Stephen Hawking was considered the greatest scientist of a generation. In his book, Brief Answers to the Big Questions, Stephen posits that the universe created itself out of nothing, and there is no need for God. Tom Gilson points out how even the greatest scientist is capable of making horrible philosophical statements.
How Stephen Hawking Got God So Amazingly Wrong
Haden Clark 
How on earth is Hawking’s approach disturbing when for millennia, people are indoctrinated into the belief they are sinners and need to be saved (whatever this waffle actually means) otherwise they will spend eternity being tortured in some place called Hell?
Gilson, like every Christian I have come across, has a very skewed sense of reality.
LikeLike
Ark, you’ve committed two fallacies here, plus you haven’t even argued against the point (or for your own). It’s a red herring to jump from Hawking’s approach to the alleged indoctrination of people for over “millennia.” You’ve completely changed the subject without addressing the issue at hand.
It’s also a genetic fallacy to say that Gilson has a skewed sense of reality (without proving that) and then concluding that therefore his argument is wrong. Perhaps it would be more helpful for everyone if you aimed at creating productive dialogue rather than just trolling.
LikeLike
I don’t need to prove anything- Gilson demonstrates it with his essay. Furthermore, I don’t enjoy semantic nonsense.
Gilson is championing the Christian god – I presume you do as well, based on this irreverent comment – and he provides no evidence whatsoever.
Feel free to fill in his omissions.
Productive dialogue begins with intellectual honesty. Something you Christians have in very short supply when it comes to arguing your ”case”.
What next, Habermas or Craig?
I will consider any evidence you feel you have to offer.
You have the floor.
LikeLike
No doubt, various Christians don’t do a good job of arguing our “case.” On that we agree. So you’ve asked me to provide evidence. Fair enough!
But before we get to that, I need to ask how you will evaluate any evidence I give you. What tools of analysis (reason, logic, science, empiricism, etc.) will you use to evaluate and interpret the evidence I put forth? I want to be sure we’re both on the same page.
LikeLike
There is only evidence.
If you cannot discern between a claim and evidence then that is your first task.
LikeLike
Let me help you out a little ….
much is made of the claim surrounding the ”Empty Tomb”.
Tell me what tomb. where it is, and provide the evidence to support any claim you might put forward.
LikeLike
I will quickly provide you with the evidence, but first we must go back to how you will interpret or evaluate any evidence I put forward. You’ve avoided my question about the standards and analytical tools that you will use to analyze any evidence. Please answer that, and then we can move forward.
LikeLike
I offered you an example – the empty tomb. Provide the evidence to demonstrate your argument for the claim of veracity.
LikeLike
I offer Luke 24:1-3 as clear evidence for the empty tomb. I have a robust (and reasonable) foundation for believing this is true not primarily because of external arguments, but primarily because of God’s own revelation about the empty tomb. He says it was empty, and therefore I believe it was empty.
Now, I imagine you will reject this as evidence since it’s from the Bible. That’s fine, but it really only demonstrates why I started the conversation by asking you what analytical tools you would use to interpret and analyze evidence. The difference between us isn’t ultimately the evidence (or lack thereof); the different ultimately is how we decide what is and is not evidence. In other words, the major difference between you and me is our worldview, how we account for reality. You use one standard to interpret and analyze data (which is why I asked you what that standard is), and I use another standard (the Bible). But it’s fallacious to reject evidence I put forward simply because it doesn’t cohere with your worldview. The problem there isn’t the evidence, it’s actually how you interpret the evidence.
LikeLike
This is simply an unsubstantiated claim that comes across as nothing more than apologetics.
Now perhaps you will understand why I suggested you make sure you understand what evidence is.
So, try again ….
What evidence can you present to claim veracity for the the biblical assertion of an empty tomb – or in fact any tomb?
LikeLike
The reason I’m asking what analytical tools you’re going to use as you evaluate the evidence I put forward is because I want us to be on the same page about things.
For example, if I put Bible verses forward as evidence, you might cry foul and say that those don’t count as evidence. Basically I’m asking you how you decide what counts as evidence and what doesn’t.
LikeLike
Bible verses are largely unverified claims,
This is why I stated up front – evidence.
LikeLike
How do you decide what counts as evidence? Before we go any further, we’ll need to have that cleared up.
LikeLike
Again … evidence is evidence. See my previous response.
LikeLike
How did you decide that Luke 24:1-3 is “simply an unsubstantiated claim”?
I’m afraid the problem here is that you’ve already decided what is true (and what is not true). You’ve decided that the resurrection and the empty tomb simply could not have occurred, and therefore you reject any evidence (or claim) that suggests that they have. My question is: how did you decide that the resurrection and empty tomb could not have happened?
Or to go in another direction, can you define “evidence” for me? I want to be on the same page about that.
LikeLike
No the problem is that you are a Christian, one whose worldview is based on faith, not evidence.
There is nothing to substantiate the text in Luke, thus it is merely a claim, having no more substance than any other unsubstantiated claim.
Nonsense. Presupposition is the primary tool of your faith.
I am open minded enough to consider the possibility there was a tomb and maybe, however unlikely, a resurrection.
All I am asking is for you to provide evidence.
Details of this tomb should be the easier of the two.
Simply citing a text is not evidence.
LikeLike
You’ve committed two errors here. First, you’ve committed a genetic fallacy (again) by saying that I must be wrong about these things because I’m a Christian. Second, you’ve created a radical distinction and opposition between faith and evidence which no (knowledgeable) Christian would agree with. So you’ve committed the straw man fallacy by saying that.
Now, how do you know there’s “nothing to substantiate the text in Luke”? Do you have any evidence for this claim, or are you doing the same thing here that you’re accusing me of doing (claiming stuff without supporting it with evidence)?
I’m glad to hear that you’re open-minded. I know that that you’re asking me for evidence, but I’m asking you what would even count as evidence in your worldview? Help me out here and we can move the discussion forward.
LikeLike
Your Christianity DEMANDS that you accept the resurrection of the character Jesus of Nazareth.
That is not a fallacy, but a fact.
Whether you agree is of no consequence.
Evidence is evidence. It does not say, ”Oh, we’ll bend the rules because of your religious beliefs.”
Fair enough … produce the evidence to support the text. Again, evidence for the tomb should be easy enough. YOu do have evidence for the tomb I presume, yes?
There is no ”what would even count as evidence”.
Again, evidence is evidence, otherwise it is merely a claim.
Or are you suggesting that, the claim Mohammed received the Qu’ran from Gabriel is evidence? Well are you?
LikeLike
Look Ark, I’m afraid we’re at an impasse here because I’ve presented my evidence (Luke 24:1-3) only for you to turn around and say that that doesn’t count because it’s just a claim. Then when I ask what counts as evidence you say “evidence is evidence.” One could be forgiven for wondering how you decide what evidence really counts as evidence and what evidence, such as the text I’ve put forward, doesn’t count after all.
Perhaps the reason for your own confusion about these issues is a failure to clearly think through the nature of evidence and the ways in which our worldviews “control” how we interpret and analyze data (put another way, what we “count” as evidence and what we “reject” as merely claims). Have you ever thought about why your first response is to reject “claims” about the empty tomb rather than accepting them?
LikeLike
No, there is no failure on my part, and no confusion either.
Of this I assure you.
You should realise I have had numerous discussions of this nature, not least as evidenced by your clear avoidance of the Mohammed/Gabriel point.
The impasse is because of your refusal to acknowledge that what you consider evidence is not evidence, but merely a claim. A claim found in a text for which there is nothing to support it.
It is you who fails to think this through, as this would inevitably lead you to acknowledge that there is no evidence.
,And this is quite odd, in actual fact, as once upon a time there was evidence in abundance.
One only has to read of all the evidence of pieces of the cross, for example, and people accepted this.
Why do you think that even Christians do not accept these claims any more?
If you cannot produce a single piece of evidence to substantiate the claims you are presenting then all you have is a claim.
Hence the requirement of faith, which is no different that a billion plus Muslims accepting that the Qu’ran was dictated to Mohammed by Gabriel.
If you feel I am being unfair, then simply produce evidence. This is all I ask.
LikeLike
Intellectualism is the great snare to faith. When Satan told Eve, ‘your eyes will be opened’ she chose to the opportunity of knowledge, against God’s will. Comprehending the universe without God is the quintessential pride of knowledge. Underlying this quest is the devilish lust to disavow God or even that ‘you can be like God’. 😞
LikeLike
And which god would this be exactly? Yahweh? El?
LikeLike