A christian sent me this lecture video of John Lennox to show me a “rational religious person who used reason and wasn’t brainwashed.”
It was also supposed to expose Stephen Hawking’s book as a lie and a fake apparently.
I have typed out what was said and responded to what was said….
As the woman introduces Professor John Lennox she indicates that he is an M.A. and PhD. degree at the University of Cambridge. He was awarded a D.Sc. degree in mathematics by the University of Cardiff for his research. Lennox furthermore holds a D.Phil. degree from the University of Oxford and an M.A. degree in bioethics at the University of Surrey.
She also states that he has been called “christianity’s new poster boy” by Time Magazine.
What is Bioethics you ask?
“Bioethics is the study of typically controversial ethics brought about by advances in biology and medicine. It is also moral discernment as it relates to medical policy, practice, and research. Bioethicists are concerned with the ethical questions that arise in the relationships among life sciences, biotechnology, medicine, politics, law, and philosophy. It also includes the study of the more commonplace questions of values (“the ethics of the ordinary”) which arise in primary care and other branches of medicine.”
Now that bothers me right off the bat as I am disgusted of the fact that religious people have a say, or opinion about anything of ethics and of what is right and what is wrong. I say that because they will put their religion first before logic, or common sense and before reason also.
The intro woman states that Lennox was a huge fan of Stephen Hawking, but took it upon himself to challenge the fact that Hawking had come out and said that “God was not responsible for creating the universe”.
She then intros Lennox welcoming Lennox to The 2010 Margaret Harris Lecture On Religion titled “A Matter Of Gravity: God, The Universe And Stephen Hawking”
(4 min 43 sec)
“Distinguished guests, ladies and gentleman. I think you might take the times comment with a pinch of salt, because it also described me as plump and untidy and since neither of those 2 describe me, you can take it not too seriously.
a) Well John you certainly are charming.
b) Your little jokes about your looks are winning people over, which really is just opening them up to embrace your lies and meaningless nonsense.
Incidently I am not like the bishop who turned up in a country church at the invitation of the vicar. And as he climbed into the pulpit he noticed that there were only 2 people in the audience. And he whispered to the vicar as he mounted the pulpit steps.
He said, “did you tell them I was coming?” And the vicar said “no, but word seems to have got around”.
a)> Very true though. The numbers of religious people are dropping.
b)> They will continue to drop until there are no religious people, or religions left.
I feel greatly honored to be invited to give this lecture. I met like you heard, students at lunch time and I was very impressed with their friendliness and the quality of their minds. And if they are a sample of what Dundee is doing, I think the Vice Chancellor and his colleagues can be immensely proud.
People from different societies, Atheist society, the Christian union, various international societies, all blending together and open, for vigorous discussion. And I thought that the lunch time was a wonderful preperation for tonight’s lecture.
(6 min 27 sec)
Now a very powerful voice has been added to the Atheist choir. That of physicist Stephen Hawking. Around the world the headlines were full of it….
(6 min 40 sec there was an equipment interuption)
(6 min 50 sec he continues)
Now that’s much better. I now exist. A very powerful voice has been added to the Atheist choir. Physicist Stephen Hawking. The headlines around the world were full of “Stephen Hawking says physics leaves no room for God”. And the headlines were refering to the publication of a new book by Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow: The Grand Design.
(7 min 21 sec)
a)> Well all religions are of course just brainwashing in one form or another.
b)> All beliefs in Gods are brainwashing and if every trace of religions were erased and it was a science based world like in Star Trek, then all religions would be gone forever.
c)> Religions and beliefs in Gods are only formed and made when we don’t know things and have to fill in the blanks about what we don’t know.
It raced immediately to the top of the best seller charts. Because the public confession of Atheism by a man of such high intellectual profile as Hawking has the instant effect of ratcheting up the debate by several notches. It has also sold a large number of books.
a)> A smart move. One which Lennox has done the opposite of several times promoting God, the existence of God and other bible related books.
b)> Religious brainwashing is big business, just like Stephen Hawking’s book which wakes people up to reality is.
c)> Just like people are curious to how the mind of intelligent, brainwashed, delusional people like Lennox think, people want to know how rational, freethinkers like Hawking think.
d)> Lennox speaks like Hawking has committed some sort of crime.
Well what are we to think? Is that it then? Is there nothing more to say? Should all clerics resign and all churches close? Has the “grandmaster of psychics” check mated the grand designer of the universe? It certainly is a grandios claim to have banished God. Afterall, the majority of great scientists in the past have believed in him and many still do.
(8 min 8 sec)
a)> Actually most scientists do not believe in God and it is quite overwhelming how many do not.
b)> Despite what the religiously infected have tried to do to secure their delusions.
Galileo, Kepler, Newton and Clark Maxwell to name a few. Were they really all wrong on the God question? Now Stephen Hawking is arguably the worlds most famous living scientist. He has recently retired from the professorship at Cambridge. A chair once held by Sir Issac Newton. He has occupied that position with great distinction. He has been made a companion of honor by her majesty the Queen.
(8 min 37 sec)
a)> The people mentioned by Lennox above may of course be scientists, but this still does not hide several facts:
(1) Religion is still brainwashing.
(2) The people he mentioned were all brainwashed.
(3) People who are brainwashed do not know they are brainwashed.
(4) If people knew they were brainwashed, then they wouldn’t be brainwashed.
(5) There is nothing to support that christianity, or any other religion is true and any “evidence” can easily be exposed as MEANINGLESS, or false.
(6) All religions are strictly faith-based and have been created through brainwashing and lies.
b)> Lennox needs to prove he is not brainwashed, or show how Atheists ARE.
He has also been an outstanding symbol of fortitude. Having suffered the ravages of motor neuron disease for over forty years. And for many of these he has been confined to a wheelchair with his only means of verbal communication a specially designed electronic voice synthesizer, whose instantly recognizable voice is known all over the world.
(9 min 4 sec)
And in a runaway best-seller “A Brief History Of Time” Hawking brought the recondite world of fundamental physics to the coffee table. Although many people have confessed to finding the contents rather beyond them. It has been called the most unread book in history. This book was followed by several others of the same vain, which attempted successfully to excite a wider readership with a buzz of great science.
(9 min 34 sec)
a)> What Lennox fails to say is what he thought of “A History Of Time”.
b)> It would have been interesting to know what he agreed with in that book.
And since his books deal with the origin of the universe it is inevitable that he should consider the matter of the existence of a divine creator. A Brief History Of Time left this matter tantilizingly open. By ending with the much quoted statement that “if physicists were to find a theory of everything, that is a theory that unified the four fundamental forces of nature, we would know the mind of God”.
(10 min 3 sec)
a)> Obviously Hawking has come to a different conclusion since he wrote that.
b)> He isn’t going to change the line in every book that’s already printed.
Now in this latest book, Hawkings “emretisense” has disappeared. And he challenges belief in the divine creation of the universe. According to him it is the laws of physics not the will of God that provide the real explanation as to how the universe came into being. The Big Bang he argues was the inevitable consequence of these laws.
(10 min 28 sec)
a)> Well Hawking is a scientist and he has pretty good reasons for saying what he does.
b)> This makes sense:
c)> While nothing and I mean NOTHING about the bible, or christianity, or Yahweh, or Satan, or Jesus, or even Allah makes ANY sense.
I quote “because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing”. Now the title “The Grand Design” will suggest for many people the existence of a “grand designer” but that is exactly what the book is designed to deny. Hawking’s grand conclusion is spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing. Why the universe exists. Why I exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.
(11 min 8 sec)
a)> The title is obviously meant as a sarcastic shot at the term “intelligent design”.
b)> The title is also obviously a sarcastic shot at the wonders of the universe.
I wish to engage this evening not with Hawking’s science, but with what he claims to deduce from it. Regarding the existence, or rather the non-existence of God. Over the years of course other scientists have made similar claims. Maintaining that the awesome and sophisticated complexity of the world around us can be interpretted souley by reference of the basic stuff of the universe, mass energy, or to the physical laws that describe it’s behavior, such as the law of gravity. Hawking now joins such scientists.
(11 min 51sec)
a)> Well it is a rational logic based way of thinking that they have isn’t it John?
b)> Everything you just listed does have logical conclusions doesn’t it John?
c)> It beats every single illogical aspect of christianity and fits with reasonable formulas and possibilities.
And his book opens with a list of the big questions people have asked through the ages. “How can we understand the universe for which we find ourselves? What is the nature of reality? Where did all this come from? Did the universe need a creator?”
Now when one reads these questions eminating from such a famous person, the imagination is instantly excited with the anticipation of hearing a world class scientist give his insites on some of the profoundest questions of philosophy.
(12 min 22 sec)
a)> This is the most mind blowing hypocritical remark I’ve ever read that wasn’t in the bible.
(1) Everyone in that room is listening to Lennox for the exact same reason that Lennox is suggesting Hawking is doing.
(2) Lennox is using his credentials as someone who is supposed to be “an extremely intelligent, extremely educated human being” to push his brainwashing on other people.
(3) The difference is that Hawking simply put out a book with what he felt made sense, had logic, had some things he worked out and yes, maybe even had some OPINIONS in it.
(4) Through looking thoroughly I cannot find one single rebuttal Hawking made, which shows how little he cared about pushing his beliefs on anyone.
Lennox continues again….
Well if that is what we expect then we’re in for a slight shock. Because in his next words Hawking dismisses philosophy. Referring to his list of questions he writes “traditionally these are questions for philosophy. But philosophy is dead. It has not kept up with modern developments on science, particularly in physics. As a result scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.
(12 min 52 sec)
a)> John you’re being very petty and nit-picky.
b)> Hawking is obviously saying that people should look to the future with science and put superstition and myth behind us.
c)> This is obviously what the premise of his whole book was about. To push people out of the past and into the future.
d)> Is Hawking being fraudulant? NO!
(1) He’s saying what he thinks is logical and makes sense and puts wisdom and a message into what he says.
(2) Meanwhile, evangelists are demanding BILLIONS and scamming people out TRILLIONS!
(3) I could very well be wrong but I don’t see John attacking Pat Robertson because of his blood diamond and charity scandals, or speaking out against human atrocities that happen because of religion.
(4) I don’t see Lennox defending gays, or criticizing famous evangelists for what they say about them.
– I’m not aware of Lennox saying how, or why God would LOGICALLY care about anyone being gay, or having a foreskin either.
– If there is a reference to John speaking out then please send to me.
Now apart from the unwarranted hubris of this dismissal of philosophy. A discipline which is well represented in his own university of Cambridge. It constitutes to my mind rather disturbing evidence that at least one scientist, Hawking himself, not only has not kept up with philosophy, but ironically does not appear to realize that his own book is largely concerned with philosophical questions.
(13 min 18 sec)
a)> Again, Hawking was obviously making the point of moving on to the future and escaping the past.
b)> All this dwelling on this philosophy issue you’re doing John is probably only making Hawking wish he could laugh out loud without a computer.
c)> Hawking cares as much about what you think John about his philosophy bashing, as rich evangelists do about banking millions and nailing hookers.
Firstly his statement “that philosophy is dead” is itself a philosophical statement. And that is going to be a kind of light motive ladies and gentleman for my logical analysis of his arguments this evening. But the view that scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery is not far removed from the philosophical view called “scientism”. The view that science is the only way to truth.
(13 min 49 sec)
a)> Seriously John?
(1) How about the Martin Luther statement “reason is a whore”?
(2) How about George Bush telling people “that God told him to invade Iraq?”
(3) How about speaking out against faith healers instead John?
– What’s their philosophy John? All you need is God?
– Don’t take medicine, or see doctors?
– All you need is prayer?
b)> How about your “philosophy” how your religion and God aren’t false because you have logic and evidence?
(1) This makes you the biggest fool and hypocrite of all John.
(2) Your evidence is faith based.
(3) You can’t prove you aren’t simply indoctrinated and brainwashed.
(4) There isn’t a single thing in your entire bible that can’t be contradicted as being unprovable, or meaningless.
(5) You can’t prove God.
c)> Who’s gonna save the world John, science, or religion?
(1) If humans ever want to spread out, explore the galaxy to save themselves, it won’t be theism, it will be scientism John.
– Yes I know the meaning of scientism.
– I know believing in real science will save lives and cure, not belief in “magic.”
That is a conviction characteristic of the secular movement known as “the new Atheism”. Although it’s ideas are mostly only new in the aggressive way that they are presented, rather than in their intellectual content. For any scientist, let alone a science super star to disparage philosophy on the one hand and then it wants to adopt a self contradictory philosophical stance on the other, is not the wisest way to begin a book.
(14 min 17 sec)
a)> Hawking is no more a New Atheist than you are a champion of human rights John.
b)> John your derogatory comment about New Atheists and your misleading attempt at stupifying them is quite deceiving, aswell as flat out wrong.
c)> I know I’ve heard you in an interview say how you agreed with a lot of what New Atheists say.
d)> If writing books is aggressive to you John then again I wonder why I can’t find anything about you attacking, or speaking out against your own religions atrocities in strong stances, or large public platforms.
(1) Saying “Jesus was against anything evil” isn’t an answer for a defense by the way, for you ONLY speaking out against Atheism.
(2) You can’t say “that not speaking out against your own religion has nothing to do with the discussion” (in case you were thinking that).
– It proves you’re brainwashed for not speaking out against your religion and are only into defending it’s existence.
e) Amusing again how you mislead people into thinking New Atheism is pointless and stupid.
f) Here is a list I made a while back about why I hate and fear ALL religion:
Reasons I Hate and Fear ALL Religion:
#1) Religion causes people to kill to appease a god & millions die every year in gods name. Billions have died to appease a god throughout the milleniums.
#2) I fear religion as should you, because crazies are out to kill YOU & EVERYBODY you know all FOR their god.
#3) People waste their lives for nothing. They could have reached their potential, but never will. So sad.
#4) Religion causes people to hate & to cause suffering to others & encourages it.
#5) Religion causes people to just be weak & pathetic. Not find inner strength, causing more brainwashing to themselves.
#6) Religion hinders progress in society. Such as discouraging science & stem cell research. This causes millions to die because religion won’t allow many sciences to function.
#7) Religion is slavery and addictive. People are slaves to a non-existent master. Doing ridiculous guidelines that no rational person would do.
#8) Religion takes away peoples rights. Examples: Gays everywhere and woman in muslim countries. Let’s also not forget Atheists.
– Please tell me how my list doesn’t show why New Atheists speak out against religion with good reason John?
Noble Lauriet Sir Peter Medawar pointed this out long ago in his excellent book “Advice for a young scientist” that ought to be compulsory reading for all scientists. There is no quicker way he writes for a scientist to bring discredit upon himself and upon his profession and roundly to declare particularly with no declaration of any kind is called for that science knows, or soon will know, the answers to all questions worth asking.
(14 min 45 sec)
a)> John you’re seriously a true artist at suckering and misleading people, while smearing other people to look like idiots.
b)> You have a skill that would have made you an excellent politician. Bravo.
c)> Like William Lane Craig you are just as slippery and manipulative with your words that I can only compare it to a magician’s slight of hand.
(1) People watching and listening to you have no idea how you are playing them.
(2) To actually see what you’re doing John, you have to look at your words in text just like you have to watch a video of the magician’s slight of hand in slow motion.
d)> In what way does Hawking say he knows everything John?
(1) That’s YOU John putting that assertion into everyones heads that Hawking is saying he knows everything.
(2) Hawking is merely throwing theories out there of what he has deduced and theorized and what scientist DOESN’T do that?
e)> In true hypocritical fashion John you are attacking Hawking for saying he knows everything (he isn’t) while throwing the assertion at us that GOD is the answer to everything.
f)> Let’s go down the list of how you’re a hypocrite John:
(1) You’re INSISTING that God created the universe, no if ands, ors, or buts.
(2) You’re INSISTING that everything in the universe was designed by God.
(3) You’re INSISTING that Jesus was a real person and not a made up fabrication, or someone based on myth.
– The several well educated and unbrainwashed and unbiased scholars who say otherwise would also call you a hypocrite aswell.
(4) You’re INSISTING that the historical version of Jesus was really the omnipotent master of the universe.
– There are several well educated scholars who would disagree with you there also.
(5) You’re INSISTING that God killed himself as Jesus to save us from himself and that that somehow makes sense.
– It makes no sense.
– It’s beyond stupid.
And that questions which do not admit a scientific answer are in some way non-questions, or pseudo-questions, that only simpletons ask and only the gullible profess to be able to answer. Medawar goes on to say the existence of a limit to science is however made clear by it’s inability to answer child-like elementary questions having to do with first and last things.”
(15 min 12 sec)
a)> Again John that attacks what you say more than it attacks Hawking.
b)> As someone like yourself who fancies himself a scientist you know that science welcomes being proven wrong.
(1) You might have noticed the word “THEORY” in M-theory.
(2) You might have noticed it isn’t called “M-final definite answer”
c)> So Hawking’s THEORY is offensive to you BUT….
(1) You had to write an entire book attacking him and make multiple public speeches.
(2) You believing your imaginary friend that you were brainwashed and indoctrinated to believe in since birth should not be challenged because that is just aggressive “New Atheism”.
(3) You then condescendingly attempt to mock Atheists for doing the same thing you are doing John.
d)> Every time you attempt to label Hawking a hypocrite just makes you a hypocrite many times more than Hawking John.
Questions such as how did everything begin? What are we all here for? What is the point of living? He adds that we must turn imaginitive literature and religion for the answers to such questions. Now it seems to me that this point that science has it’s limits is extremely important. And I speak as someone who’s passionate about science.
(15 min 34 sec)
a)> John you might tell us you have a passion for science but it is my personal opinion that that is nothing but a flat out LIE!
b)> Science AND math to you are nothing more than a profession and are something which luckily for you, that you are extremely skilled at.
c)> Your PASSION is your religion and your even greater passion is apologetics.
(1) Your educational achievements are nothing but a tool you use for credibility to make people listen and take all your opinions as FACT.
(2) Some person who is a high school dropout, who’s only scrubbed toilets and flipped burgers at McDonald’s could only be an evangelist, or basic preacher.
(3) For someone to do apologetics though you have to have an education, or demonstration of knowledge which you use with your brainwashing people skills.
(4) Your a man with an agenda John, who’s passion and agenda are one and the same.
d)> The difference between you and me with our goals John is that this isn’t my passion, or my agenda, I would really like to escape this New Atheism, but because of people like you and your tactics I can’t.
(1) Thanks for depriving me of having a normal life by the way and taking up so much of my time because you couldn’t just keep your mouth shut and keep your world destroying delusion to yourself.
e)> What you failed to mention John was that in Peter Medaware’s book “The question of the existence of God” that Medaware stated he didn’t believe in God but wished he did.
(1) In his 1984 book Medawar says the following:
“I believe that a reasonable case can be made for saying, not that we believe in God because He exists but rather that He exists because we believe in Him… Considered as an element of the world, God has the same degree and kind of objective reality as do other products of mind… I regret my disbelief in God and religious answers generally, for I believe it would give satisfaction and comfort to many in need of it if it were possible to discover and propound good scientific and philosophic reasons to believe in God… To abdicate from the rule of reason and substitute for it an authentication of belief by the intentness and degree of conviction with which we hold it can be perilous and
destructive… I am a rationalist—something of a period piece nowadays, I admit..”
(2) The book that you quoted John was written in 1979. Obviously he had done some thinking and come to a different conclusion 5 years later. Signs that the man truly was brilliant.
(3) I also wanted to point out that Richard Dawkins commented on how Medawar was one of his favorite scientists. Probably because of Medawar’s work that promoted natural selection.
I like to imagine it this way. Here’s my Aunt Matilda and she’s baked a beautiful cake and all of you are Nobel prize winners. And I invite you to analyze the cake. So the chemists will tell us about it’s elements and the biochemists will tell us something else and the physicists will reduce it to quarks and leptons and the mathematicians will say nothing because theirs no Nobel prize in mathematics.
(15 min 58 sec)
a)> I just love how you have created such a ridiculous scenerio with the cute little thing with your Aunt Matilda and the cake.
(1) The brainiacs you describe (hypothetical, or not) would be analyzing the cake why? Because you asked them to? Again… why?
(2) Okay John forgive me, but I have to throw a petty personal attack in here to say this is soooo pathetically dumb.
(3) I know I’m out of line and makes me look badly but I’m sorry, but now you’re just being stupid.
(4) I can see how the audience might find the scenerio of a plump, unkept old man with the big smile and dramatic mannerisms amusing though. It’s a good distraction to your empty argument.
John continues his pointless nonsense….
But suppose we’ve got a wonderful scientific analysis of this cake. And then I say ‘now ladies and gentleman, Nobel prize winners all, just before you go, I have a further question for you. Why did she make the cake? And she begins to grin because of course she knows. But you can see immediately can’t you that unless she reveals it to us we shall never know. Not by the most profound scientific analysis including the scanning of her brain.
(16 min 31 sec)
a)> John you really are throwing assertions aren’t you and again making yourself an embarrassing hypocrite?
(1) There’s nothing to say that evidence doesn’t exist, or clues? That is a simple assertion that you have made us believe.
(2) If you’re telling us with 100% certainty that only she knows, you aren’t saying that you don’t know the reason why, but asking us to guess as a method of demonstration.
(3) So logically it can only be assumed that the reason she baked it is to painfully subject people to this stupid demonstration which you thought out since why would your aunt be feeding the brainiacs cake with a big grin unless it was just to show your point?
John continues his silly point….
It’s pretty obvious then isn’t it? And yet when she does let us know, we shall use our rationality to see if what she reveals to us makes sense. That’s a very simple illustration, but it helps to answer another contemporary confusion this whole debate, that the idea of revelation is somehow “anti-reason”.
(16 min 59 sec)
a)> What are you even talking about John with “anti-reason”? LOL Seriously?
b)> First off John let’s talk about your own “anti-reason”.
(1) Wouldn’t it have just made more sense by just saying “guess what number I’m thinking of and you only get one guess?”
(2) If there’s no clues and only you know, then obviously you have to tell us, or we won’t know right?
(3) You just wanted your aunt and the cake for effect though right John?
(4) Was it that, or you just wanted to confuse us with cute little irrelevant information?
c)> You went from talking about how science has limits to something like mind-reading that we are only years away from doing…. THROUGH SCIENCE!
John continues again about his aunt….
It’s not with Aunt Mattilda. We use our reason on the world about us, on the cake. We also use our reason on what is revealed to us by Aunt Mattilda. And of course the early scientists who believed in gods two books. The book of nature and the book of his word thought the same way.
(17 min 19 sec)
a)> Yeah John we know about how we use deductive reasoning to figure things out, thanks for telling us that because we’re too stupid to know that.
b)> Sorry, but you really aren’t thinking things through very clearly here John.
(1) The book of “nature” as you put it is basically saying “observable scientific phenomenon”.
(2) The book of “his word” as you put it is the bible.
(3) There is nothing observable about the bible, nor was there anything observable for the myth story writers who wrote it.
c)> John this is what you’re saying:
(1) Moses observed the entire book of Genesis even though he wasn’t born yet, but supposedly wrote it.
(2) Jonah actually lived three days in a giant fish’s stomach.
(3) Samson’s long hair gave him super human strength.
(4) That the entire Exodus story happened even though history says it didn’t.
(5) That someone saw two bears kill forty-two kids for calling a guy “baldy” and knew it was God’s doing, because God is just so great that it kills kids.
(6) That the four unknown authors of the gospels with their multiple contradicting stories which history has no record of, are accurate 30-80 years later from his supposed demise.
(7) That eleven of the twenty-seven New Testament that are said to be forgeries are not forgeries.
(8) That the hundreds of other stories which make no sense and have no historic credibility were somehow real.
(9) That the bible isn’t completely repulsive after watching this short 10 minute video:
d)> John if you actually believe 1-9 above then I have some swamp land in Florida and I really do fly around in a red and gold metal suit.
e)> If your bible was even remotely reasonable in the first place they wouldn’t have had to remove 80 books from it because of how vile and ridiculous they were would they?
John continues his overwhelming wisdom….
They used their reason on both because both can be regarded as sources of information. And it seems to be important that we do not think that people, like myself who stand in the christian, are shutting their brains, when it comes to the understanding of what claims to be revelation.
(17 min 40 sec)
a)> John I hate to tell you this but it’s people like YOU that show me how out of touch with reality christians, or any sort of religion are.
b)> When you say “shutting your brain down” John, this isn’t what you mean right?:
(1) Not acknowledging things to be completely nonsensical and laughably fictitious in your holy book and religion.
(2) Believing what you believe because you’ve been unknowingly brainwashed and mentally conditioned to reject logic and common sense?
(3) Being an oblivious puppet of the world’s oldest criminal organization THE CHURCH and being nothing more than a tool to them, who brings them more sheep to “fleece”.
(4) That believing a being such as God, who you apparently think is omnipotent and so full of love would be responsible for things like this:
– Also the fact that you can’t find, or see any fault in your “god” and refuse to do so because of what your friend Christopher Hitchens appropriately named “thought crime”.
Science is limited and Francis Collins director of the National Institute of Health and former director of the human genome project is very clear on it. “Science is powerless to answer questions such as why did the universe come into being? What’s the meaning of human existence? What happens after we die?”
(18 min 0 sec)
a)> Well that’s great John, you went and quoted someone’s opinion who agrees with you and happens to be a brainwashed godbot just like you.
b)> How about I quote non-believers in science also? Would you like that?
Neil deGrasse Tyson maybe?
““The more I learn about the universe, the less convinced I am that there’s any sort of benevolent force that has anything to do with it, at all.”
“I want to put on the table, not why 85% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject God, I want to know why 15% of the National Academy don’t.”
“Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? Because if it is, here’s a list of things in the past that the physicists at the time didn’t understand [and now we do understand]. If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on – so just be ready for that to happen, if that’s how you want to come at the problem.”
How about Lawrence M. Krausse?
“If we wish to draw philosophical conclusions about our own existence, our significance, and the significance of the universe itself, our conclusions should be based on empirical knowledge. A truly open mind means forcing our imaginations to conform to the evidence of reality, and not vice versa, whether or not we like the implications.”
― Lawrence M. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing
c)> That is good substance for your seminar though I guess eh John, quoting other people who agree with you?
d)> At least William Lane Craig quoted scientific theories that opposed his own view and he is as biased, manipulative and misleading as they can possibly be.
So there’s clearly no inconsistency and being a scientist at the highest level. Passionate about the subject and recognizing that science has it’s limits. In fact many scientists would confess that part of the power and success of science is because it limits itself to a certain grid of questions.
(18 min 24 sec)
a)> Really John? Science has limits? What kind of attitude is that? In my personal opinion isn’t limiting ones self sort of mentally restrictive?
b)> So you haven’t thought that that might be the wrong sort of dogma to have? The science has limits part I mean?
c)> You’re saying that we should limit our thinking to what we’re capable of whether it be now, or future technological advancement?
d)> So what is it exactly that science should limit itself to exactly to what we can’t do?
(3) Warp travel?
(4) Worm hole passage?
(5) Time travel?
(8) Shrinking and growing matter?
(9) Creating matter from nothing?
(10) Turning lead into gold?
(11) Reaching the edge of the universe?
(12) Travelling before the Big Bang to see what existed?
(13) Travelling to other universes?
(14) Creating other universes?
(15) Realizing what happened to every single molecule that ever existed, or that will exist in the entire universe consciously through thousands of years of scientific evolution!
(16) Knowing every single conscious thought ever made by anyone in the universe?
d)> I personally don’t see the wisdom in limiting ones self, or peoples scientific potential without knowing what we are capable of doing.
e)> What I do have a problem with is how people like yourself can put limits on science, but no limits to the supernatural, when the entire story that involves what YOU believe in makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
(1) You’re too arrogant to accept the possibility you are brainwashed.
(2) Too oblivious to see that your entire belief makes absolutely 0% sense.
(3) Too limited in thought to see that the people who brainwashed you are wrong, the people who brainwashed them are wrong and the people that you help brainwash are victims of brainwashing just like you.
(4) You base everything about your belief on the “beginning” and creation, but aren’t simply a deist, you’re a theist.
f)> Just another example John how your religion has brainwashed and then BRAIN DAMAGED you to carry on that limited sort of thinking.
(1) I mean that your religion has mentally conditioned you to bypass logic and accept things on faith OUTSIDE of your religion also.
(2) You have been mentally conditioned to believe that science has limits, because of God. No other reason, just “God”.
Now Hawking’s inadequate view of philosophy soon shows itself in an inadequate view of God. He writes “ignorance of natures ways lead people in ancient times to invent gods that lorded over every aspect of human life.” He then says “that this began with ancient Greek thinkers like Thales of Miletus about 2600 years ago.”The idea arouse he writes “that nature follows consistent principles that could be deciphered and so began the long process of replacing the notion of the reign of the gods, with the concept of a universe that is governed by the laws of nature and created according to a blueprint we could someday learn to read”.
(19 min 9 sec)
a)> John John John. Please tell me what isn’t true in the above things that Hawking has listed.
b)> There were gods invented over every aspect of human life in ancient times and if you say there weren’t then you’re a liar.
(1) I will give you credit though and just assume you’re a liar.
(2) You’re going to look people in the eye John with a straight face and pretend you aren’t aware of these over 3000 worshipped deities in history?
(3) What else do you know John that you aren’t telling people?
c)> Now my mind is boggled at how you can also look people in the eye and mock the fact that Hawking is saying “people started to observe the natural effects of the universe and that’s how scientific study started”.
(1) What part of this isn’t fact?
(2) Why are you trying to pass this off as amusing when it isn’t?
(3) How isn’t that true? It’s kind of general common sense isn’t it John?
(4) You really had that room full of sheep thinking just what you wanted though didn’t you John?
– You truly are brilliant at what you do, but not in the way people think.
d)> Since when did stating simple facts become a philosophy?
Hawking is surely not expecting us is he? To fall for the common trick of rubbishing religion by rubbishing primitive concept of God. Yet whether delibrately, or not, he confuses God, with “the gods” and that inevitably leads him to a view of God as “a god of the gaps” who can be displaced by scientific advance. The kind of idea there is once we thought that thunder was the voice of the gods, but now we’ve studied electricity and air movements and so on and we now have a scientific explanation. And so as science advances, God retreats, until he eventually disappears.
(19 min 52 sec)
a)> That is just so amazing John how you can just simply go “you can’t actually believe that Hawking thinks we’re this stupid” and people just eat up what you’re saying by the shovel full.
b)> Even more amazing is how your technique of addressing Hawkings points you quoted is by simply DISMISSING THEM.
c)> What you said doesn’t make what Hawking said untrue, it just says that you would like people to dismiss it and think it untrue.
– You’re very sneaky John.
– The people listening are like puppets on strings.
But that view of God is not found in christianity, or any monotheistic religion. Where God is not a god of the gaps he is the author of the whole show, nor incidentally is he the god of the deists who lit the blue touch paper to start the universe going and then retired to a vast distance. God both created the universe and constantly sustains it in existence. Without him there would be nothing for physicists like Stephen Hawking to study.
(20 min 25 sec)
a)> Ok John I just love how everything you say in the above section is nothing but opinion only (in the next section also I might add).
(1) Opinion from your indoctrinational brainwashing.
(2) Opinion you are trying to pass off as fact.
(3) Opinion you are basing on nothing more than than the fact you want it to be true.
b)> Let’s look up how your god Yahweh is NOT “god of the gaps” then shall we?
(1) You say God is responsible for the creation of the universe and the Big Bang.
– Big gap.
(2) You say God is responsible for the laws of the universe.
– Big gap.
(3) You say God is what deals with people in an afterlife.
– Big gap.
c)> Still nothing other than opinion from you regarding deism John.
(1) You’ve given multiple opinions of things that explain nothing more than deism John, but as for being a theist you’ve given even worse opinions that you try to pass off as fact.
(2) No evidence that your religious stories are true and despite the fact that several scholars say there was a historical Jesus, there is no evidence he wasn’t just a hose-head who ticked off the romans and greatly regretted it.
(3) Again reminding you also:
– The mythicist scholars
– The forgeries
– The contradictions
– The lack of evidence
– You’re brainwashed
– Part of being brainwashed is not being able to see you are brainwashed
d)> As for your comment about sustaining the universe:
(1) More opinion only.
(2) No evidence of this.
(3) That sure doesn’t explain:
– Earth quakes
– Unhabitable areas
And of course…..
– Black holes
And in particular, God is the creator both of the bits of the universe we don’t understand and the bits that we do. And of course when we think about it, it is the bits of the universe we do understand that give the most evidence of God’s existence and activity. Just as our admiration of the genius behind a work of art, or engineering increases the more we understand it. So much worship of the creator increases the more I understand the universe he has created.
(20 min 55 sec)
a)> So the more you know, the more you believe in God eh John? No.
(1) Zero evidence of God.
(2) Zero evidence of your religion.
(3) Zero evidence you aren’t brainwashed.
b)> The constants of the universe change and fluctuate so that evidence is out the window.
c)> The multi-verse theory still makes lots of sense and explains every loose end.
d)> Still nothing about your bible, or religion making the slightest bit of sense.
(1) That isn’t my opinion, that is FACT.
(2) There is yet to be any biblical evidence I haven’t found to be fake, or meaningless.
(3) I’m sure you’ve heard of Ron Wyatt John.
(4) Yes John that goes for Jesus too:
So that when Isaac Newton discovered his law of gravity. He did not say “ah, now I know how it was done. I don’t need God. No he wrote the most brilliant book in the book of science ” Principia Mathematica”. Hoping that a thinking person would as a result of it come to believe in a deity. It was in that same spirit that James Clark Maxwell, who according to Einstein is 2nd after Newton in the history of science is a towering intellectual figure. Had carved on his cavendish laboratory in Cambridge. “Great are the works of the lord sought out by those who delight in them.”
(21 min 38 sec)
a)> He hoped a great math book would help people see a god? Really? How?
b)> Great explanation about how the math book made people see God John. Sarcasm big time.
c)> I think you really gotta start putting some thought into this brainwashing issue I keep mentioning.
(1) Newton was brainwashed and didn’t know it.
(2) Maxwell was brainwashed and didn’t know it.
(3) You are brainwashed and don’t know it.
d)> Here is some short articles I did on brainwashing John:
Check em out!
Please read them
Now one of the main conclusions of The Grand Design is this. “Because there is a law of gravity the universe can and will create itself out of nothing.” Now the first question to ask I think is “what does Hawking mean by nothing. Because the first part about the statement is “because there is a law of gravity”. So Hawking assumes therefore that a law of gravity exists. And one might presume also that he assumes that gravity itself exists. For the simple reason that an abstract mathematical law on it’s own would be vacuous with nothing to describe. A point of which I shall return.
(22 min 24 sec)
a)> John this argument you’re making about gravity not existing falls flat because we know it exists.
b)> Please jump off a building if you think it doesn’t exist.
c)> Obviously John he is saying “the universe didn’t need a god to come into existence”
(1) Your strategy of feigning to not know what people are talking about in order to make them look bad is a childish strategy John.
a)> Of course a mathematical formula isn’t going to make things happen John, but a formula is a “description” of how things work, but you knew that.
(1) Kinda like if you described yourself as thin, it wouldn’t make you thin.
(2) Unless of course you were standing beside a hippopotamus.
(3) For you to actually be thin though with a mathematical formula you would have to take your age, height, weight and calculate how many calories you’d have to burn in a day and subtract a few calories from the equation by exercising.
– That actually would make you thin if you used the formula.
But the main issue for now is this. The law of gravity is not nothing. And if Hawking is using the word “nothing” in it’s usually philisophically correct sense of non-being, there’s something very strange going on here. So on the face of it and this is one of the central statements in the book it seems to me. Hawking seems to be simultaneously asserting that the universe is both created from both nothing and from something.
(22 min 52 sec)
a)> John just quit it, you know what he meant, but you’re nit picking and clenching at anything to discredit and stupidify Hawking.
b)> You’re aware of the whole process that multiple scientists have agreed.
(1) You know about the multi-verse theory.
(2) You know about how the laws change in different universes and we happen to have the constants in this universe we’re in now.
(3) You know that Hawking meant “actual matter from an empty vaccum” and said “something from nothing” to simply mean “the thing that caused the Big Bang”.
(4) I know you’re familiar with the whole Big Bang process John, but I’ll just remind you of what you pretend not to be aware of:
– Continue to pretend to be oblivious though.
John continues to play dumb….
Now one might add for good measure that when physicists talk about nothing… and I don’t mean you to misunderstand that. When physicists talk about “nothing”, they often appear to mean a quantum vaccum which is manifestly not “nothing. In fact Hawking is surely alluding to this when he writes “we are a product of quantum fluctuations in the very early universe. I sometimes wonder if this might be too much ado about nothing.
(23 min 22 sec)
a)> AHAHAHA John, you’re so funny. “Ado about nothing” hysterical.
b)> Did you use the entire above section just for that punchline?
c)> Again, let’s go through this John:
– Hawking was just SIMPLY saying “what started the Big Bang?”
– He was also implying about where all the elements came from within the Big Bang process.
– You knew that though, but insisted on nit-picking about him to a bunch of people who take all your misleading opinions as fact.
– Your dramatic tone and mannerisms are well used to misleadingly make people value your opinion.
– You are a true artist at what you do.
But the situation does not seem to improve when we move on to the logic of the second part of his statement. “The universe can and will create itself”. Now if we say that X creates Y, ordinary language would tell us that we’re presupposing the existence of X to bring Y into existence. That’s a simple matter of the words X creates Y mean!
(23 min 52 sec)
a)> Uh John, this is what YOU are presupposing:
(1) You’re saying God is eternal and always existed.
(2) You’re saying God never had a beginning which makes no sense.
(3) You’re saying the universe had a beginning but God didn’t, which makes no sense.
(4) You’re saying that God needed no creator, but everything else did, which makes no sense.
(5) You’re saying that God which is (according to you) “something”, didn’t come from nothing because it always existed, which makes no sense.
b)> What you fail to mention is how God could exist eternally and have always existed.
c)> John there is nothing that you have presupposed that isn’t the equivalent of saying “just because” as someone’s whole answer.
(1) Last I checked “just because” was not an answer to anything.
(2) “Just because” is pretending to have an answer and at the same time WISHING you had an answer.
(3) A child running around the yard dressed as Spider-man says he’s Spider-man “just because”.
d)> Let me see if I can sum it up for you John:
(1) It makes no sense God existing “forever”
(2) You are brainwashed and therefore not thinking clearly, or rationally and whatever you believe in, or more to the point WHO you believe in, does not exist.
(3) Even if (hypothetically) that a “God” did exist it DEFINITELY wouldn’t be the God of the bible, it even more definitely wouldn’t be Allah and absolutely wouldn’t be Jesus!
Now if therefore we say X creates X, we’re presupposing the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. This is so obviously self-contradictory and also logically incoherant, even if we put X equal to the universe. Ladies and gentleman I submit to you this evening that to presuppose the existence of the universe to account for it’s own existence is something out of Alice and Wonderland not science.
(24 min 20 sec)
a)> You’re so funny John. I seriously burst out laughing as I read your “X can’t come from X” equation.
(1) You’re saying the universe can’t make the universe, but God can and DID make itself.
(2) You mock a scientific theory, or more to the point, you arrogantly and ignorantly just dismiss it in order to fuel a delusion you were brainwashed to that doesn’t even have a theory.
(3) X can’t create X if “X” is the universe, but if it’s God is “X” then all of a sudden that’s okay with you?
(4) You say you don’t like how New Atheists mock you? You really do deserve to be mocked though John.
(5) I mean seriously, snap out of it!
b)> Your Alice in Wonderland comparison was very hypocritical John.
(1) I say that because you remind me of Humpty Dumpty in the story by the same Author as he talks to Alice in Lewis Carroll’s story “Through The Looking Glass”.
(2) Humpty Dumpty’s words only mean what he wants them to mean, not what they are.
(3) Also, Alice in Wonderland is a fairytale story, just like the bible is.
Now it is very seldom in my experience to find in one single statement, 2 different levels of contradiction, but Hawking seems to have invented such a statement. He says the universe comes from a nothing that turns out to be a something and then he says that the universe creates itself. But this fascinatingly is not all. His notion of the law of gravity explains the essence of the universe, is also self-contradictory.
(24 min 52 sec)
a)> Seriously John? I’m in awe at your hypocrisy about contradictions.
b)> You contradict yourself over and over again in this lecture.
(1) You say nothing can come from nothing, but God can.
(2) You say there’s no evidence for Hawking’s theories. Meanwhile there is even less evidence for God, or your bible and it’s fairytales.
(3) You attack Hawking for “using his celebrity status to delude people”, while using your own celebrity status to delude people into ignoring whatever it is he says.
(4) You say Yahweh is not God of the gaps, but then attack Hawking and New Atheists for what you say they can’t know.
– Those are what we call “gaps”
(5) You quoted a book with the goal and purpose of attacking Hawking by saying he was discrediting himself and all other scientists by saying he knows “everything”.
– Since when does ANY scientific THEORY claim to be the final answer and know everything?
– The last I checked “theory” meant open window to be changed upon new evidence.
– His book is clearly about “M-THEORY.
– Notice the word “theory”.
(6) You claim when talking about Aunt Mattilda’s cake that you use reason to observe and interpret the world around you.
– While at the same time believing an entire religion that has no evidence of the god of it’s historically unrecorded stories.
– A religion which is based on completely non-sensical stories without any truth to them.
– A religion which is responsible for unspeakable amounts of evil, misery, bigotry, war and greed, all on the behalf and honor of an omnipotent being you claim is of a “divine morality”.
– Hardly the thinking of a man of reason.
Since the law of nature by definition surely presupposes the existence the nature preports to describe. I find it fascinating that in this book which says philosophy is dead. It’s key statement contains a triple self-contradiction. Philosophers just might be tempted to comment. That is what comes of saying “philosophy is dead.” Now Hawking here echoes. Peter Atkins a colleague at Oxford and a well known Atheist who believes that space time generates it’s own dust in the process of it’s own self assembly.
(25 min 29 sec)
Atkins dubs this “the Cosmic Bootstrap Principle”. Referring to the self-contradictory idea of a person lifting himself by pulling on his own boot laces. Philosopher Keith Ward is surely right to say that Atkins view of the universe is as blatantly self-contradictory as the name he gives to it. Pointing out that it is logically impossible for a cause to bring about some effect without already being in existence. Ward concludes between the hypothesis of God and the hypothesis of a cosmic bootstrap there’s no competition. We were always right to think that persons are universes who think to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps are forever doomed to failure.
(26 min 11 sec)
a)> LOL John you’re so funny.
(1) You quoted Keith Ward a brainwashed theologian philosopher.
(2) That’s funny and just so coincidental that a pastor and someone who has written over thirty books that are pro-christianity would say exactly what you believe John.
(3) If you were brought up a brainwashed muslim John, I wonder what muslim philosophers you would be quoting.
b)> Allow me then to quote New Atheist neuroscientist and philosopher Sam Harris.
– I mean, if you can quote someone who like yourself, who is brainwashed and shares the same OPINION, then I will quote someone like myself who is not brainwashed and shares reality.
Here’s a good one:
“As many critics of religion have pointed out, the notion of a creator poses an immediate problem of an infinite regress. If God created the universe, what created God? To say that God, by definition, is uncreated simply begs the question. Any being capable of creating a complex world promises to be very complex himself. As the biologist Richard Dawkins has observed repeatedly, the only natural process we know of that could produce a being capable of designing things is evolution.”
― Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation
And another from Carl Sagan:
“If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why didn’t he start the universe out in the first place so it would come out the way he wants? Why’s he constantly repairing and complaining? No, there’s one thing the Bible makes clear: The biblical God is a sloppy manufacturer. He’s not good at design, he’s not good at execution. He’d be out of business, if there was any competition.”
― Carl Sagan, Contact
(1) My quotes from these great people John were regarding logic and observation.
(2) Your silly quote was from somebody who wants his way of thinking to be true, with no reasoning involved other than “just because”.
John continues deluding people….
What perhaps all this goes to show, is that nonsense remains nonsense, even when taught by world famous scientists. But what serves to obscure the illogicality of such statements, is the fact that they are made by famous scientists and the general public not surprisingly assumes that they are statements of science and takes them on that authority. And that is why I think it important to point out and I apply the same to myself. That not all statements by “scientists” are statements of science.
(26 min 51 sec)
a)> BWAHAHA That is hilarious beyond belief John!
(1) If my laughter seems obnoxious to anyone, well my apologies, cause I just can’t help it.
(2) The quote you said John “nonsense remains nonsense, even when taught by world famous scientists” was HILARIOUS!
(3) I mean talk about hypocritical statements!
(4) Reminded me of all those people who thought it was nonsense when they thought the rapture was happening and people didn’t believe them.
b)> John everything you say about your entire religion is nonsense with not a single thing that makes any sense about it.
c)> All you are really saying John, is “if a scientist says anything that isn’t what christianity believes about the beginning of the universe, then don’t believe them.”
– That is the extent of your logic, nothing more.
d)> You apply this to yourself John? BWAHAHAHA! You really are the best!
(1) I don’t know who’s funnier out of some of the brainwashed delusionals I’ve analyzed lately, but so far you’re the champ of hilarious!
(2) You apply what? Logic? There’s not one logical thing about your entire bible, or religion that makes any sense.
e)> As for science:
(1) You simply dismiss anything that disagrees with your religion.
(2) You encourage everyone to not listen to anyone who says anything that disagrees with your religion.
(3) You were indoctrinated since birth and brainwashed beyond belief and mentally conditioned to dismiss anything that conflicts with what you were programmed.
(4) You are a slave of a lie in a prison that you don’t even know you are in, where you are the warden and also the prisoner.
And any statement whether made by a scientist, or not, should be open to logical analysis, because immense prestige and authority do not compensate for faulty logic. Now the worrying thing I find, is that this illogical notion of the universe creating itself is not some peripheral point in the grand design. It appears to be the key argument. And if the key argument is invalid, in one sense there’s nothing more to say. But since the laws of gravity plays such a role in Hawking’s argument, it might be important also to comment on the “nature of law”, because so far as I can see there are serious misunderstandings lying what he says about this.
(27 min 37 sec)
a)> Ok look John, here is what everything you’re yammering about all comes down to:
(1) God created the universe, or God didn’t.
(2) You refuse to give any acknowledgement of anything that might say that God doesn’t exist, or God isn’t the master of the universe.
(3) You are passing off your opinion only as fact and nothing else, but people listening to you can’t tell the difference.
(4) You’re very good at #(3).
b)> Ok, so what are your misunderstandings about what he says about the laws of gravity you mention John?
(1) You make it sound like you’re an authority on this and know something we don’t.
(2) Rather than withold this knowledge, please share it.
(3) Even if people listening don’t know what you’re saying, someone who is watching would know right?
(4) You aren’t telling us anything other than just “he’s wrong, I’m right” and sticking your head out a lot while having goofy mannerisms and throwing some unfunny jokes in.
– If they ever do a biography of you they should get Robin Williams in a fat suit.
Because his faulty concept of God as a “god of the gaps” now has the very serious consequence of leading him to present before the public a choice between God and science, or more accurately in his case, a choice between the god of the laws of physiques. Now of course if you think “more science and less God”, that is an Inevitable consequence of the logic of his argument.
(28 min 11 sec)
a)> Hawkings concept of God is only faulty because YOU disagree with it.
b)> Scrollup and see what I verified as “god of the gaps” again in #29
c)> The constants of the universe change John, I’m sure you’re aware of this.
(1) If there is an infinite number of universes and the constants are different in every single one, it doesn’t matter how big the number is to isolate the constants, or how big of an exponent is that allows for the conditions for life.
(2) How can any number become bigger than infinity John?
(3) Obviously we got one of the universes with the correct constants in it didn’t we John? WE’RE HERE!
d)> Your theory and evidence of God though falls flat though again John.
(1) No scientific theories about God.
(2) No evidence of God.
(3) No evidence of how you aren’t brainwashed and indoctrinated since birth to believe in your God and religion.
(4) No evidence of your bible’s stories being real.
(5) Nothing about your religion still makes any sense. None zip zero.
(6) No evidence religion is even necessary in your life.
John continues again….
Talking about “M theory” his chosen candidate for a unifying theory of physics he said “M theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing. Their creation does not require the intervention of some supernatural being, or god. Rather these multiple universes arise naturally from physical law. Now a supernatural being, a god is an agent who does something. In the case of christianity he is a “personal agent”.
(28 min 45 sec)
a)> No John, a “personal agent” is just something you have been programmed since birth to believe and makes no sense whatsoever
b)> There is no evidence of God even caring about humanities well-being.
c)> No logical reason God would do the following even IF it did exist:
(1) Have “emotions”
(3) Create an afterlife of any kind for any purpose
(4) Take billions of years to accomplish things rather than instantly if it was omnipotent.
John continues his deceptive ranting….
Dismissing such an agent, Hawking ascribes creative power to physical law, but physical law is not an agent. Hawking it seems to me is making a classical category mistake by confusing 2 entirely different kinds of entities. Physical law and personal agency. In other words the choice he faces is with is a choice between false alternatives, because it confuses 2 levels of explanation, “agency and law”. Suppose to make matters clearer we replace the universe by a jet engine and we are asked to explain it. Shall we account for it by mentioning the personal agency of it’s inventor Sir Frank Whittle, or shall we follow in Hawking dismiss personal agency and explain the jet engine by saying it arose naturally from physical law.
(29 min 37 sec)
a)> You’re unbelievable John!
(1) Hawking is saying no such thing because first off, HE DOESN’T BELIEVE IN PERSONAL AGENTS OF THE UNIVERSE!
(2) How could he confuse something he isn’t even thinking about, or thinks exists?
(3) What false alternatives? Isn’t it coincidental that every single factor that disagrees with what you believe is a false alternative John?
b)> Hawking isn’t saying the universe needed an intelligent mind John YOU ARE!
c)> Yes an airplane engine needs an intelligent mind, but since the universe has no intelligence, just randomly changing constants throughout an infinite number of multi-verses, intelligence has formed in life-forms in some of those infinite number of universes.
d)> The jet engine’s are put together through billions of years of intelligence evolving from abiogenesis and exploding supernovas and evolved experimentation and thinking.
Now this would be absurd. It is obvious we need both levels of explanation in order to give a complete description. It is also obvious that the scientific explanation neither conflicts, nor competes with the agent explanation. They compliment one another. It is the same with explanations of the universe. God does not conflict, or compete with the laws of physics as an explanation. God is actually the ground of all explanation, in the sense that he is the ultimate cause in the first place, for there being a “laws of physics” to describe. Now there’s more to this because the laws of physics can explain how the jet engine works, but not how it came to exist in the first place.
(30 min 25 sec)
a)> Well you sure have put your imaginary friend on a pedestal John based on things that you WANT to be true.
b)> Of course there is no evidence of anything you just asserted.
(1) Much like there is no evidence of your religion you have been brainwashed to.
(2) Much like you can’t give us evidence John that the only reason you believe what you believe isn’t because you are brainwashed and indoctrinated.
(3) Just like you can’t prove that if you were born in a muslim country you wouldn’t be stoning someone to death for being a christian, or an Atheist right now.
Jet engine needed the intelligence and creative engineering work of Whittle. Indeed come to think of it, the laws of physics plus Frank Whittle could not actually produce a jet engine on their own. There also needed to be some material, subject to those laws that could be worked on by Whittle. Matter ladies and gentleman may be humble stuff, but it is not produced by laws. Now the example of the jet engine can help us clear up another confusion. Science according to many scientists, concentrates essentially a material causation. It asks the “how” questions. How does the jet engine work? It asks the “why” questions regarding function. Why is this valve here? Why is this microprocessor there?
(31 min 11 sec)
a)> John now you’re just being silly.
(1) We know the airplane engine was made from material from exploding super novas that created fusion and I know that you believe in the same thing.
(2) Funny how you started talking about “the material” and then just started talking about something else.
– What was the point of bringing it up, sounding like you were going to make a point about the material, then you started talking about something else?
b)> We know what science is again John. Thanks though for explaining.
(1) You forgot again to mention that science can only examine what already exists.
(2) If it hasn’t been done yet, or we have a calculated idea of something, we call that a “theory”.
(3) Before the engine existed it was a “theory”.
(4) So what are you babbling about John about how things work? I guess you’re just wasting peoples time and trying to sound smart?
But it does not ask the “why” questions, or purpose (why was the jet engine built?). What is important here is that the name Sir Frank Whittle, doesn’t appear in the scientific account. To quote Laplace. “The scientific account has no need of that hypothesis because of what it is. But it would be very ridiculous to deduce from that that Whittle didn’t exist, because he is the answer to the question “why does the jet engine exist in the first place?”. Now ladies and gentleman I hope that all of you have noticed that scientists did not put the universe there, nor did their theories, nor did theories of mathematical physics.
(31 min 53 sec)
a)> Uh, John, we know why the jet engine was built. WE BUILT IT! Hello?
b)> John why do you waste peoples time with such silly statements.
(1) You’re asserting something you WANT to be true but have no evidence other wise to prove so.
(2) You’re telling us an assertion that you have been brainwashed and mentally conditioned since birth to believe.
c)> Why would we think that peoples theories actually do anything but show us how things do work, or might work?
(1) Do you know anyone who thinks that John?
(2) Thank you though for telling us though John, cause we’re so stupid and actually think that.
John continues wasting peoples time….
Yet Hawking seems to think they did. When asked where gravity came from he said “M theory”. But to say that a theory, or physical laws could bring the universe, or anything at all for that matter into existence, is to understand what theory is. Now scientists love developing theories involving mathematical laws to describe natural phenomenon, which enable them to make predictions and they’ve done it with spectacular success. But most are aware I think that on their own the theories and laws that they’ve found cannot create anything, let alone a universe.
(32 min 27 sec)
a)> John you’re such a misleading weasel.
(1) Hawking doesn’t think that at all.
(2) Again, we don’t believe that theories do anything other than explain stuff to us John.
(3) Scientists make theories and if they are proven wrong well that is what science is all about.
John continues to demonize Hawking….
Our physical laws are a description, usually mathematical for what normally happens under certain given conditions. This is surely obvious for the very first example that Hawking gives in his book. The sun rises in the east. But this law does not create the sun, nor the planet Earth with east and west. It is descriptive and predictive, but not creative. Similarly Newton’s laws of gravitation doesn’t create gravity, or the matter of which gravity acts, in fact it doesn’t even explain gravity, as Newton himself realized. But it’s even worse, or better, depending on your point of view.
(33 min 7 sec)
a)> John seriously? What are you babbling about? Get a grip.
(1) No we don’t think theories are magic spells that do things like turn lead into gold and give us super powers.
(2) Let’s count how many more times you say “theories don’t do anything”, or something along those lines and talk to us like we’re idiots.
Let the counting begin…..
The laws of physics cannot even cause anything to happen. Newton celebrated laws of motion never caused a pool ball to cross the table. That can only be done by people using a pool cue, in the action of their muscles. Now one can understand what is meant by saying “that the behavior of the universe is ‘law-like’ governed by the laws of nature but what can Hawking possibly mean by saying the universe arises naturally from physical law. Now another example of this basic misunderstanding of law is given by the well known physicist Paul Davis with whom I had a fascinating radio debate with recently.
(33 min 46 sec)
a)> Okay I counted three just in piece 49 here.
(1) “The laws of physics cannot cause anything to happen.”
– Yes, John we know what laws are thanks.
(2) “Newtons laws never moved a pool ball across a table”.
(3) Thank you for telling me how to play pool John I was always sinking the balls with my hands.
– No wonder people keep getting mad at me and say I was cheating.
John proceeds to stupify others now….
“There’s no need” he says to envoke anything supernatural in the origins of the universe, or of life. I have never liked the idea of divine tinkering. For me it is much more inspiring to believe that a set of mathematical laws can be so clever, as to bring all these things into being. However in the world in which I live, the simple law of arithmetic 1+1=2 never brought anything into being, I wish it did. It never has put any money into my bank account. If I put a 1000 pounds into the bank today and later another 1000 pounds, the laws of arithmetic would rationally explain how it is that I now have 2000 pounds in the bank. But if I never put any money into the bank myself and simply leave it to the laws of arithmetic to bring money into being, I shall be permanently bankrupt.
(34 min 34 sec)
a)> WOW! You sure love putting words into peoples mouths John.
b)> Where are you hearing people say this John?
(1) Are you debating yourself?
(2) Have you not been taking medication? Did you take too much?
(3) Yes John we can add and yes we know how no such interest rates exist.
(4) You might be going mentally bankrupt.
c)> Was that last 50 seconds, or so just so you could throw in that punchline?
(1) Keep your day job.
d)> Oh wait, there are people laughing at you because you’re a goofy old man and they think you’re some smart guy who knows things they don’t, but you’re just a guy who just tells them what they want to hear, because they’re brainwashed also.
(1) Carry on then.
(2) Just think of all the bad stand-up comics who wish they had your audience of people who laugh at anything.
(3) I wonder how many bad comics became mathematician apologetics speakers because of you John.
(4) Were you a wannabe comedian before you started all this religious speaking John?
C.S. Lewis with usual brilliance grasped this years ago. The laws of nature produced no events. They state the pattern to which every event if only it can be deduced to happen must conform. Just as the rules of arithmetic state the pattern to which all transactions with money must conform. If only you can get a hold of any money. Thus in one sense the laws of nature cover the whole field of space and time. In another what they leave out is what precisely the whole real universe. The incessant torrent of actual events, which makes up true history, that must come from somewhere else. To think that the laws can produce it is like thinking you can create real money by simply doing sums.
(35 min 20 sec)
a)> John seriously we get it? Laws don’t cause anything to happen they are just descriptions of how things are, WE KNOW!
b)> For like the twentieth time! We know laws and they aren’t magic spells that make money.
c)> By the way John, Lewis never said anything brilliant by saying what you just quoted.
(1) He simply said a factual truth that really was just common sense.
(2) That’s another thing I find amusing about religious people. They just cling to anything and everything that they are told proves their delusion and tell themselves it proves something.
(3) I mean when it all comes down to it, what Lewis said was as insignificant as saying “a dog defacating on the sidewalk proves God”.
– Say that and see if anyone claps and laughs John.
He continues again….
For every law says at the last resort if you have “A” then you will get “B”, but first catch your “A”. The laws won’t do it for you. I submit to you that the world of strict naturalism in which clever mathematical laws all by themselves bring the universe into existence is pure science fiction. Theories in laws do not do so. And therefore Stephen Hawking it seems to me has singley failed to answer the central question he raises. “Why is there something rather than nothing?”
(35 min 57 sec)
a)> Ugh, if only the brainwashed godbots could just see how you really aren’t saying anything John in these lectures.
b)> If only they could see that you’re just saying nonsense, saying unfunny jokes and basically just telling them what they want to hear.
c)> Too bad that the only reason they listen and believe you is because of your education, your ability of lying and misleading and that you simply just spew stuff out, dismiss anything that you don’t agree with, say you won, then act like you did.
d)> You play these people better than Hitler himself could have. I’m really glad you and Craig never got into politics John, or I would have been dead already.
– Kidding of course. I know you’d never go into politics.
Okay more quoting from John….
Allan Sandage widely regarded as the father of modern astronomy, discovered quasars, winner of the Crawford prize is astronomy’s equivalent to the noble prize is in no doubt about his answer to the question. “I find it quite improbable” he says “that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing priciple. God to me is a mystery, but is the explanation for the miracle of existence. Why there is something rather than nothing. Now let me come now to the “grand design”, because like every other physicist, Hawking is confronted with powerful evidence of design in the fine tuning of the universe.
(36 min 37 sec)
a)> Ah, John, here we go again with more quotes from people who agree with you, rather than just say your own arguments.
b)> Even worse you’re just giving other peoples opinions who are saying what you want and they just happen to be brainwashed godbots. Surprise surprise.
c)> Okay how about more Carl Sagan Quotes?
“You can’t convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it’s based on a deep seated need to believe”
― Carl Sagan
Maybe some more Neil deGrasse Tyson?
“The more I learn about the universe, the less convinced I am that there’s any sort of benevolent force that has anything to do with it, at all.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson
Sean M. Carroll maybe?
“Over the past five hundred years, the progress of science has worked to strip away God’s roles in the world. He isn’t needed to keep things moving, or to develop the complexity of living creatures, or to account for the existence of the universe.”
— Sean M. Carroll- Does the Universe Need God?
He explains. “Our universe and it’s laws appear to have a design. That both is taylor made to support us and if we are to exist it leaves little room for alteration. That is not easily explained and raises the natural question of why it is that way. The discovery relatively recently of the extreme fine tuning of so many of the laws of nature could lead at least some of us back to the old idea that this grand design is the work of some “grand designer”. That is not the answer of modern science. Our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws. Hawking therefore recognizes a grand design.
(37 min 25 sec)
a)> Oh John just quit it. Let me tell you what he meant and what you obviously know what he meant, but are just trying to mislead people.
(1) He marvels at the universe, which is his main point.
(2) He sees nothing that requires a designer in the universe, but can’t help but feel it looks that way.
(3) He knows better than to confuse sentiment and awe with rational conclusions and rational science.
(4) He knows how the religious, brainwashed deluded, can believe what they believe due to simple faith alone and nothing else.
(5) He knows all religions are based on deluded myths, brainwashing and indoctrination.
(6) He views the universe the way a tourist sees the Grand Canyon. It looks like the work of a designer, but it’s just the wearing of rock with water over billions of years.
b)> I also wanted to mention that if Hawking even cared about what you thought John, or anyone else, he wouldn’t say stuff like that about “it looks like there is a God”.
c)> Personally I think he just threw comments like that in for a laugh to get guys like you going John.
John continues the assault….
He devouts almost an entire chapter to giving extensive details of that fine tuning. Impressive evidence and it certainly fits in to what he calls “the old idea” that this grand design is the work of some grand designer. Of course it does, it fits like a glove, because there actually is a “grand designer”. Now the idea for a grand designer is certainly old, but the important question to ask is whether, or not it is true. Simply saying it is old can give the erroneous impression that what is old is necessarily false. It has been superceded.
(38 min 0 seconds)
a)> John there is no fine tuning, that is just something that is part of your brainwashing that you would like to be true.
Like your buddy Richard Dawkins says….
“People of a theological bent are often chronically incapable of distinguishing what is true from what they’d like to be true.” (R. Dawkins, The God Delusion p 108)
b)> Your fine tuning argument has already been picked to pieces.
Made completely irrelevant in more ways than one.
Secondly, it can give the further erroneous impression that no one holds it today. But some of the finest minds in science, at least one noble prize winner in physics, does hold it. The conviction that there is a grand designer is one of the major convictions in the history of human thought. That of course does not prove it’s true, but it certainly means it’s worthy of our serious consideration. Now Hawking goes there too far in saying “that is not the answer to modern science”. There are scientists who believe it, there are scientists who do not.
(38 min 38 sec)
a)> John what you gotta remember is that if someone is brainwashed they don’t know they are brainwashed.
b)> If someone doesn’t believe, or know that they have been programmed to believe something, or think a certain way, then it is extremely difficult to convince them.
c) If someone’s mind has been programmed to automatically reject logic, or rational thinking then it is highly unlikely that they are able to tell.
d) The difference between Atheism and religion believers is that Atheists can prove they aren’t brainwashed, but believers can’t.
As I show here:
e) All the believers who share your way of thinking are brainwashed, or indoctrinated. They couldn’t see reality if it gave them a prostate exam and Dr. Reality told them to cough.
f) If they weren’t indoctrinated at birth then they were caught in a moment of weakness as an adult and they allowed the brainwashing to take on a life of it’s own, feed off their fears and delude themselves at every opportunity.
But his answer is what he calls “the multiverse.” And that is the idea that there’s several many world’s scenerios and many universes, some suggest infinitely many, whatever that means? That anything can happen will happen in some universe, so it’s not surprising that at least one universe is like ours. So now we come to the second set of false alternatives. God, or the multi-verse. But as leading philosophers have pointed out from a theoretical perspective, why shouldn’t God be responsible for the multiverse. The notion that there is a multi-verse does not per se exclude a creator. Hawking doesn’t seem to mention this at all.
(39 min 24 sec)
a)> Infinity John, you know what it means.
b)> So you’re half playing dumb AND half trying to make Hawking sound dumb by saying you don’t know what “infinite worlds” means.
– Well way to go John, you’re multi-tasking.
c)> Well John you gotta admit, it does make sense what he’s saying. You can’t deny that it makes sense.
(1) Oh wait, you’ll continue to deny anything that doesn’t agree with your brainwashing.
(2) Hawkings theory sure beats your theory of “magic did it”John.
d)> Why would you think that Hawking should mention that “God might be the one who is responsible for the multi-verse John?”
(1) There’s no evidence of God anywhere EVER.
(2) All gods that are believed in are all:
– Historically false
– Based on delusions from when people didn’t know anything.
– Obviously only believed by people who are brainwashed, or indoctrinated.
(3) Why would he think God had anything to do with it when it would only be thought of by someone who is brainwashed and delusional?
(4) Hawking believes God is as responsible for the multi-verse as much as you think Santa Clause is responsible John….. or Zeus for that matter.
(5) You can’t deny “the null hypothesis” John.
But with the multi-verse Hawking moves out beyond science into the realm of philosophy, who’s death he has announced rather pre-maturely. As Paul Davis points out. All cosmological models are constructed by augmenting the results of observation by some sort of philosophical principle. Now Hawking here claiming to be the voice of modern science and the issue gives a false impression where the multi-verse is concerned. Since their very weighty voices within science that do not support his view. Prominent among them, Sir Roger Penrose. Hawkings former collaborator who shared with him the distinguished worth prize.
(40 min 2 sec)
a)> John you’re such a misleading manipulator. A good one at that. Mitt Romney could have learned a lot from you while running for president.
(1) Mitt Romney was a horrible liar who told one lie after the other while running for president and it was obvious.
(2) You sneak in a little lie here and a little lie there, but you’re such an artist at bending the truth.
(3) You keep beating a dead horse with that one little line Hawking said about “Philosophy is dead”.
(4) As I already told you though, Hawking was just suggesting that it is time to use science to get to the future and put the past behind us.
Of Hawkings use of the multi-verse concept in the grand design. Penrose recently said, “it’s over used. And this is a place where it’s over used. It’s an excuse for not having a good theory.” That’s an immensely strong statement isn’t it? I’m tempted to believe ladies and gentleman if you’ll forgive me, that belief in God seems to be a much more rational option, if the alternative is to believe that every other universe that could possibly exist, does exist, including one in which Richard Dawkins is the arch bishop of Canterbury, Christopher Hitchens the pope and Billy Graham has just been voted Atheist of the year.
(40 min 43 sec)
a)> It just doesn’t stop with you John does it? The misleading dishonesty I mean.
b)> Let’s take an exact quote from Hawkings book. Page 52 of the pdf which was sadly for Mr. Hawking free off of several websites:
“Regarding the laws that govern the universe, what we can say is this: There seems to be no single mathematical model or theory that can describe every aspect of the universe. Instead, as mentioned in the opening chapter, there seems to be the network of theories called M-theory. Each theory in the M-theory network is good at describing phenomena within a certain range. Wherever their ranges overlap, the various theories in the network agree, so they can all be said to be parts of the same theory. But no single theory within the network can describe every aspect of the universe— all the forces of nature, the particles that feel those forces, and the framework of space and time in which it all plays out. Though this situation does not fulfill the traditional physicists’ dream of a single unified theory, it is acceptable within the framework of model-dependent realism.”
c)> Hawking is saying that M- theory is a simple collection of overwhelming logical theories that if you examine them all, put things into rational perspective with overwhelming conclusions.
(1) Yes John, you and your brainwashed people will still not be swayed, but that is the fault of the people who brainwashed you who did such an amazing job.
(2) Proverbs 22:6
“Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.”
(3) They weren’t kidding about you were they John? You never departed from it.
d)> So what John? Is that a challenge about the multi-verse John?
(1) So if it can be proved that there is a multi-verse will you suddenly stop believing in God John?
(2) I sincerely doubt that if a dimensional window could be created to show us other multi-verse worlds with maybe some having different constants that didn’t support life, you would suddenly stop believing in God.
(3) If you could observe another Earth where Ozzy Osbourne is obsessed with My Little Pony, William Lane Craig is an honest Atheist and actually has a worthwhile degree in something and you’re a fitness personal trainer…. would you still believe in God?
– I think you would.
(4) Speaking of which (WL Craig).
Here is Craig admitting that if all evidence of his religion were proven false, he would still believe:
– It’s scary and disturbing how he’s telling you how to brainwash yourself, because his self brainwashing techniques worked for him.
e)> Also John I wanted to point out how Hawkings quote I posted from page 52 shown above, proves how deceiving you were that Hawking was claiming any finality about anything. Stop that.
John continues again….
Now to be serious once more, but perhaps I was being serious. Hawking’s ultimate theory to explain why the laws of physics are as they are is called “M theory”. A theory of super symmetric gravity that involves very sophisticated concepts such as vibrating strings and 11 dimensions. Hawking constantly calls it “the unified theory that Einstein was expected to find”. Now if it is and I’m not in the position to judge it. It would be a trial of mathematical physics. But for the reasons given about far from administering the death blow to God, it would give us even more insite into his creatory wisdom. Don Page a theoretical physicist from the University of Alberta, who’s a former student of Hawking and has co-authored 8 papers with him says and he gave me permission to quote his letter to me.
(41 min 35 sec)
a)> There you go again John.
(1) Hawking as shown, isn’t CLAIMING anything, he’s just presenting a collection of convincing arguments from multiple theories and helping people make their own logical conclusions from what he has deduced.
(2) You however have taken the opportunity to present Hawking as an utter moron who has done nothing but waste everyones time.
(3) I personally think it a great book myself. Very interesting, very educational and helps you really put things into perspective.
(4) Your main goal obviously is to stop people from reading it, to get people thinking it’s a waste of time, or to somehow convince people who have read it that they should ignore what he is saying and just try to forget about it.
He says “I certainly would agree that even if M theory were a fully functional theory which it isn’t and were correct, which of course we don’t know, that would not imply that God did not create the universe.” So although it does not affect my argument this evening at all ladies and gentleman, it should just be noted that not all physicists are as convinced as Hawking about the validity of M theory. Roger Penrose says it’s very far from any testability. And he says “that the grand design is a bit misleading it gives you this impression of this theory that’s going to explain everything. It’s nothing of the sort. It is not even a theory.
(42 min 17 sec)
a)> Right, it’s a collection of theories, evidence, convincing arguments, strong opinions and important facts to consider.
– Which he mentions multiple times in the book.
b)> The book is also very educational.
c)> The only person claiming anything is you John.
Indeed in Penrose estimation M theory was hardly science. But please notice Penrose’s criticisms are scientific, not theological, he is in fact a member of the British Humanist Association.Tim Radford did a wonderful review of the Grand Design.”In this very brief history of modern cosmological physics, the laws of quantum and relative physics, represent things to be to wondered at, but widely accepted, just like biblical miracles. M theory invokes something different, a prime mover, a begetter, a creative force that is everywhere and no where. This force cannot be identified by instruments, or examined by comprehensive mathematical predictions and yet it contains all possibilities. It incorporates omni-prescense, omniscience and omnipotence and it’s a big mystery. Remind you of anybody?
(43 min 7 sec)
a)> Again John, M-theory is a collection of arguments and theories to help people come to their own logical conclusions.
b)> Hawkings book is scientific, not theological.
c)> How can NOTHING, remind you of something?
d)> Sean M. Carroll wrote a pretty positive review of the book and got the messages and points that Hawking was trying to make:
Here’s another great review in the book John with a great clip of Sean M. Carroll talking about The Grand Design and the author talks negatively about YOUR article.
Move to advance the cause of Atheism by means of a highly speculative untestable theory, but is not within the zone of evidence based science and which even if it were true could not dislodge God in any case. Is not exactly calculated to impress. Now finally ladies and gentleman, much of the rational behind Hawking’s argument lies in the idea that there’s a deepseated conflict between science and religion. That is not a discord I recognize. For me as a christian believer, the beauty of the scientific description of the universe, reinforces my faith in an intelligent divine creator. Indeed the very reason that science flourished so vigorously in the 16th and 17th century under men like Galieo, (someone?) and Newton had a great deal to do with our convictions that the laws of nature reflected the influence of a divine law giver.
(44 min 7 sec)
a)> Ugh, John. Where do I begin with this pile of horse manure you’re spitting out at people?
b)> How about by pointing out that Hawking’s book and his M-theory, are a collection of theories and argument points that Hawking is saying makes God irrelevant and unecessary.
c)> Hawking is repeatedly saying he can’t disprove God, but is just adding that there are explanations and logical conclusions, which have yet to be discovered.
d)> Why are you saying “untestable” John? You again put limitations on science and man for no reason whatsoever.
– No I don’t care about what scientists say about “science having limits”, that’s quite limiting. Why should science have limits?
e)> I will again remind you of the following John:
(1) There is nothing you can show me that is evidence of God.
(2) Your religion and all other religions are based on nonsensical stories and lies.
(3) You only believe your religion because you were brainwashed to that religion.
(4) If you were raised a muslim, or another religion then that is what you would believe.
f)> I love how you say in lectures and debates that you have tons of evidence for your religion.
(1) No you don’t.
(2) Anything you think you have for evidence is wrong, or can be easily debunked, or made irrelevant.
(3) No evidence for God, or Yahweh, or Satan, Jesus being God, or divine, or even Allah existing.
(4) Your historical Jesus is completely contradicted and there is strong evidence that Jesus was completely fictious.
(5) No evidence Jesus was God, even if he was historical.
(6) Like ALL christians you are delusional:
Far from belief in God hindering science, it was arguably the motor that drove it. Now the fact that science is a rational activity, or mainly so, helps us to indentify another flaw as I see it in Hawking’s thinking. Like Francis Crick. He wants us to believe that we human beings are nothing but mere collections of fundamental particles of nature. Hawking reduces biology to physics and chemistry and concludes, it is hard to see how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law. So it seems we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion. Now that’s a debate to introduce in the last 3 minutes of a lecture in Scotland.
(44 min 56 sec)
a)> HAHAHAHA Did you actually say what I think you said John? That “belief in God is what drove science”?
b)> The church, superstition, fear of the church and corruption are what held science back for thousands of years.
c)> Should anybody say that that isn’t true, please let me remind you of a few things:
(1) Society (especially the church) killed people for things like math and science for as long as christianity has been around and thousands of years before christianity because of other religions.
(2) If people dared to present such things as science, astronomy, mathematics, chemistry, or physics, they were put to death.
– You of course heard of Giordano Bruno right?
(3) Religion is what made people think that God was the only thing there was.
d)> All this idiocy you are spouting here about religion making people produce science is complete rubbish.
(1) Your debate with Dawkins and whoever else you say this thing about “religion being the motor” to science, is an outrageous, meaningless, downright LIE!
(2) Society would have been where it is now scientifically and technologically, OVER A THOUSAND YEARS AGO if not for religion holding the world back.
(3) Considering MOST people were religious around Newton’s time it isn’t surprising that he thought of science and happened to be religious.
(4) After thousands of years and billions of potential scientific minds being discouraged, killed, fearing being killed, or taught that science is evil and eventually somebody started developing science.
(5) Like after playing the lottery for sixty years and winning something with the same numbers, playing a dollar a week, compared to say twenty people in a lotto pool playing ten dollars each with the same numbers, will get more results and more winning breakthroughs.
(6) I put these together to describe what I have observed through research to show the simplicity of our thinking John:
But let me content myself by citing a comment on the implications of this kind of determinism by Sir John Palkinghorn who taught me quantum physics at Cambridge years ago. He says this “in the opinion of many thinkers, human freedom is closely connected with human rationality. If we were deterministic beings what would validate the claim that our utterance constituted rational discourse. Would not the sounds uttering from mouths, or the marks we made on paper be simply be the actions of automata? All proponents of determonistic theories whether social, or economic Marx, or sexual Freud, or genetic Dawkins, or (someone? Wilson) need a covert disclaimer on their own behalf, accepting their contribution from reductive dismissal.
(45 min 49 sec)
a)> People are socially evolved through different factors John.
(1) Humans are socially evolved through what society has determined to be right and wrong.
(2) Right and wrong can not be rationally determined due to religion John because they are displaying morals of an imaginary story character, not their own judgement
(3) Only realistic and true comprehension of “right and wrong” can be determined if religion is taken out of the perspective and influence of thinking.
b)> Religion plays a large role in this perception of “right and wrong” John.
(1) Sexual standards
(2) Homosexual tolerance
(3) Religious influence on laws regarding “blasphemy”
(4) Human rights and gender equality
(5) Animal rights (muslims and pork, some hindus with all animals, animal sacrifices)
(c) You are fishing for things that don’t exist and make things up and pretend like they have some significance.
Hawking’s name I think could reasonably therefore be added to that list. It seems to me ladies and gentleman that the principle objection to all of this, is not so much theological, it’s that this reductionist view undermines the very rationality that we need to do science. I do not see a conflict between science and religion as such, but I do see a conflict. The conflict lies in the deeper level of worldview and so far as tonights lectures concerned, it’s a diametrical opposition between the world view of materialism and the worldview of theism. Materialism/naturalism if you like.
(46 min 39 sec)
a)> No John you are making things up.
(1) The fact that you are presenting materialism, reductionism and naturalism AS the problems with Atheism is absurd.
(2) There is a HUGE conflict between science and religion.
(3) The fact that you are representing these all as problems by themselves is even more absurd.
b)> The problem is this and nothing else:
(1) Religion is brainwashing and makes good people behave irrationally and think things that are not their own.
(2) Bottom line. People can only think rationally if not clouded by delusions that aren’t real.
And right from the ancient world we’ve been presented with these 2 world views. The ancient greek thinkers, brilliant Lucipus and Dimocritus who gave us the atomic theory. Thought that there were 2 things essentially, atoms and the void and as the atoms poured through the void they created stars the universe and life. The other world view which was supported by Plato and Aristotle and Socrates was that this material universe is not all that exists. There is God of the gods. And so those 2 views come barreling up towards us and find themselves now in great interest of the academy as your prescence here this evening indicates.
(47 min 26 sec)
a)> Again John I will remind you that you are brainwashed and indoctrinated the same way you brainwashed and indoctrinated your children.
b)> I know you don’t want to accept it John, but you only believe what you were brought up believing and any rational angle you try to put on it is simply something that you have been mentally PROGRAMMED and CONDITIONED to do and think.
c)> You’ve spread your religion like a disease, or cancer.
d)> Your worldview is merely something you have been programmed to think against your choice.
e)> Tell me how these kids aren’t programmed and indoctrinated:
(1) Were you raised any different John?
(2) Do you approve of this?
(3) Do you not see that this is child abuse?
(4) Did you abuse your kids like this too John?
So I do see a conflict. It is a conflict between these 2 world views, but I want you to notice there are scientists on each side of it. Science as the chaplin said in her introduction, I want to argue, sits much less comfortably with Atheism, than it does with theism. The materialistic worldview tells me in the end that my mind is my brain and it’s the end product to the mindless unguided process. Why then has Darwin himself worried? Why then should it tell me truth?
(48 min 7 sec)
a)> John again you’re just flat out lying.
b)> Religion is either one or the other John, it depends on the person.
(1) Half religious people are in denial of science and are anti-science at anything that disproves God, or their religion.
– The age of the Earth
– The Big Bang
(2) The other half of religious people try to say that science proves God.
(3) Either way both halves are brainwashed.
c)> Science is not anti-Atheism, science simply supports reality, not nonsensical delusion.
d)> Darwin was overwhelmed by reality John and knew what he found, but still found it hard to believe but couldn’t help but face the truth.
(1) Darwin had a hard time facing the complexity of the eye.
(2) Modern science has found how the eye evolved.
On the otherhand, there is another worldview. And that says that the reason that the scientists can understand in her mind something of the universe out there, is that ultimately the origin of both goes back to an intelligent creator. So we’re faced with two world views. One starts in the beginning with mass energy to particles and everything is derivative including information. The other says the exact opposite. “In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. All things came to be through him.
(48 min 54 sec)
a)> The worldview you are saying regarding “the reason we can understand the universe because of an intelligent creator is a meaningless answer.
(1) It tells us nothing.
(2) You’re giving an opinion that is supported by nothing except that people eat up everything you say even if it has no content, or value.
b)> Everything started with the Big Bang and came from that and evolved from that.
(1) You know this yourself about the Big Bang and agree with it.
(2) You know how things happened from the Big Bang and you agree with that too.
c)> Your little rant about “the word” is even more meaningless.
(1) You believe a fairytale book written thousands of years before one of the writers were even born (Moses).
(2) You blindly give this nonsensical fairytale book credibility.
(3) No sane person could believe that book unless they were brainwashed.
(4) There are no rational, or logical reasons to believe that Genesis was anything more than ridiculous fairytales.
(5) Your statement about “the word” is nothing but something you wish to be true but isn’t.
So in the 1st world view, mass energy is primary and mind is derivative. And the other world view, mind is primary and mass energy is derivative. Ladies and gentleman, it’s not simply my christianity, but my science that leads me to prefer that view to the Atheist view. And perhaps I stand in Dundee tonight. I have a fond hope. That the founding fathers of this distiguished university, deliberately gave it it’s motto. Which in Latin reads “my soul does magnify the lord.” Ladies and Gentleman thank you very much.
(49 min 54 sec)
a)> John do you actuallly expect anyone to understand what you just said?
b)> Is that how you operate?
(1) “Mass energy is primary and mind is derivative compared to mind is primary and mass energy is derivative” WTF?! does that even mean John?
(2) Is that not what you would call “completely pointless to even say in the first place”?
(3) Why say it if no one even understands what it means?
(51 min 6 sec)
Richard Carr asks:
Has Hawking considered the philosophical question, or statement that man can ask the question whether god exists, but that man can’t answer it.
(51 min 45 sec)
You’ve posed in a very dedactive manner, two alternatives, theism, or Atheism. I would prefer agnosticism, saying that we really don’t know and cannot know what lies behind and that this gives us a sense of the utter wonder and the Extraordinariness of the world without commiting us to views which I would agree with you that Atheism is absurd, but I also think theism, to me anyway is deeply unsatisfactory. I might just be content not to know and meditate on the beauty of things such as it is.
(52 min 33 sec)
(In the summer I worried that you?) your materialist and theist distinction, I wondered if you considered state of view it as in the history of philosophy up until this point that you give this lecture. The distinction between a materielistic idealist and to introduce a materialist theist dichotomy is a wrong thing to do.
(53 min 17 sec)
Why should the God debate actually matter to science? If you believe in God that’s a subjective thing. Science should carry on answering the questions the best it can, because if God comes into it there’s always a get out clause and you think that perhaps the God debate shouldn’t matter to science that much.
(53 min 46 sec)
On the theory of relativity—-oops
On the Big Bang theory, what went bang?
(54 min 28 sec)
John gives his answers….
Has Hawking considered the philosophical question man can ask whether God exists but can’t answer it? I’m sorry, but I can not know whether he’s asked that question, or not. I don’t from my recollection seem to have read anything like that. It relates to one of the later questions actually, as to what we can know and what we cannot know and I’m going to link the two. The question raised the issue of theism, or Atheism, why didn’t I mention agnosticism?
(55 min 4 sec)
I could have mentioned many other things actually sir. The limitations of time meant that I confine myself to what I see as the major polarization, but as you say, you don’t seem to be very convinced by Atheism, you think it’s absurd, you think theism has problems. That means that you have reflected on both of them and you’ve come to a conclusion. So the agnostism is an attitude toward those two world views. If you like you can include agnosticism in the world views because though most of us would admit that we are agnostic about many things.
(55 min 45 sec)
And I’m glad you mentioned it, because I would not like you to go away with the impression that I am claiming some sort of universal knowledge. I think it is very important to think like Newton did and certainly I feel like it. That when he looked at the great amount of things lying out there he said “I feel like a child playing on the sand with a few pebbles, when an ocean of undiscovered truth lies before me. The interesting thing about that quotation is that he believed there was truth out there to be perceived. And that of course is still a post modern age is still a fundamental conviction of science. There is something out there to be grasped.
(56 min 26 sec)
Now therefore there are many things we don’t know, but you went a step further and you said there are things we cannot know. But that raises a little question on “how you know you cannot know”. And it seems to me that it reflects on something I hinted after the lecture, which I hold for very important. And that is as we think of epistomology and are getting to know things. When it comes to what I’ve been talking about, that is this. What can we read off the physical universe? It is very interesting that even within the christian tradition, the apostle Paul makes it very clear that what you can deduce from the physical universe is limited.
(57 min 12 sec)
a)> Well so far all your answers have been meaningless and empty and now you’re bringing up bible verses John?
b)> That’s just what we wanted to hear John, some bible verses, they sure take the steam out of everything Hawking said and why bible verses are taught in science classes.
In his famous statement he says “from the beginning of creation, there are certain things we can perceive, not prove, you only get proof in mathematics. But can perceive in the things that are made, namely that there is a God (something?) That there is a god and that he is powerful. In other words what we might call the natural revelation is limited. You have to bring other evidence to bear. Now in this matter of what we can know and what we cannot know, we have to then raise inevitably the question, “is there any aid to the human faculty of reason.
(57 min 55 sec)
a)> “You only get proof in mathematics”? What does that even mean John?
b)> John you only perceive there is a God because you have been brainwashed to think that there is and have been mentally conditioned to believe that christian god of yours.
c)> You have also been mentally conditioned to believe in nonsensical fairytales that make no sense.
Now the point I made very briefly and I would now illuminate it once more is, that my human reason can work on the natural world. As it can work on Aunt Matilda’s cake. I cannot know, why she made the cake unless she reveals it. But if she reveals it to me I would be rather absurd to suggest I cannot know it because my scientific investigation have not given me the answer to it. Now that raises the very big question which is not the topic of my lecture tonight except obliquely, as to whether there is a being who stands in the same relation to our universe as Aunt Matilda to the cake.
(58 min 37 sec)
a)> Yes John, that is a big question, but one of which you have not proven, or given any evidence of, or your religion.
b)> You also made a book that was supposed to debunk everything Stephen Hawking said.
(1) Hawking never claimed anything.
(2) He gave his viewpoints and perspectives regarding how and why he thinks the universe doesn’t need a God and you failed to say how they weren’t possible.
(3) You changed nothing of the fact that one of the smartest men on Earth and a man much smarter than you still doesn’t believe in God and still believes the universe didn’t need a God and still doesn’t.
(4) You profited from a book that godbots probably bought a ton of and you got the credit of having published one more book.
(5) You simply proved again how religion is nothing more than making money and keeping people religious so they will keep giving money.
John continues “answering”….
And whether or not he has spoken. I believe he has, you see. So I would want to take in revelation that there are things that unaided reason cannot know, but they are revealed (something?) it doesn’t shut reason out. But what I take for what you say and it’s a very good corrective and I am grateful to you for it, that it is very important, that we never lose the sense of wonder. I do wish some of our kids had more of a sense of wonder at this universe. And anything we can do to increase that sense of wonder through science and art and so on, is well worth doing.
(59 min 26 sec)
a)> So again you say nothing John.
b)> Again you say “WOW! Look at this big old universe, ain’t it something?
c)> It all comes down to faith doesn’t it John?
– A faith that you were brainwashed to.
Now a philosopher among us has asked “why did I not split between materialist and idealist?” For the simple reason that if I was going to talk about idealism I would want to contrast that not with materialism but realism. Which really stands at the opposite end of the perspective of that and all I was wanting to say is that “it seems to me that the simplest initial level that these two kinds of explanations of the universe, that is that matter is all that exists, or that it is not all that exists. That there is a cause of it who is God, that’s a rough and ready distinction. Now what I should have said and perhaps you would have been happier with this, was that there are not simply a couple of world views, there are a couple of families of world views.
(1 hour 18 sec)
And there are subtle and important distinctions to be made between them, but since this wasn’t a lecture on philosophy I thought that saying simply what I did would be enough. Now, the Big Bang. What went bang? I haven’t a notion what went bang. Remember Fred Hoyle? He conjured up the words big bang as a joke. He didn’t like the idea of a beginning to the universe at all. He held the view of the steady state and so he was really mocking when he said the Big Bang, but I think it’s very important that we realize that the Big Bang is a label and a mystery.
(1 hour 1 min 3 sec)
What it’s saying from the perspective of the standard model of the universe is that there was a beginning to space time. Now that’s the thing I find fascinating about it because I’m old ladies and gentleman. I actually was alive in the 1960’s. And some of you weren’t. And I remember when the evidence started coming in for the hot Big Bang origin of the universe and the way in which it was opposed by leading scientists, such as the editor for Nature John Maddox who said “we must not give in to this notion of the Big Bang. Why? Because it will give too much leverage to people who believe in creation. And that was a very interesting thing to discover. A scientific advance being resisted because it fitted in with a biblical paradigm.
(1 hour 1 min 55 sec)
a)> So what John? It makes no difference and there is still no evidence of your God, or your bible.
b)> He knew the truth.
(1) Religious people are delusional.
(2) Religious people are dangerous.
(3) Why feed religious people a reason to keep being dangerous?
(4) You do remember how the Higgs Boson made all your believer buddies nuts John when they discovered “the god particle” don’t you?
– “Take that Atheists! You can’t disprove the God particle”!
– Ring any bells? It does for me.
So what I take from that and Richard Dawkins and I had a bit of a spat on it and I said “you know the bible got this right, it’s been saying for centuries there was a beginning”. He said “well what’s it now? I mean there’s a 50/50% chance. But I said “I didn’t think scientists worked on the basis of 50% chance. The question of introducing a singularity for space time began was an immense effort that produced several noble prizes including Penzius and so on. So it’s not as simple as that and I simply made the point, for the people who say that the bible has nothing to say about the material universe. Remember the bible is not a text book of science, but the things it says about the universe though few in number are highly significant.
(1 hour 2 min 43 sec)
a)> No John, there’s nothing about the bible that’s significant about the universe.
b)> The bible is useless and tells us nothing.
c)> You are a liar.
And one of them is the way it starts. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. That is fascinating. How did they know it? Well it took them til 1960 to get a grasp of it. So then. So much for the Big Bang. A couple more questions and I will stop. Have I got a moment more? But anyway. Why should the God debate matter to science? I like that question. I’ve been thinking about it since you asked it. Why should the God debate matter? Well apparently it matters, you came here this evening. But it’s a very important question because if we’re not careful we can get a very distorted impression from this evening.
(1 hour 3 min 37 sec)
a)> Ridiculous cherry picking John and even THAT part of the story was wrong.
b)> The bible implies it happened in a day, but we know it happened over billions of years.
c)> There is nothing about the bible that makes any sense and nothing about the bible that tells us any information we needed it to tell us.
For the vast majority of science that’s done in your university and elsewhere. The God question is strictly speaking irrelevant. If you are working on some biological organism and been working out how it works, what are the enzimes?What are the bio-chemical pathways? You’re not thinking at all about God and quite rightly so. The place where they overlap comes is where you are thinking often about origins and existence and what science can point to. Now one of the things I’ve been saying tonight but I haven’t chrystalized it is this. For me one of the major arguments from a scientific perspective that there is a God. Is not the results of science, it’s the fact that we can do science.
(1 hour 4 min 27 sec)
a)> This is of course a pointless and meaningless statement “God is not the results of science, it’s the fact that we can do science.”
b)> We can do science because we are the most evolved species on the planet.
c)> Sad how people including yourself think this is an acceptable and intelligent answer when it tells nothing and means nothing.
It has to do with that fundamental conviction of the rational intelligibility of the universe. Which is part of the faith. And I say that word advisedly because Einstein used it. Of all scientists we have been duped into thinking that faith is a religious concept, that it means believing something when there’s no evidence. That is doubly and seriously tragically wrong. Faith that is believing in no evidence is blind faith and that is very dangerous and the New Atheists are right to point to it. The christian faith and I can only speak for the christian faith is not blind, it’s evidence based. That’s why at it’s heart is a historic event of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
(1 hour 5 min 12 sec)
a)> Then you just proved you have nothing but “blind faith” John.
(1) There’s nothing that proves anything in the bible.
(2) Much of history proves the bible wrong.
(3) The four gospels are from unknown authors 30-60 years after Jesus supposedly died, which makes them completely unreliable.
(4) They contradict each other muliple times.
(5) History has no record of anything outside of the gospels.
(6) As for that silly part in your second debate with Dawkins about how credible the book of Luke is, well that is a flat out lie.
(7) 11 of 27 of the NT are said to be proven forgeries.
(8) Many well educated Atheist scholars say that Jesus is just recycled myth.
(9) Nothing credible about anything in the bible whatsoever.
(10) People only believe the bible because they are brainwashed.
(11) All other completely different religions have just as much faith as yours.
So it is a conviction based on evidence and that is the same as science. All scientists believe that the universe is rationally intelligent. You wouldn’t do any science if you didn’t believe it. And as (Palkinghorn?) points out, science is powerless to explain it’s faith in the rational intelligibility of the universe, because you can’t do any physics until you believe it. So why should it matter to science? I think it matters because people are concerned about who they are. And our identity is in part given to us by our pasts. A person who forgets their past who has amnesia often forgets who they are. You have to build up their identity by painstakingly clicking back into their past experiences.
(1 hour 6 min 2 sec)
Now the big story that each of us search for is the medanarrative of existence. And we’re all looking for it, walk into any book shop and see the shelf space dedicated to the origins of the universe. Why is there such interest? Because it’s a story into which people claim that we can fit “this is our story”. And why it matters is simply this. That many vocal people are arguing that science is the cultural authority to give us the essence of that story. And no other voice is allowed. That is “scientism”. And that I think is seriously defective.
(1 hour 6 min 48 sec)
a)> What we know and what we see are never defective John.
b)> There is no evidence for God, at all, ever and since all religions and stories are nonsensical and false, there is no reason to believe anything outside of scientism is real.
And that is why it matters I think. It matters on the biggest question of all. “Who do you think you are?” There are four more questions. I’d be delighted to take another hour, I’m going to take what’s coming to them. And what’s coming to them is Richard Dawkins knock down argument in the book the God Delusion. If you claim, he will say, after I finish all of this, and he said it to me, I’m not telling tales (out of screw?). If you claim that God created the universe, well first of all, that’s no explanation at all because by definition God is more complex than the universe you’re explaining.
(1 hour 7 min 36 sec)
a)> Of course, because there is no evidence of God ever, or any reason to believe there is a God.
b)> Since all religions are lies, there is no reason to believe any religion is real, or the gods for any religion.
Secondly, if you claim that God created the universe, then you have to logically ask “who created God?”. And who created the god that created the god that created the god and so on? Sounds brilliant doesn’t it? I think it’s very silly ladies and gentleman. Let me analyze it briefly. God is no explanation at that ultimate level, because he’s more complex than what you’re explaining. So I pick up a book. And it’s called “the God Delusion”. It’s 400 pages long. It’s very complex. But then I discover that it emanates from the brain of one Richard Dawkins. Which is infinitely more complex, at least I think he believes that, than the book itself.
(1 hour 8 min 20 sec)
a)> No John you are the one giving the silly answer.
(1) You are the one who is saying “something can’t come from nothing”, however you believe God can make things come from nothing and make everything from “magic”.
(2) You’re saying “something can’t come from nothing”, but you believe God not only came from nothing without explaining how something can come from nothing and has no beginning.
(3) I don’t think you understand the concept of “been there forever”.
(4) “Been there forever and has no beginning” is something you just don’t seem to grasp.
(5) Things can’t not have a beginning.
(6) This is what is called a non-answer because it fails to say how that is even possible that something can have no beginning.
(7) The reality is that an actual “always been there” does not exist.
So therefore by definition that is no explanation, since the explanation is more complicated than the thing you’re explaining. There’s something wrong with that isn’t there? And Brian Davis (something?) society, is just a brilliant mathematician, has just written a book on beliefs and science. And he points out the elementery fact that explanations are often very much more complex than the things you’re explaining. And he imagines an attempt to explain a paper clip. It’s very simple isn’t it? But if you could explain it completely. You have to go into steel making, paper, everything. You see we’ve been bamboozled into thinking that explanation must inevitably be reductionists from the complex to the simple. Now that is a very important methodology in science.
(1 hour 9 min 7 sec)
a)> John you don’t seem to get that God is no explanation for the following reasons:
(1) It isn’t possible for something to never have a beginning.
(2) You only are giving that explanation because you are brainwashed to that lie.
(3) There is no evidence for God, or evidence that the universe couldn’t have created itself, or function all on it’s own.
(4) Saying “God” isn’t an answer, it’s the lack of an answer.
(5) The God that you believe in is a complete fabrication made by people to scam, enslave and deceive other people.
In the words of your buddy Sam Harris:
“While believing strongly, without evidence, is considered a mark of madness or stupidity in any other area of our lives, faith in God still holds immense prestige in our society. Religion is the one area of our discourse where it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about. It is telling that this aura of nobility extends only to those faiths that still have many subscribers. Anyone caught worshipping Poseidon, even at sea, will be thought insane.”
― Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation
That kind of methodological reductionism, but ontological reductionism will not do. Because in many areas our explanation is MORE complex and that is the fun of it. Incidentally, isn’t it odd? Let me leave you with this little thing. Isn’t it odd? You see, is there a beach at Dundee? I haven’t determined that yet. There is a beach. Well you go down to the beach at Dundee and you see a few letters in your name in the sand. And you immediately infere upwards to intelligent causation don’t you?
(1 hour 9 min 47 sec)
And then you go into the laboratory and there’s a special laboratory at oxford that hasn’t been invented yet. And it’s got a magic stereoscopic microscope in it. And through it you see a double helix uncoiling and spitting off letters, C, G, A, T, T, C, G, A, A, T, C, G. Three and a half billion of them and in just the right order like a computer program. And you ask well what’s the ultimate reason for that? Chance and necessity? What? Chance and the laws of nature yes. It strikes me ladies and gentlemen there’s something odd going on. How is it that three letters of our name, in a language, spell intelligence and three point five billion letters, in a code, spell simply chance and necessity.
(1 hour 10 min 42 sec)
a)> Because John, billions of years is a long time and in those billions of years certain things have happened.
(1) Life and DNA formed and part of what DNA does is stores information.
(2) DNA was created quite naturally in the universe using elements and proteins that exist:
(3) Also DNA and organic life is formed naturally in space itself:
(4) Humans have even created DNA in labs and seen that they do evolve on their own:
Now I’m not denying that chance and necessity do a great deal, that’s not the point, it’s the question of “what is the text say?” But I haven’t answered the question. Here it comes. Who created God? Well if you ask the question “who created God”, you’re assuming that God was created aren’t you? By (something?). But what if God wasn’t created? Then the question falls. You see hidden in the question is the assumption. If I suddenly find my wallet is gone this evening after I’ve finished speaking. And I say to you “WHO STOLE MY WALLET? Well the assumption is that somebody stole my wallet, but I might have just forgotten it and my wife might tell me that that is the most likely explanation.
(1 hour 11 min 28 sec)
a)> Mere deflection from you John.
b)> Your answer “God always existed” makes no sense because it is a logical impossibility.
c)> Have you thought about why we should accept your nonsense answer about “God always existed” over Hawkings “infinite multi-verse theory where everything is correct and the constants are perfect for life”?
(1) On no evidence of your bible being true, or Jesus being God.
(2) On no evidence you aren’t brainwashed to a lie that you are indoctrinated to believe since birth.
In other words, when you ask who created God you have immediately closed down the range of possible explanations in terms of a created God. If Richard Dawkins had written a book called “The Created God’s Delusion” I suspect it wouldn’t have sold many copies. Because we don’t need him, or anybody else to tell us that created gods are a delusion. Ladies and gentlemen, the centre claim of christianity is that God already existed. The word already was, he wasn’t created.
(1 hour 12 min 4 sec)
a)> More deflection John.
b)> You’re changing the subject to something that is irrelevant, by misleading people to believe what Atheists and Hawking and Dawkins are saying is irrelevant.
c)> You are deflecting the fact that something can’t have existed forever and that that makes no sense.
d)> You are deflecting the fact that “who created God?” is a sensible question.
The universe was created. Ah, but then it’s a wicked thing in me, but then I’m Irish. All be it of Scottish descent ladies and gentlemen. But I did turn the question around on Richard Dawkins. I said that question works both ways Richard. You believe that it’s legitimate to ask “who created the creator?” Okay let’s try. You believe the universe created you. Who created your creator? I’m still waiting for an answer. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
a)> John you’re just being misleading and you know it.
(1) You know that Dawkins knows that you know what he thinks.
(2) I watched your first 2 debates with him and he told you several times what he thinks.
(3) Dawkins said this in your debate:
– The Big Bang caused the universe.
– It caused itself and the multi-verse theory makes the conditions for the constants possible.
– There is no evidence for God.
– Jesus might have been a real person, but was not God and there is no evidence that he was God.
– Evolution is 100% real.
So finally on this I will say.
a)> A believer sent me this video of you John, because I requested an example of an intelligent, rational person, who they said could show me they weren’t brainwashed.
-That was a complete failure.
b)> You proved that you are intelligent though. Absolutely you are intelligent. I was quite impressed with how brilliantly you mislead everyone.
c)> As for the brainwashing I showed repeatedly how nothing you said was anything other than one or more of the following….
(1) An outright lie.
(2) An irrelevant deflection.
(3) An opinion you try to pass off as fact.
(4) Faith based only.
(5) An attack on Atheists using other peoples quotes and opinions.
(6) All for things you “know to be real because you know the universe couldn’t create itself”. Which is again opinion.
(7) Nothing that connects christianity with the beginning of the universe with any evidence other than the belief you were raised believing.
d)> I will also say that it is people like you John Lennox that are what is wrong with this world.
(1) I don’t blame you though since you are nothing special and just another VICTIM like all the people that you have brainwashed.
(2) You are a simple slave of a lie and nothing else.
(3) You are not in control and if you knew you weren’t in control, then you wouldn’t be under control.
(4) If people knew they were brainwashed then they wouldn’t be brainwashed.
(5) Everything you said here was only from someone who is brainwashed to something without evidence and tries to pass off what he believes to people as fact, when it is only cleverly disguised opinion.
e)> The person who sent my this video also wanted this video to trash Stephen Hawking’s book and his M-theory in my eyes. It did nothing of the sort.
Here’s what it showed me:
(1) It threatened your faith John enough to write a book about it and speak publicly about it to attack it.
(2) It showed me by reading Hawking’s book that it is exactly what Hawking claimed.
– A book with a bunch of theories and ideas that show how unnecessary the existence of God is with creating the universe.
– That people need to put superstition behind us and look to the future.
f)> But mostly this….
Yes John Lennox you are definitely what is wrong with this world and really should grow up and join the future.
(1) A future with no religion.
(2) A future that encourages science and doesn’t surpress and discourage it.
(3) A future where people do what’s good for humanity and the Earth, not just to kiss an imaginary friend’s rear end.
You are not “christianity’s new poster boy” you are “deception, misleading and brainwashing’s poster boy of how harmful and dangerous religion really is”!