"Please explain why you present this passage as "support" for your assertion that Hawking actually believes that the "best scientific explanation" is creationism. This appears to be a grossly dishonest attempt to misrepresent his position."
I never said that. Don't you start with the "straw man" thing, too.
I said: "From Einstein to Hoyle to Hawking, a great number of the world's top physicists beleive or are amenable to the idea that the UNIVERSE has been intelligently designed."
Got it?
Hawking has stated that he believes the universe is a creation, and has also stated that he sees nothing to the contrary in his study of physics, and in fact has seen evidence in support of this belief (the fine-tuning).
"These laws may have been originally decreed by God, but it appears that he has since left the universe to evolve according to them and does not now intervene in it."
Also 'Hawking strenuously denies charges that he is an atheist. When he is accused of atheism, he is affronted and says that such assertions are not true. For example, Hawking has stated "I thought I had left the question of the existence of a Supreme Being completely open. . . It would be perfectly consistent with all we know to say that there was a Being who was responsible for all the laws of physics."'
Should we say that one more time? Let's:
"It would be perfectly consistent with all we know to say that there was a Being who was responsible for all the laws of physics."
'Those who have not read A Brief History of Time may be surprised to find that the book has a main character. That main character is God. This was the feature of the book that the well known atheist Carl Sagan found a bit distressing... God is discussed in A Brief History of Time from near the beginning all the way to the crescendo of the final sentence.'
'Hawking states "The idea that God might want to change His mind is an example of the fallacy, pointed out St. Augustine, of imagining God as a being existing in time. Time is a property only of the universe that God created. Presumably, God knew what He intended when He set it up."
He's talking about God settin' up the universe here, Bucko. Get it?
"Time is a property only of the universe that God created."
"The universe that God created."
CRE-A-TED.
Stephen Hawking: "It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of God. My work on the origin of the universe is on the borderline between science and religion, but I try to stay on the scientific side of the border. It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws."'
And dude, seriously, Einstein believed in God, too. That the universe was His creation. He saw God's hand in even the "slightest details" as he put it.
'(I)n response to a child who asked if scientists pray, Einstein wrote:
"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe- a spirit vastly superior to that of man ... in this way, the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."
"I want to know how God created the universe. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." - Albert Einstein
Should we repeat that for you?
"I want to know how God created the universe."
Ya see, pal? He believes in a God-created universe? INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED BY GOD! What part of that ain't ya gettin'?!
So once more, with gusto:
From Einstein to Hoyle to Hawking, a great number of the world's top physicists beleive or are amenable to the idea that the UNIVERSE has been intelligently designed.
Consider yourself skooled.
Goodnight and goooooooooood riddance. (And forgive me if this is prickly. It's late and I'm tired. But I had fun. Hope everybody else did too. Later.)
From Einstein to Hoyle to Hawking, a great number of the world's top physicists beleive or are amenable to the idea that the UNIVERSE has been intelligently designed.
They also probably all believed that shoveling snow off the driveway in the winter was a swell idea. That does not make shoveling snow off the driveway a science.
You're kind of a one-idea show, aren't you? Gusto doesn't really make up for failure to turn your brights on, and watch where you're going.
I never said that. Don't you start with the "straw man" thing, too.
Wow, what a *remarkably* disingenuous response. Let's check the instant replay, shall we?
In post #230, donh wrote:
Whereas, the proud claim that a supernatural entity beyond the capacity of science to observe, is the best scientific explanation of the universe is just oozing with scientific respectability.You responded in post #235 by quoting that same passage, and then replying:
So you, donh (a frustrated junior highschool science teacher, I'm guessing? Or just an unpublished Junior College professor?) don't think Einstein, Hawking, Hoyle et al are "scientifically respectable?" Mein Gott! What are you so afraid of that you would say such a thing so obviously at odds with the "gods" of your profession?CLEARLY, you were claiming that the trio of Einstein, Hawking, and Hoyle actually held such a position.
In reply, I wrote (in post #242):
Neither Einstein nor Hawking has ever made the mistake of claiming such a thing. I suspect you're grossly misreading donh's actual statement. As for Hoyle, he hasn't made that claim either, [snip]In direct reply to that -- with the obvious intent of demonstrating that Einstein, Hawking, and Hoyle actually did hold such a position (that "a supernatural entity beyond the capacity of science to observe, is the best scientific explanation of the universe"), you made post #248 which consisted of quotes from those same three people.
NOW, suddenly, despite your TWICE making posts with the clear intent of establishing that Einstein, Hawking, and Hoyle did hold that "a supernatural entity beyond the capacity of science to observe, is the best scientific explanation of the universe", you now SUDDENLY try to claim that "I never said that" and called the claim that you had a "straw man".
Do you actually expect anyone to be stupid enough to fall for this?
Or are you just so completely confused that you can't even remember what you were arguing in two different posts a few short hours ago?
I said: "From Einstein to Hoyle to Hawking, a great number of the world's top physicists beleive or are amenable to the idea that the UNIVERSE has been intelligently designed." Got it?
Oh, yes, I "got it" that you are backing away from your position in posts #235 and #238.
Should we say that one more time?
Only if you want to be childish and petulant, and are attempting to make up with mechanical repetition what you lack in substance.
"Time is a property only of the universe that God created." "The universe that God created." CRE-A-TED.
Petulant repetition. Why don't you try discussing things like an adult? Or are you not able?
And dude, seriously, Einstein believed in God, too. That the universe was His creation. He saw God's hand in even the "slightest details" as he put it.
Just not *your* God. Creationists like to selectively quote Einstein out of context to make it appear that he endorsed *their* notions of God, but as even your own next quote hints, he actually found that notion of a "personal God" to be childish:
"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man.... In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive. [Albert Einstein]"Let's have a look at some of the quotes that the creationists like to sweep under the rug, shall we?
"In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task..."And:
-- Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium", published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941.
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."And:
-- Albert Einstein, letter dated 24 March 1954, included in "Albert Einstein: The Human Side".
"It is quite possible that we can do greater things than Jesus, for what is written in the Bible about him is poetically embellished."And:
-- Albert Einstein, quoted in W. I Hermanns "A Talk with Einstein," October 1943
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."And:
-- Albert Einstein, letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950
"To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding the orderliness we find in the perceivable world."And:
-- Albert Einstein, letter to an Iowa student who asked, What is God? July, 1953; Einstein Archive
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion."And:
-- Albert Einstein, letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive
"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."And:
-- Albert Einstein, 1954 or 1955; quoted in Dukas and Hoffman, Albert Einstein the Human Side
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls."And:
-- Albert Einstein, The World as I See It, Secaucus, New Jersy: The Citadel Press
"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve."And:
-- Albert Einstein in a letter to Beatrice Frohlich, December 17, 1952; Einstein Archive 59-797
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems."And:
-- Albert Einstein, 1947; from Banesh Hoffmann, Albert Einstein Creator and Rebel, New York
"I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."And:
-- Albert Einstein, letter to a Baptist pastor in 1953; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 39.
"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own — a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."And:
-- Albert Einstein, quoted in The New York Times obituary, April 19, 1955; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Thoughts, New York: Ballantine Books, 1996, p. 134.
"Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death. It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees."And:
-- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," in the New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930, pp. 3-4; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, pp. 205-206.
"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one."And:
-- Albert Einstein, to Guy H. Raner Jr., September 28, 1949; from Michael R. Gilmore, "Einstein's God: Just What Did Einstein Believe About God?," Skeptic, 1997, 5(2):64.
"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. Your counter-arguments seem to me very correct and could hardly be better formulated. It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere—childish analogies. We have to admire in humility the beautiful harmony of the structure of this world as far—as we can grasp it. And that is all."Einstein's "God", his "religion", was the deep spiritual awe he felt in contemplation of the majestic breadth and depth and orderliness of the Universe itself:
-- Albert Einstein, to Guy H. Raner Jr., July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism; from Michael R. Gilmore, "Einstein's God: Just What Did Einstein Believe About God?," Skeptic, 1997, 5(2):62.
"The religious feeling engendered by experiencing the logical comprehensibility of profound interrelations is of a somewhat different sort from the feeling that one usually calls religious. It is more a feeling of awe at the scheme that is manifested in the material universe. It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image-a personage who makes demands of us and who takes an interest in us as individuals. There is in this neither a will nor a goal, nor a must, but only sheer being. For this reason, people of our type see in morality a purely human matter, albeit the most important in the human sphere."
-- Albert Einstein, letter to a Rabbi in Chicago; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton University Press, 1981, pp. 69-70.
Ya see, pal? He believes in a God-created universe? INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED BY GOD! What part of that ain't ya gettin'?!
The part where you grossly misrepresent the nature of Einstein's "God" -- the part where *you* "ain't gettin'" the first thing about what Einstein actually believed. Einstein believed in "God" as the humbling scope of the Universe *itself*, absent any anthropomorphized "intelligence", absent any conscious "designer". In short, Einstein's God was Nature, in all its awe-inspiring glory.
From Einstein to Hoyle to Hawking, a great number of the world's top physicists beleive or are amenable to the idea that the UNIVERSE has been intelligently designed.
You're wrong about Einstein, Hoyle was a crank, and at best Hawking leaves room for the possibility while also pointing out the possibilities of natural origins.
So where are you going with this, if anywhere?
Consider yourself skooled.
In order to "skool" me, you would have to know more about the subject than I do, which so far seems highly unlikely, since much of what you "know" is distorted, fallacious, or outright incorrect.
Goodnight and goooooooooood riddance.
You would do well to use less adolescent "attitude" and more substance and research. Cutting-and-pasting stuff from creationist websites leaves you at a huge disadvantage. Try expanding your horizons with a broader range of sources and, you know, that "education" thing.
(And forgive me if this is prickly. It's late and I'm tired.
Prickly is understandable. Childish is not.
But I had fun. Hope everybody else did too. Later.)
If I didn't enjoy this, I wouldn't be here.