i need some debate help..

[solja247]

However much you protest the idea, you *are* using a "God of the Gaps" argument. You go from the position of "something must have started the universe" to the position of "that something was God" without any explanation of how you got there; only that it "makes sense" to you.

Well, we all carry philosophical baggage. Something which is completely rational and logical to me, may not be for you and vice versa. However you do make a good point. I get to the idea well to my understanding and ideas. That 'something' would have to be bigger than what it started (That something was bigger than the universe, to my understanding, the only bigger thing than the universe and multiverse with some sought of intelligence is God) but like you said, I could be wrong, but you could be wrong at the moment this idea is plausible.

If you wanted to be intellectually honest, you'd say that we currently don't know what started the universe, but that you believe it was a God (for your religious reasons). It still isn't a very good argument; but it's better than "God of the Gaps".

Well defininately! As I have said previously, the God of the Gaps fallacy may be proven with how the universe started and I think Hawkings quote shows that not even the greatest mind understands how the universe, let alone all the verses, came into existence. I, like many other theists say perhaps it was God, like you say perhaps it wasnt, both make sense.

This assumes the universe has a cause. There is no evidence it did. The Big Bang is the expansion of space and time; not the creation of the universe as a lot of people seem to think. As Darwinian said, our current understanding of reality falls apart once we reach the Big Bang. There are theories that time did not exist prior to the Big Bang, hence the universe would have existed for all time; there are theories that quantum fluctuations were the cause.

The point is, we don't know; we may never know. Putting God as an explanation might feel good for the religious, but it is a big assumption.

Very true. but as humans are used to big assumptions in out belief system, I dont have any empirical evidence to say that God exisits or doesnt just assume He does, like you assume He doesnt.
I wouldnt say 'feel good' makes the most sense to people, not because they are stupid, but how they see the world.

I agree. The concept of God has nothing to say in science.

I love quoting this, Robert Jastrow, an agnostic, had this to say:

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

This isnt God of the Gaps fallacy. Something had to start this universe and all the other verses for that matter!

This is exactly the arguement you have posed in the statement I responded to. The very fallacy means stating that because something could happen and because we don't know what did actually happen that god must be somehow involved. That's the fallacy.

No one knows anything about anything before the big bang. There are some quantum-based theories about what happened, but even those are conjecture.

When you incite the God of the Gaps fallacy, you assume something will be proven, so that God is taken out of the picture and we will know a natural causation for the start of the multiverse. But what if we dont find it?

I don't assume anything. I only come to understand what we know and what we don't know and I don't try to fill the gaps of science in with religious figures.
On another note, it doesn't matter if Stephan Hawking said god did or may have done anything. It doesn't make the idea more or less true.
If god acts in ways that cannot be described in this universe in any manner comprehensible to humans, which seems to be a common Christian arguement, then bothering with him at all is pointless. It's like arguing that it seems like he doesn't exist because he exists so hard that we could never tell if he does. Regardless, it's utterly pointless to bother with including him in anything because it's totally superfluous.

Are you going to argue Hawking is falling into the God of the Gaps fallacy?

If stephan hawking poses any serious arguement with that fallacy, then yes, I will call him out on it. But I've read a few of his books and watched a few television programs that he hosted and he has done nothing of the sort.

How is the supernaturalism unscientific? Lets look at it logically.

Supernaturalism does not meet any burden of proof. It cannot be tested for peer review. It is not repeatable in laboratory conditions. It does not meet the criteria of science.

1. Anything in this world/dimension HAS to obey the laws of nature
2. Anything in another world/dimension may or may not have to obey OUR laws of nature
3. Therefore it may be possible for something not of this world/dimension to manipulate the laws of nature.

Your logic doesn't follow. 1 and 2 are logical but 3 is not a logical consequence of any of your other points.
I can play world of warcraft until the cows come home, but unless I created WOW, I can't manipulate the parameters of the game, I can only participate in it, even though I'm from the real world and not actually a creatures from within the WOW game. I can't even participate directly - I have to create a controlled avatar in the game to do things within it.
In any case, just because logic and even science can say that beings of "other dimensions" can exist, it doesn't mean anything except in thought experiment.

[Quest of knowledge]

Solja 247,

The tooth fairy is good business, Santa Claus much better because it sets people into a buying frenzy, but religion is the best business in the world. It promises eternal life after you die. It collects a 10% tithe (tax on stupidity), plus the offerings (tip for the brainwashers), and it pays no taxes. Good luck trying to get a refund.

Religion is much better than politics at starting and maintaining wars because you don’t have to prove results. If it goes well, it’s because god has answered the prayers of the winners. The losers will always blame the devil or blame themselves for god not supporting them. Religion is also perfect nonsense for feeble, immature minds because it provides answers for every thing. Who created trees? God (there goes all a religious mind needs to know about botany. Who created the Universe? God (there goes all you need to know about astronomy). It’s perfect!

Religion like all good businesses has created a need, but unlike other businesses, it has created an insatiable need. Therefore, the customers are mostly forever. Religion picked an inexorable necessity and turned it into a punishment to be feared. Death is an inexorable necessity of life. Religion convinced people that death was a horrible thing from which people needed protection. Religion made sure that people had every reason to fear death by killing people in horrible ways. The inquisition killed all those that opposed Christianity by burning them alive, drowning them, stretching them on the “rack”, etc. Judaism and Islam stoned people to death while buried up to their necks.

People were forced to obey, not believe. Part of that obedience was to bring their children to the religious leaders for brainwashing services. Once the children were brainwashed, the chain was easy to continue. The first followers were forced to follow by threat and intimidation, not reason and logic. In democratic countries, religions mask the beliefs with pretend logic to maintain the followers who they currently have. The religious rhetoric is directed to believers because no atheist would ever become a believer. Religions try hard to maintain their followers and to steal believers from other religions.

The best way to stop believing is to learn every word of the Bible. It has so many contradictions and inconsistencies that studying it well would be enough to convince any rational mind that the Bible is a nonsensical book. If that is not enough, study how Jerome developed the first Bible called Vulgata (Vulgate in English). You’ll be convinced by then, but if fear stops you from believing, or you are extremely stubborn, look for historical support for any of the Biblical assertions and stories. If you are not cured by then, you certainly deserve to be a believer!

[ABierman1986]

[quote='solja247' pid='85203' dateline='1281184827']

[quote]
This assumes the universe has a cause. There is no evidence it did. The Big Bang is the expansion of space and time; not the creation of the universe as a lot of people seem to think. As Darwinian said, our current understanding of reality falls apart once we reach the Big Bang. There are theories that time did not exist prior to the Big Bang, hence the universe would have existed for all time; there are theories that quantum fluctuations were the cause.

The point is, we don't know; we may never know. Putting God as an explanation might feel good for the religious, but it is a big assumption. [/quote]

[quote]
Very true. but as humans are used to big assumptions in out belief system, I dont have any empirical evidence to say that God exisits or doesnt just assume He does, like you assume He doesnt.
I wouldnt say 'feel good' makes the most sense to people, not because they are stupid, but how they see the world.[/quote]

To say that we have no evidence of a cause or an explanation of the big bang is utter nonsense. There is much evidence that points to a few competing, but strongly empirically supported theories. One of these is the vacuum energy hypothesis which models the big bang as a conditional explosion of matter from a quantum vacuum with large amounts of energy (the quantum fluctuations which you briefly mention, these are not hackneyed theories with no basis, they are directly observable phenomena that have been proven to exist naturally in quantum scales). The universe will spend its life using up this energy and then return to a quantum vacuum state until the conditions for another big bang arise. Again, this is not proven empirically, but the constraints upon which the model is built are. This is just one example of a logically consistent and rational explanation for the past, present, and future existence of the universe with no need to invoke any kind of supernatural entity, albeit the argument is as yet incomplete and needs more evidence to be fully supported by logical consistency. Given the widespread knowledge of the intermingling of space and time and the effects on matter it should not be surprising to anyone that the conditions under which time acts in a quantum vacuum is currently not understood at all, but the fundamental understanding that a connection does exist should suggest that there is a solution that is nontrivial to this problem.

[Tiberius]

I love quoting this, Robert Jastrow, an agnostic, had this to say:

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

It's a good quote; it just isn't true and makes no sense. Theologians haven't done anything to advance science unless they too used the scientific method.

[Edwardo Piet]

In the Catholic literature that I've read God is described as simple & not complex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity

And it makes no sense whatsoever.