Christopher Hitchens dies aged 62

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by annewandering

The curious thing is that the scientific world is all in a twitter over the 'fact' that Hawkings has proved that God was unnecessary to the creation of the universe. Why are they so excited and so quick to point this out if they arent interested in proving God does not exist?
Oh for the day that we realize there is no such thing as religion or science. There is just truth. Part of that truth is that God exists and we are His children.

Be very careful - Hawkings did not prove that G-d is unnecessary - what he proved is that the traditional view of G-d is not relevant in explaining the origins of the universe. Why should this be news to LDS?

For those LDS that deal with hard core scientist that insist that there is no G-d - try this approach. Since evolution will eventually produce an intelligence capable of replicating any event that not only has occurred but is possible - and since the universe did have a beginning - we have proof that intelligence capable of creating the universe if not currently in existence must surly eventually evolve. Thus the argument over the existence of G-d is a pointless discussion. The fact that intelligence evolves and that fact that evolution is a viable possibility to evolve intelligence - then G-d (intelligence capable of creation) does exist.

The Traveler

[a-train]

Hitchens was awesome, a very eloquent speaker who brought a lot of solid arguments to the table.

[annewandering]

lol ok Traveler. Well I was saying he had proved it tongue in cheek. To me its just a case of man misinterpreting what they see or perhaps extending what they see past what it really means.

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by annewandering

lol ok Traveler. Well I was saying he had proved it tongue in cheek. To me its just a case of man misinterpreting what they see or perhaps extending what they see past what it really means.

What Hawkins has done is demonstrate that a magical being operating outside the laws of physics is not only not necessary but most improbable. - which is another way of saying nonsense. If it was not for Joseph Smith - I do not believe that I could have faith in G-d any more than Hawkins - I do not believe the traditional view of G-d has empirical merit.

The problem in saying that G-d does not exist is that to do so we must eliminate any possibility - including the possibilities we are not smart enough to figure out yet. And that is a very difficult argument for a reasonable person.

The Traveler

[a-train]

Originally Posted by Traveler

The problem in saying that G-d does not exist is that to do so we must eliminate any possibility - including the possibilities we are not smart enough to figure out yet. And that is a very difficult argument for a reasonable person.

The Traveler

So are we going to say this for just the LDS God, or for all the gods?

[Just_A_Guy]

Ah, but the theist (of any stripe) can fall back to "my god told me that x is not possible". It's not verifiable, of course, but it's all the theist needs to grant himself a degree of rhetorical legitimacy.*

I don't see how an atheist can make a parallel argument. One can say "I haven't seen evidence that x is the case"; but to deny (not just refuse to acknowledge, but to positively deny) something's existence merely because we have no evidence seems dodgy from a scientific as well as a theological perspective.

*And given that Mormonism is technically henotheist, it's conceivable that Mormonism's truth claims might actually be pretty compatible with some of the other religions out there.

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by a-train

So are we going to say this for just the LDS God, or for all the gods?

I am saying it as a mater of rational thought. Mankind is sitting on the threshold of genetic engineering - I want you to realize the impact that intelligent feedback would have to evolution.

By observation we know a universe can and does exist. If events can be channeled without any intelligent intervention - it would be rather foolish to demand logic that intelligent intervention could not eventually evolve capable of reverse engineering creation. The problem is the assumption that intelligence cannot evolve capable of doing what is already claimed to be capable of happening without any intelligent intervention.

What I am saying is that if you are not smart enough to imagine intelligence greater than what you are capable of - you cannot argue intelligence from a evolution standpoint. And if you do not believe intelligence can evolve - then mankind had to have been created by existing intelligence.

So it does not matter what you assume as a starting point - you must admit that intelligence can be increased by evolution. Now you must either prove there is a point beyond which intelligence cannot evolve or admit that giving infinite possibilities (if that is how the universe came about in the first place) that infinite intelligence is possible. If it is possible then saying there is no G-d is a an admission that infinite possibilities really are not possible - now you are stuck with G-d as the only possibility as to why the universe exists in the first place.

The problem is - even if we can disprove an irrational magic G-d operating outside of "reality" -- that does nothing to say evolving intelligence cannot continue. If evolving intelligence continues - we have just define one definite possibility of G-d. Why would anyone not believe in something possible that can rationally be proven to be possible from their very arguments of what is possible?

The Traveler

[anatess]

a-train is back! Cool.

[a-train]

Originally Posted by Traveler

I am saying it as a mater of rational thought. Mankind is sitting on the threshold of genetic engineering - I want you to realize the impact that intelligent feedback would have to evolution.

By observation we know a universe can and does exist. If events can be channeled without any intelligent intervention - it would be rather foolish to demand logic that intelligent intervention could not eventually evolve capable of reverse engineering creation. The problem is the assumption that intelligence cannot evolve capable of doing what is already claimed to be capable of happening without any intelligent intervention.

What I am saying is that if you are not smart enough to imagine intelligence greater than what you are capable of - you cannot argue intelligence from a evolution standpoint. And if you do not believe intelligence can evolve - then mankind had to have been created by existing intelligence.

So it does not matter what you assume as a starting point - you must admit that intelligence can be increased by evolution. Now you must either prove there is a point beyond which intelligence cannot evolve or admit that giving infinite possibilities (if that is how the universe came about in the first place) that infinite intelligence is possible. If it is possible then saying there is no G-d is a an admission that infinite possibilities really are not possible - now you are stuck with G-d as the only possibility as to why the universe exists in the first place.

The problem is - even if we can disprove an irrational magic G-d operating outside of "reality" -- that does nothing to say evolving intelligence cannot continue. If evolving intelligence continues - we have just define one definite possibility of G-d. Why would anyone not believe in something possible that can rationally be proven to be possible from their very arguments of what is possible?

The Traveler

Gibberish