shmogie
Well-Known Member
Correct, one of the stories came from this bogus site, another came from Hawkings use of the term God, rather freely in his books, confusing some as to what he meant
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Watchmaker Theory
- Thread starter Barsabbas
- Start date
Shad
Veteran Member
A major problem is that he shifts what he means by God often in his work. At times it is the typical external Abrahamic God, at other times it is pantheism God.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
what you say is true in a way. He isn't pointing out a particular deity on purpose, since he is an atheist and all gods fall into the mythology catagory for him. He is using the term figuratively. It's like saying a young girl is "impish" without believing something called an imp exists,
shmogie
Well-Known Member
There are other terms he could use that would save the ambiguity he creates for some when using the word "God"
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Yes, I would rather he not use any words associated with a deity.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Well it would be great if he used the word, and believed in it, alas.....................................................
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Why?
Shad
Veteran Member
At time he does talk about specifics usually in relation to cosmological arguments, fine-tuning, ID, etc which are put forward by various believers of different religions. At best he does address the philosophical God that is part of these arguments rather than a theological God of say Islam, Christianity, etc.
Shad
Veteran Member
The issue is not him but the audience. When he uses the term God he is doing so in a specific context. If the audience is ignorant of this context it is their problem. Also people have attached, or claimed, these various context specifics are part of the theological concepts of God many religions hold. The audience is making an assumption based on their assimilation as part of their theological God is the same one Hawing is talking about, again their problem.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Not really, the dictionary is very clear as to what God means, so, if he is using the term contrary to the meaning in the English language, he is in error. More applicable terms exist in the language to fit his context. Sloppily using terms in a manner different from what they mean is not good communication.
Shad
Veteran Member
No, you are only showing that you are context ignorant refusing to understand the context Hawking is using then projecting your own definition as if it should be the context of his own lectures and work. Sloppy understanding of the philosophical God context is your problem. You are also obvious to the fact that dictionary definitions include concepts from the philosophical concept of God. Simply put you refuse to follow along then cry foul solely based on projection and said refusal to understand the context at hand. I have no issue understanding different instances of the term God used by Hawking. So clearly it is a problem of individuals as the audience not Hawking.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Which dictionary is "the dictionary"? There is not only more than one dictionary, but usually more than one definition in each. And let's not forget more than one god to consider.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
I am not "context ignorant" I understand what he is saying, BUT, I believe in the proper use of language. "God - 1) a being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people. 2) One that is idealized as a god 3) God, the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator of the universe the primary focus of faith especially in monotheistic religions" The American heritage dictionary of the English language. nothing about any natural forces being identified as God, or the results of natural forces being created by God. So, those who understand the language, know what it's words mean, irrespective of context, can identify a term being used improperly. Use of another term would have been more proper.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
True, but when "God" is used, when the context specifically excludes any gods or God, or anything worshiped as a god, or anyone metaphorically making a god out of something, or any power from a divine being/beings, then the context is making the word mean what it doesn't, regardless of whether the readers understand the authors intent, or not.
kaoticprofit
Active Member
Even as a teenager I never believed in the big bang theory. History also proves that scientist are usually wrong in their theories anyway. The big bang makes no sense to me. That idea suggest that an accidental chaotic collision began the formation and timing of the solar system and planets. I don't believe it.That's a false statement .. you're basically saying that I'm talking 'out of my backside'
OK .. you can deny 'the big bang' and the theory of relativity if you wish
I've been using the 'watch' as a witnessing tool for 40+ years. It takes a mind to make a timepiece which are based on our solar system, so it takes a mind to make a watch just like it takes a mind to create planets and suns etc.
kaoticprofit
Active Member
shmogie
Well-Known Member
The big bang virtually mirrors the creation of everything by God in Genesis. It wasn't, then it was. The issue after that is time, how much was required to a relatively stable universe and life on earth. I believe that science is wrong re billions and billions of years
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
So free will does not apply. People who are supposed to go to heaven or hell have no choice. It has been predetermined by god from the beginning.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
What makes you think the big bang was caused by a collision? A collision of what? Scientists do not postulate a collision. Why would the singularity which preceeded the rapid expansion characterized as the big bang be accidental rather than predicted as perhaps a result of the energy density of the singularity?
By saying scientists are "usually wrong" in their theories, you are indicating you think that over 50% of scientific theories have been shown to be completely false. What is the basis for this belief?