the only thing that could fill that or even the most obvious. Further, observing that a belief in God is what we ended up with does not mean it was necessary given our brains in early evolution. It might be more that belief in a God makes one more violent toward those who do not (basic ingroup/outgroup stuff) and as a consequence only God-believing tribes succeeded, not because the explanation of God served any purpose, but because of some other thing that is only somewhat related to the belief. Its like a cultural-evolution version of a "just so" statement.

Originally posted by inimalist
and their research is full of terrible methodology and statistics, and even then, proves to be entirely inconclusive.

they should take a page from homeopathy or social psych and just fabricate the data.

Really?

So you know exactly which researchers I'm referring to? You must be psychic which indicates you have supernatural powers. Something that you would claim not to believe.

Out of curiosity, which researchers did you think I was referring to?

Originally posted by inimalist
actually, if it were simply choosing a flavour between Jesus, Allah and Moses, I'd be with you, but my point was made to someone presenting the "God-is-the-undefinable-abstract-spirit", which is different in kind form these other interpretations.

In fact, Leech's specific point was about how limited that interpretation of what a "God" is actually is. The only definitional quality we know about his God is that it is, specifically, not the same kind of thing you would see in the major monotheisms.

I disagree. That type of abstract "complex" God/Spirit is the very thing that the majority of Christians believe in. It is THE primary reason many of them call Mormons "not Christians" because we don't believe God to be an abstract spiritual entity as they do.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I don't mean to make any claims against modern neuroscience. I'm just merely trying to suggest that science and religion could collaborate if they so wished.

Transhumanists are technically that amalgamation that you seek. 'Spiritual', but hope in science.

Science is their God.

Originally posted by inimalist
sure, they find entirely mechanistic explanations for the changes in conscious experience associated with meditation, and further research is almost certain to expand our understanding of the mechanisms as opposed to discovering something supernatural

Perhaps "supernatural" wasn't the right word. Of course it would lead to greater understanding of the mechanisms within the brain. But even still that would NEVER lead to a scientific understanding of what LOVE, HATE, EMPATHY, etc (emtions) are... they're experiential. And that is where religion/philosophy comes in. You have to have the WONDER and AWE to be a good philosopher or spiritual guide.. because life is meant to be an experienced.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Perhaps "supernatural" wasn't the right word. Of course it would lead to greater understanding of the mechanisms within the brain. But even still that would NEVER lead to a scientific understanding of what LOVE, HATE, EMPATHY, etc (emtions) are... they're experiential. And that is where religion/philosophy comes in. You have to have the WONDER and AWE to be a good philosopher or spiritual guide.. because life is meant to be an experienced.

Well, I disagree, there.

We most certainly will be able to fully understand love, hate, empathy, etc (emotions). In fact, we have fairly well defined scientific reasons for those: from evolution to neuroscience. They may appear as subjective experiences but they are common and we can gather statistics from those seeming subjective experiences.

We WILL replicate it with Artificial Intelligence...short of some sort of a catastrophic event that destroys our ability to expand our technologies further.

I don't think being able to simulate it or replicate it is really quite the same as knowing what it is... the only way to know it is to feel it. It's subjective by it's very nature.