Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Stephen Hawking thinks so.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

"All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ..."

Does Stephen Hawking speak absolute truth? (Or only when it suits your argument?)

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Does Stephen Hawking speak absolute truth? (Or only when it suits your argument?)

Feel free to point out why in this instance he is not speaking the truth. Did you even read what he had to say? Or do you try to avoid things that may challenge your current beliefs?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Feel free to point out why in this instance he is not speaking the truth. Did you even read what he had to say? Or do you try to avoid things that may challenge your current beliefs?

I've probably read more from him than you have old chap.

Point is, it's his opinion. There are also millions of Zainists who believe the universe is uncreated and has always existed. Do you avoid those beliefs, because they challenge your own?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Stephen Hawking thinks so.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

"All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ..."

Edit: I've copy and pasted this to the thread on "Existence of God" as this discussion is more relevant to that thread. Please respond in that one as it's too confusing otherwise Thread 170184

Stephen Hawking presents an entropy argument. Essentially entropy always increases and it's possible to show that it has a maximum - subject to some assumptions about the system being closed. However, there is a way round this. In models of eternal inflation, where the universe undergoes periodic eras of incredibly rapid expansion, the entropy density is returned to zero by the immensely fast expansion. So I don't think that he's covered all bases. In the article he mentions that the universe has a start is the simplest assumption, so he is applying Occam's razor. I tend to regard the question as open.

Anyway, what I was hoping for was that you would present some argument so that I could say: "And why does this not apply to God?". I don't think an entropy argument will work in the case of God, since God is not bound by the rules of the universe. A potentially bigger problem is the argument I presented earlier. To get from the end of the inflationary era to now requires 10 billion years to have elapsed. But If the universe is infinitely old then to get from a time infinitely far in the past to now requires an infinite amount of time to have elapsed, which means that the current era can't be reached. I'm in two minds as to whether the argument works or not, but it does seem to apply to God as well.

What I'm getting at overall is that if you base your ontological argument on the necessity of prior cause then you have the problem that the difficulty with the necessity of prior cause seems to apply to God as well. You can insist that God does not require prior cause, but if that is the case then it is hard to see why it should apply to the universe.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Can you name a belief you chose?

I chose to believe that my wife hadn't been unfaithful - evidence can be misleading after all.
I choose to believe in karma - despite the lack of evidence.

In both those examples my decision was based on what I think is best for my mental health.

Originally posted by apathist
I chose to believe that my wife hadn't been unfaithful - evidence can be misleading after all.
I choose to believe in karma - despite the lack of evidence.

I understand what you're saying, but I am not convinced. I reckon, if you actually believed she had been unfaithful you couldn't then choose not to believe it.

Yes, you could choose to put it behind you or choose to carry on while acting as if you believe she had not been unfaithful, but if you felt 'the evidence can be misleading' and therefore didn't believe she'd done what you, at one point, thought she'd done, then that is what it is - your belief - not your choice, as such.

If you actually believed she'd done it, I don't think any amount of 'the evidence can be misleading' cogitation can enable you to choose to 'un-believe' it.

As for "I choose to believe in karma - despite the lack of evidence", that sounds like a gut feeling that you simply feel (in your gut) and it happens with there being a moment when you "choose", as such.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Does Stephen Hawking speak absolute truth?

It's always been my assumption that Stephen Hawking speaks the theoretical truth.

He is a theoretical physicist, yes?

Originally posted by apathist
I chose to believe that my wife hadn't been unfaithful - evidence can be misleading after all.
I choose to believe in karma - despite the lack of evidence.

In both those examples my decision was based on what I think is best for my mental health.

I don't think you actually believe either of those things. Instead, you choose to act like you believe them.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I've probably read more from him than you have old chap.

Point is, it's his opinion. There are also millions of Zainists who believe the universe is uncreated and has always existed. Do you avoid those beliefs, because they challenge your own?

It's his professional opinion based on his interpretation of scientific evidence as a cosmologist. What scientific evidence do the Zainists bring to the table?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't think you actually believe either of those things. Instead, you choose to act like you believe them.

What is the difference?
If I speak very carefully, I'd say I believe it was possible she was faithful and it is possible that karma is real, and then I act on that possibility. What is belief, other than a decision to act on a possibility?

Originally posted by apathist
What is belief, other than a decision to act on a possibility?

I think belief is the sense that there is a possibility, a probability or a certainty. A decision to act is something else altogether - and does not actually need belief in order to occur.

Originally posted by FMF
I understand what you're saying, but I am not convinced. I reckon, if you actually believed she had been unfaithful you couldn't then choose not to believe it. ...

Oh, you underestimate humanity. A big part of our problem is reconciling contradictory beliefs. I bet you believe the ground is solid beneath your feet. I bet you believe that an atom is mostly empty space. (How can something made up of 99.9999999999996% nothing be solid?)

Originally posted by FMF
I think belief is the sense that there is a possibility, a probability or a certainty. A decision to act is something else altogether - and does not actually need belief in order to occur.

I see a difference between a sense and an act of course. We are talking about willful acts, not reflex. I doubt anyone ever acts without basing that act on a belief.

And what ever is certain? Can you convince me you are not a brain in a jar or in the matrix?

Originally posted by apathist
Oh, you underestimate humanity. A big part of our problem is reconciling contradictory beliefs. I bet you believe the ground is solid beneath your feet. I bet you believe that an atom is mostly empty space. (How can something made up of 99.9999999999996% nothing be solid?)

I haven't been talking about whether what one believes is true or not.

Originally posted by apathist
I doubt anyone ever acts without basing that act on a belief.

I'm not so sure. I think 'going through the motions' (which is something countless people decide to do in countless situations and do so without the core beliefs that ought to underpin and propel those acts) is a major feature of the human condition.