I'm not a cosmologist, but I don't think that's a particularly apt description of Hawking's position.

You don't know or experience God through logic. Atheists can't comprehend that truth can be attained outside of logic or reason. Trying to explain the validity of intuition to an atheist is like trying to explain the validity of empathy to a sociopath. I know because I've been there in the past and rolled my eyes when ever someone mentioned intuition.

I agree that belief in God is illogical. I disagree that it makes no sense. I see how it makes no sense to an atheist.

Wish all atheists would stop being placed in the logic and reason robot box. Dont think thats going to happen anytime soon though.

You're right. I should make the point another way. How about this:

To develop a belief in God, it has to be pursued. This pursuit must be through the development of intuition and not through the brain.

"Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find"

Still dont like it.


I didn't pursue as a child and young adult but believed without question.

I also think i use intuition and still do peruse the unanswered questions of the universe. My intuition just tells me, at least the defined Gods, are false.


Course this is all about what is intuition, but id rather not go there.

I'm talking about people that don't believe in God. Yes, for people that believe in God not everyone pursued it to the extent I have. Many rely more on faith.

Even many people that have a strong connection don't know why. If they developed their self awareness, they'd realize it is rooted in a feeling, or intuition.

Btw, yes I use intuition differently than it is commonly used. People often confuse intuition with induction. Most people lack self awareness.

What would you say to someone who's intuition led them to feel God does not exist? I certainly felt that way as a kid long before I learned about reason-based arguments, or even defined myself as an atheist. How was my comprehension any less valid than yours?

Alright.

I would say that it wasn't your intuition and it was very likely your ego causing you to feel that way. We are born into this world egocentric, some more than others. The ego is only concerned about the physical world. Like I said, you have to develop a connection to your intuition. It is very difficult to separate ego emotions from intuition.

Of course, I'm not expecting you to be convinced by me. I would think some people that read this forum are curious and open minded enough to partake in the journey. Others it seems just want to vent, debate, and win an argument. Either way, I've probably gone into as much detail as I'm willing to go into on an Internet forum. My goal was to present a perspective based on what I've learned. I think I've done that.

OK. I was just wondering how/why you believe your intuition is necessarily reliable and a mutually exclusive conclusion reached intuitively necessarily wouldn't be, without referencing a logical/reason-based argument of some kind. Obviously if emotional egocentrism is very difficult to separate from intuition that would apply to you the same as to anyone else. One way or another you're going to have to formulate a logical pointer of some kind to differentiate.

Yep that's what makes this stuff so difficult. A logical way to differentiate is not possible. Certainty is not possible. It's about courage. That's why most people who push themselves in this direction, myself included, are fueled by some level of suffering.

Ultimately, quality of life is what will differentiate. I believe living truthfully correlates with a higher quality of life. But that problem of complacency and uncertainty still remains. That is a problem that concerns me if I get to where I'm striving for and then want to help others especially because the sacrifice is so great.

I should add I can make a strong case for my position but I'm not willing to do that right now. I'm not trying to convince anyone yet. I mainly just wanted to see the reactions I would get with some of the stuff I've said since I am planning on releasing a book at some point and haven't shared this stuff with very many people. I know that's annoying, forgive me.

Which God?

The problem that us rationalists have is that you (obviously not just you) make claims about the nature of God and think that you have a clue about what s/he/it wants you/us to do.

Do you believe that God might like when you eat other humans and really hates those who have not tasted the blood of other men? Do you consider that He might like amoebas more than you and finds your immune system's transgressions against his chosen genera to be evil?

Your intuition smacks of wishful thinking that what you find pleasant and unpleasant has some goodness or badness outside of you. I can smell your intuition and wishful thinking from here. The stench clouds the air in a palpable way. I can nearly see the stench without even having a clue about which God you believe in.

No problem. Your wording just strongly suggested a false dichotomy. You apparently use a combination of intuition and logic/reason to get where you're at belief-wise, and the same can be true for atheists. As Batair said, atheists aren't robots.

This is hilariously unsupported tripe. The only ones using their intuition are the ones coming to the same conclusion you did? Quite a fair-minded approach to the discussion.

I don't actually even blame you. Its kinda like how WLC says that anyone who doesn't come to Christ ultimately has just rejected God at heart, and it has nothing to do with logic or evidence. You guys can't explain why there are unbelievers if what you say is true, so you just make stuff up.

I do believe if you guys have done all the personal development, ego separation work that I've done you would reach the same conclusion as me. Yes, that is unfair to say. I'm not making these claims carelessly, but I know there is no way of you knowing that. So, I'll just say yes I agree with you and I'm not expecting you not to question me.

As long as you know. I find myself wondering why you would say something you know to be offensive and controversial without even trying to substantiate it, however.

I don't believe in God, nor do I think it's implausible that a God does exist.
If there is a God, though, I highly doubt it's the God that's described in any known religion, and if they wanted us to know about them, they'd make it a hell of a lot clearer.

In the end I don't really care either way, I prefer not worrying about how everything came to be and rather spend the short life that I'm aware of enjoying the things that are, regardless of how they came to be.

The only god I'm sure exists, is right here on earth.

#basedgod #lilb #sweg


( A. obviously requires a lot more faith than B. because it's a ton more specific, A. probably makes more sense as an actual explanation ( rather than just "something else" ) than a lot of other explanations do, though. )

With the knowledge we have, believing anything on this subject is a pretty huge leap of faith.

Probably just variance, need a bigger sample size.

A few things.

First, it annoys me when people say "act of faith" when they really mean "which is harder to believe." They're not the same.

Second, someday I hope to meet someone who has both an accurate understanding of The big bang theory, and staunch disbelief in it. I think such a person would be interesting, and I have not met such a person yet.

Every person I know who uses "lol the big bang theory is dumb" as justification for their belief in God invariably misunderstands the theory to such a degree it's almost reasonable for them to be dismissive of it. If it actually was as the OP describes, I'd be skeptical of it too.

According to starvingwriter if I say "I have faith in my wife", what I really mean is I have a hard time believing my wife.

The ego is strong with this one.

Probably not, I'm not trying to give an exact account of Hawking's position, I'm just saying that he doesn't put a lot of importance to "events" prior to the big bang, mostly because it has no relevance (his thought not mine). He does propose a couple of explanations, but doesn't really focus on it, to my knowledge.

He explains:

"Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang."

So, unless i'm reading him wrong, he is saying that the laws of physics need not apply prior to the the big bang, so anything we see as illogical, possibly the ex-nihilo thorn, is not actually a problem.

If you agree that the belief in God is illogical, I assume you mean because God itself is illogical, that is, his existence. It does not make sense that there is a being that always was, at least when examined through our system of logic.

I'm a Christian, but there's no need to pretend like God isn't a mystery, and that it all makes sense. If you could explain how it makes sense, I think you'd be the first.

Welcome to the forum, happy posting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation