God and Stephen Hawking

[Guest]

Prof. John Lennox, Professor of Mathematics, Oxford University

http://www.discovery.org/v/2511

In his best-selling book The Grand Design (2010), renowned physicist Stephen Hawking advances the startling claim that the laws of physics make God unnecessary for the creation of the universe. Is he right? At this public talk Oxford University Mathematics Professor John Lennox will respond based on his new book God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design Is It Anyway?

_____________

_________

______

___

The God Delusion Debate (Dawkins-Lennox)

http://www.fixed-point.org/index.php/video/35-full-length/164-the-dawkins-lennox-debate

In Birmingham, Alabama, Professor Richard Dawkins and his Oxford University colleague Professor John Lennox engaged in a lively debate over what is arguably the most critical question of our time: the existence of God. The debate centered on Dawkins' views as expressed in his best-seller, The God Delusion, and their validity over and against the Christian faith. Both presenters agreed to the format and topics of discussion.

____________

_________

______

___

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1

[~candice~]

Didn't we just have a thread about how scientists allow their findings to be used to state AGAINST the God hypothesis, rather than being ignorant, out of scope or uninformed about all things spiritual?

[Guest]

Didn't we just have a thread about how scientists allow their findings to be used to state AGAINST the God hypothesis, rather than being ignorant, out of scope or uninformed about all things spiritual?

:24:

[Nakosis]

Didn't we just have a thread about how scientists allow their findings to be used to state AGAINST the God hypothesis, rather than being ignorant, out of scope or uninformed about all things spiritual?

I think wrongly so, but it sales books.

You want to make money, write and promote a controversial book.

[UndecidedFrog]

Didn't we just have a thread about how scientists allow their findings to be used to state AGAINST the God hypothesis, rather than being ignorant, out of scope or uninformed about all things spiritual?

Do you think it is science when people engage in debates about supernatural beings? IMO, no.

Do you think it is science to write and publish books about the existence of gods? IMO, no.

Do you think it is reasonable that scientists have opinions on the existence of god/s, realizing that these opinions are not science? IMO, yes.

It is always important to know the difference when a scientist is talking science and when he is not. Is anyone confusing the God Delusion as a science textbook or scientific journal paper?

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

Edited October 14, 2011 by UndecidedFrog

[Guest]

It is always important to know the difference when a scientist is talking science and when he is not. Is anyone confusing the God Delusion as a science textbook or scientific journal paper?

No Way Brother

When One Watches World Class Scientists

Mixing Up Philosophies And World Views Like Evolution And Calling It Science

One Gets A Clear View Of The True Veracity Of Mankind

And His Scientism

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.

There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.

heir line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, Psalms 19:1-4

And One Gets A Glimpse Into The Heart Of Very Confused And Very Unwise Men

Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands? Isaiah 45:9

It Amazes Me When I Read These Creeds Of Faith

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Isaiah 5:20

Put Forth As Hard And Truthful Science

And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh. Ecclesiastes 12:12

By The Professing Atheist

____________

_________

______

___

Strawberry Fields

And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Genesis 6:5

Forever

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:36

Amen

[~candice~]

It is always important to know the difference when a scientist is talking science and when he is not. Is anyone confusing the God Delusion as a science textbook or scientific journal paper?

When they say this "claim that the laws of physics make God unnecessary for the creation of the universe" it is clear that they have made a spiritual conclusion from a scientific investigation.

[UndecidedFrog]

It is always important to know the difference when a scientist is talking science and when he is not. Is anyone confusing the God Delusion as a science textbook or scientific journal paper?

When they say this "claim that the laws of physics make God unnecessary for the creation of the universe" it is clear that they have made a spiritual conclusion from a scientific investigation.

That's their personal interpretation.

If you think they are making a scientific claim, you have every right to ask them to see the data upon which their alleged scientific conclusions are based.

However, I think you can avoid misunderstanding by simply asking them if this is their opinion or fact that they are representing. I know that Richard Dawkins is very clear about the difference.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

[Guest]

However, I think you can avoid misunderstanding by simply asking them if this is their opinion or fact that they are representing. I know that Richard Dawkins is very clear about the difference.

It Is Their Form Of Apologetics

These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage. Jude 1:16

And A Quick Way To Make A Nice Piece Of Change From The Gullible

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 2 Timothy 4:3

[~candice~]

If scientists are allowed to use scientific findings to suggest we no longer need God, then why can't Christians use scientific findings to suggest that we do?

Either scientific findings can, or can't, be used to inform us about spiritual matters, you can't have it both ways, and, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.