Sounds like Hawking is more like an agnostic to me. Atheists believe firmly that there is not a god. I think they are silly, as most of them seem to make their definition of god the same as the Christians. A lot of atheists find they don't agree with Christianity and then go "I don't believe in God." And thats as far as they take it, and they consider that being an atheist.

But to even have any concept of God, even as just a theory, is not atheism. An atheist says "I do not believe in god, a creator, or a conscious/cognitive designer. I believe in science."

Not having a full belief and being open to the concepts of everything including religion and science, makes one an agnostic. Agnostics are just people who are open to all possibilities, but use self reasoning, evidence, and thought to decide what is personally practical. I am an agnostic.

Right. I became an atheist at 13. I did so because I defied Christianity, and since that god was the only one I could conceive of at the time and decided I no longer wanted to believe in it, an atheist was my option. That was as far as I thought it through. From there it just became entertaining to see how many Christians I could unsettle with my beliefs. Ah. To be young. 

But as I have gotten older I have begun to question more. Though I never got as deep as I can get now, I would say I never left the subject behind. Atheists tend to leave the subject completely behind and just go with their belief with no evidence, reason, or intellectual thought to support it. Believing only in science, and more often actually having no idea what science is anyway or that it can actually teach a lot about forming a belief system.

But sometimes I guess it does require something physically evident to break the conscious of an atheist. Based on what I've seen, all atheists that changed their views experienced something of a spiritual significance. For me it was haunted places and seeing ghosts. At that point I could no longer sit comfortably as an atheist. I developed an open, agnostic view and allowed that openness to construct itself for a few years. Now here I am, looking for conclusive answers and exploring my mind.

Here is what is really weird, though. I've seen the word "New Age" tossed around a bit and I have ignored it. But I came across the word again while looking at an artist's work and decided to find out what it meant.

After reading more about it, I just discovered that a lot of where my belief system is heading is quite comparable to the New Age movement. I didn't choose it that way, it's just kind of developed on my own and as I've read the wikipedia on it so far I was kind of like "Huh? Now that's strange I didn't know about this."

Though i've seen some more or less negative comments directed towards the New Age stuff, or maybe I misunderstood that. Just pretty much reading the first paragraph on Wikipedia tells me I've become a "New Ager" and had absolutely no idea. 

Great...I'm a hippie. Haha. I suppose I already knew that though. Once you've combined drugs with a deep thinking mind, there really isn't any way of going back.

I might have poked a little fun at her too. Well maybe not in that sense. But it sounds to me like she was giving "atheist" her own definition. Which I suppose there is nothing wrong with that, but then she can't get out of shape if people argue with her because her definition does conflict the mass understanding of the word. She would definitely be the first atheist I've come across that believed in the afterlife.

But though her view may more often be argued against, I can understand it. Atheists tend to believe that all which exists just kind of happened, without any influence from a higher consciousness.

If you really think about it, if they find the concept of a conscious designer too "fantastical" or "magical" I find the concept that everything was created without conscious influence much, much more "fantastical" and "magical." Considering how well everything is designed and how all of the systems are structured, for everything to have been created without any conscious influence would be so incredibly miraculous that the comprehension is beyond human capacity. It's straight up magic.

Now as an agnostic, I cannot debunk such a theory. Our whole thing is consideration. But using the knowledge and thought provided to me, I would argue that only something of consciousness/cognition could design so elaborately.

Again, this is strictly based on what humans understand. The sense of magic and lack of conscious creation is completely against anything we find evident. Its interesting that when an atheist really pushes with their beliefs they may find that their view actually paints a very magical and powerful concept.

I usually think of them as just wanting to ignore everything beyond their material life and what they can read and experience physically. But if they really try to establish their philosophy, they will see it contradicts any belief that "magical" or "surreal" elements do not exist. So this opens me up to a different view of atheists. Though they rarely practice their own philosophy.

Its just difficult for me to imagine it without a creator. It seems to be that the people who have a problem imagining a creator usually try to interpret its nature, rather than just focusing on it existing at all. Like trying to figure out what something looks like before even accepting if that something is even real.

The nature is left completely to our imagination, and I think this is probably true after death as well. The will of things is left to our own minds and perception. It could be that our biological/physical existence is from a physical source (like aliens/advanced races) and our soul/spiritual existence is from a spiritual source. Basically saying that creation is a team process and not from one single entity or source.

I actually like that concept better than most others. My imagination has come up with very extreme interpretations to the nature of god. Like that our existence is actually a single thought produced from the universe/god/creator. Time works separately to it, so while a thought is only a moment for us, a thought from this being lasts the billions of years the planet has existed. But thats an extreme rationalization brought straight from my imagination.

I do very much think it is impossible to conclude on the nature of the "universal designer" in the physical world. That information is left for us to explore after death.

Now it could be that we discover the truth to how the physical world/Earth was manifested and the source to it. But the information as to what lies beyond the physical can only truly be accessed from beyond the physical.

Nah mean?

..... some have argued that a creator adds in an extra (unnecessary) thing to explain i.e. the creation of the creator !

I'm just saying that everything is way too incredibly designed to trust that there is absolutely nothing that willed it that way. I don't see why you wouldn't see any reason for a designer to exist, as there is nothing evident in this world to back any theory that something can be created without an influence. Otherwise you are completely believing in magic. That something can just appear or happen without a valid cause. Sorry, but the Big Bang doesn't really support the Afterlife and it can't be truly proven anymore than God. The Afterlife was also clearly designed. Designed by spirits? It's still a conscious entity. And how did the spirits come into being?

It doesn't matter that one thing creates a question because there will always be a question until a valid answer is provided to it all.

Based on everything we know, does it make more sense that everything was designed by a conscious source or that it just happened by a random chance? A random chance that has created a multitude of very complex, unique, and nearly perfected systems.

There is absolutely nothing on Earth that is created without the influence of something else. Nothing. I feel like someone that can't comprehend how incredibly well designed nature is, is ignoring something very special. The Earth/physical world is no illusion. You can find the beauty of design just about everywhere if you look for it.

[b]E:\Thomas Aquinas Arguments for the Existence of God.htm

Thomas Aquinas: Five Arguments for the Existence of God.
Summa Theologiae, Question 2, Article 3:[/b]

It seems that God does not exist, for if one of two contrary things were infinite, its opposite would be completely destroyed. By "God," however, we mean some infinite good.

Therefore, if God existed evil would not. Evil does exist in the world, however. Therefore God does not exist.
Furthermore, one should not needlessly multiply elements in an explanation.

It seems that we can account for everything we see in this world on the assumption that God does not exist. All natural effects can be traced to natural causes, and all contrived effects can be traced to human reason and will. Thus there is no need to suppose that God exists.

But on the contrary God says, "I am who I am" (Ex. 3:14).
Response: It must be said that God's existence can be proved in five ways.

The first and most obvious way is based on the existence of motion. It is certain and in fact evident to our senses that some things in the world are moved. Everything that is moved, however, is moved by something else, for a thing cannot be moved unless that movement is potentially within it.

A thing moves something else insofar as it actually exists, for to move something is simply to actualize what is potentially within that thing. Something can be led thus from potentiality to actuality only by something else which is already actualized.

For example, a fire, which is actually hot, causes the change or motion whereby wood, which is potentially hot, becomes actually hot.

Now it is impossible that something should be potentially and actually the same thing at the same time, although it could be potentially and actually different things. For example, what is actually hot cannot at the same moment be actually cold, although it can be actually hot and potentially cold.

Therefore it is impossible that a thing could move itself, for that would involve simultaneously moving and being moved in the same respect. Thus whatever is moved must be moved by something, else, etc. This cannot go on to infinity, however, for if it did there would be no first mover and consequently no other movers, because these other movers are such only insofar as they are moved by a first mover.

For example, a stick moves only because it is moved by the hand. Thus it is necessary to proceed back to some prime mover which is moved by nothing else, and this is what everyone means by "God."

The second way is based on the existence of efficient causality. We see in the world around us that there is an order of efficient causes. Nor is it ever found (in fact it is impossible) that something is its own efficient cause. If it were, it would be prior to itself, which is impossible.

Nevertheless, the order of efficient causes cannot proceed to infinity, for in any such order the first is cause of the middle (whether one or many) and the middle of the last. Without the cause, the effect does not follow.

Thus, if the first cause did not exist, neither would the middle and last causes in the sequence. If, however, there were an infinite regression of efficient causes, there would be no first efficient cause and therefore no middle causes or final effects, which is obviously not the case. Thus it is necessary to posit some first efficient cause, which everyone calls "God."

The third way is based on possibility and necessity. We find that some things can either exist or not exist, for we find them springing up and then disappearing, thus sometimes existing and sometimes not. It is impossible, however, that everything should be such, for what can possibly not exist does not do so at some time.

If it is possible for every particular thing not to exist, there must have been a time when nothing at all existed. If this were true, however, then nothing would exist now, for something that does not exist can begin to do so only through something that already exists.

f, therefore, there had been a time when nothing existed, then nothing could ever have begun to exist, and thus there would be nothing now, which is clearly false. Therefore all beings cannot be merely possible. There must be one being which is necessary.

Any necessary being, however, either has or does not have something else as the cause of its necessity. If the former, then there cannot be an infinite series of such causes, any more than there can be an infinite series of efficient causes, as we have seen.

Thus we must to posit the existence of something which is necessary and owes its necessity to no cause outside itself. That is what everyone calls "God."

The fourth way is based on the gradations found in things. We find that things are more or less good, true, noble, etc.; yet when we apply terms like "more" and "less" to things we imply that they are closer to or farther from some maximum.

For example, a thing is said to be hotter than something else because it comes closer to that which is hottest. Therefore something exists which is truest, greatest, noblest, and consequently most fully in being; for, as Aristotle says, the truest things are most fully in being.

That which is considered greatest in any genus is the cause of everything is that genus, just as fire, the hottest thing, is the cause of all hot things, as Aristotle says. Thus there is something which is the cause of being, goodness, and every other perfection in all things, and we call that something "God."

The fifth way is based on the governance of things. We see that some things lacking cognition, such as natural bodies, work toward an end, as is seen from the fact hat they always (or at least usually) act the same way and not accidentally, but by design.

Things without knowledge tend toward a goal, however, only if they are guided in that direction by some knowing, understanding being, as is the case with an arrow and archer. Therefore, there is some intelligent being by whom all natural things are ordered to their end, and we call this being "God."

To the first argument, therefore, it must be said that, as Augustine remarks, "since God is the supreme good he would permit no evil in his works unless he were so omnipotent and good that he could produce good even out of evil."

To the second, it must be said that, since nature works according to a determined end through the direction of some superior agent, whatever is done by nature must be traced back to God as its first cause. in the same way, those things which are done intentionally must be traced back to a higher cause which is neither reason nor human will, for these can change and cease to exist and, as we have seen, all such things must be traced back to some first principle which is unchangeable and necessary, as has been shown.

Comments anyone?

Alan

Beau wrote on Apr 8^th, 2010 at 3:07am:


Hi Beau,

What about night and day, black and white, positive and negative war and peace, good and evil, life and death, joy and sorrow,night and day.