https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/who-created-god/ It basically says : "Real God is a bunch of several zeroes; zero does not have to come from anything."
-- This is an interesting perspective... but me not being a scientist or a physicist cannot verify my suspicious nature when I read it.. something seemed a bit off, too me. So if there is anybody who has a basic level of physics that can help me out on my suspicions and justify why I feel like such?
-- Link below could also help but not necessary (which is what Ben from the comments thought about it): https://ben-bennetts.com/2015/01/19/the-religion-business-extract/#...
-- This article with MICHIO KAKU on Stephen Hawking's book The Grand Design will help out our position. It outlines that is is more logical to think that our universe could have created itself and slapping a supernatural cause in is just laughable and not needed. As Hitchens always says.. We have a better and more natural explanation for many of these questions without going to absurd assumptions of the supernatural. Everything works without the assumption of a creator. Occams Razor.http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/can-a-universe-create-itself-...
My thoughts on the subject:
-- Every time I look back at this argument: It always boils down to: So the theist used a rule of science to explain god but then denounces that rule in the same sentence to also explain god.
-- But if a theist can say "God made the universe" and not need any real evidence, why can't I say "The universe made itself". Theists always say "well where did THAT life come from?". In which case, why can't I ask the same about God? Where did God come from? It's a two way street, the only difference is science does not claim anything it doesn't know to be certain truth. Science is always under question and skepticism and inquiry and never make a truth claim without logic and evidence.
-- The simple answer to all of this, in my opinion is, that we do not know if god exists and let alone who created god and to say he always existed is special pleading when theists don't consider the fact that their reasoning that something cannot come from nothing (or everything must have a cause)... and not apply it your your god (which is unproven).. is what we call special pleading and in turn illogical and laughable.
-- That is my answer but as you guys can see I have not related it to the article in question. Any thoughts on it?
There is a problem with the html code in that first link and the page may crash your browser.
That is just the first problem. It would seem to me that the writer has a very poor understanding of physics. He mentions Einstein’s Special Relativity but does not explain much of why he does. He should be talking about General Relativity which is completely different. He should also have considered Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle within quantum theory.
He states that “God is a being”. He has made the usual assumption that “God exists” and then gone and butchered Science to try to prove his point. If the scripts on the page were reliable I might criticize his “reasoning” further but it starts so badly that I don’t think it merits too much time.
Cheers thanks for that. That overall summary does make his article (blog post) make some sense.. even-though he is wrong.. or deliberately looking for loopholes to prove something he so desires wants to be true.
--- I read over the article and this is what I got from it:: There are some pretty crazy stuff in the article. Just some stuff I noticed on my first read:
--- 1) He (or she?) is using two different versions of mass:
"If the total energy is zero, then the total mass will also be zero due to energy-mass equivalence."
"And Einstein has already shown that anything having zero rest-mass will have the speed of light."
For example: a photon has mass by the first usage, it does not have mass by the second usage.
--- 2) This statement is mathematically false:
"So the fact of the matter is this: if God is really there, then the total mass and the total energy of the universe including that God are both zero. Therefore mass and energy of God will also be zero."
Rephrased: A + B + C = 0, therefore B = 0. No, I'm sure you can see the problem with this. Can you imagine if you ran your finances like this? I make $100 a week, and I spend $50 on my bills and spend $50 on entertainment. 100 + (-50) + (-50) = 0, therefore -50 = 0. Therefore I have no bills!
--- 3) The whole argument starts with the assumption god exists:
The hand-waving argument given by Hawking (although Hawking is not the original author of it, fyi) is that observed conserved quantities of the universe appear to be 0 today, meaning they were 0 in the past, and will be 0 in the future (that is what conserved means in this context). No one knows what the conserved quantities of nothingness is, but it isn't hard to imagine they might be 0 as well. There is non 0 probability for any system to change into any other system so long as it has the same observed conserved quantities. Rephrased: the fact that the conserved quantities of a system can not change determines what is possible and what is not possible. So the argument continues that there is a non 0 probability that the universe came from nothingness.
--- Now lets consider the authors version of this argument for god:
"I want to show that our God is a bunch of several zeroes, and that therefore no further question need be raised about his origin."
Notice that the argument presented by Hawking starts with observations/measurements today, and then extrapolates backwards from there. The author however has no observations/measurements of god today. He assumes god exists today, and then tries to argue therefore god does not need a cause (or something like that). Well it is pretty easy to make a case for god when you start off assuming he exists...
--- 4) Author is confusing values of 0, with conserved values of 0:
"I want to show that our God is a bunch of several zeroes, and that therefore no further question need be raised about his origin." (yes the same quote, it has that many problems).
The argument from Hawking relied on the conserved values being 0. The author here assigns several 0 values to god then co-opts Hawking's hand waving punchline saying it applies to god. Well the values he assigned to god are clearly not conserved, so we are pretty deep into apples and oranges territory.
--- I really only skimmed the article after this point, I'm sure there is a lot more non-sense further down the page.
--- Personally: I think it's a bunch of hype and bullshit. Its hype, baked at 350° until blackened, and served with 1775 vintage horse shit. ha
Its some technobabble thrown out to sound like science.
Its akin to the never ending clown parade singing about how the second law of thermodynamics disproves the big bang...because they don't actually KNOW the second law of thermodynamics or its context...and just quote the part they like out of context as if it means what they want it to.
Its like proving there's no such thing as cars because air in front of them has resistance (Aerodynamics! Wind Resistance!) that would stop them...so they can't work.
I don't argue whether there's a god or not, but say 1) people have so many different beliefs about God, most (if not all) of them must be wrong, no matter how strongly they believe; 2) I'm not out to prove God doesn't exist, I just think science can only discover and explain things without arrogantly declaring what God does or doesn't do.
Science just observes, explains how things happen, and keeps digging into deeper questions and answers because it keeps working for us. Only religionists need to say "Goditit (possibly in eternally mysterious ways), nothing else to see here, move along through our Disney Ark".
"And say hi to Gabriel in our realistic cave."
I've never met anyone who is not an atheist about what OTHER people believe, yet all are confused when others feel that way about their OWN beliefs.
If only they could extrapolate how they feel about the other guy's belief, and, interpolate feeling the same way about their own.
Alas, EVERYONE then exclaims, but MY belief is the right one, and EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG!
Its pretty funny if not for the Crusades, Inquisitions, Fatwas, etc.
Well, Monty Python's version of the Spanish Inquisition was funny at least...