God not needed for creation: Stephen Hawking

[allydou]

ok,

simple questions. Kama mungu kweli yupo na kwa wanaoamini kwmaba kuwepo kwa kitu lazima kuwe po na source yake, then where didi god came from. what ws his source, who created him.

 

[Kiranga]

ok,

simple questions. Kama mungu kweli yupo na kwa wanaoamini kwmaba kuwepo kwa kitu lazima kuwe po na source yake, then where didi god came from. what ws his source, who created him.

Hawawezi kukujibu hili "simple question" .Kwa sababu the question is not that simple.

Ukishasema vitu vinahitaji muumba, ukaifanya hii kuwa a primary principle, then hata mungu naye atahitaji muumba, mungu akihitaji muumba anakuwa si mungu tena (not in the Judeo-Christian/ personal god advocated by many here)

Hakuna mtu anayeweza kukujibu swali hili kikamilifu.

 

[Kiranga]

Na pia akitokea mwingine akakwambia "God not needed for creation" utajua ni mwongo na pengine amechanganyikiwa!

Utajuaje hivyo ? Hapa JF hatutoi kauli bila ya kutoa maelezo na supporting evidence.

Tuambie utajuaje hivyo? Professor Hawking is a world respected physicist, wewe nani ku dismiss maneno yake bila chochote ?

 

[Kiranga]

Mungu siku zote hutumika kama mfuniko kwa vitu visivyojulikana watu wanapotaka kuondoa usumbufu wa kufikiri. Sayansi inakulazimisha kuangalia mambo halisi vile yalivyo. Jambo hili ni gumu sana kwa baadhi ya watu na ingawa wanajaribu kutumia sheria za sayansi wanapofikia mahali ambapo wanalazimika kusumbua vichwa vyao huishia kwenye jibu rahisi - Mungu.

Haiwezekani mungu awe jibu la kila kisichojulikana, kikishajulikana waamini mungu wanahamisha magoli. Sheria nyingi zimegunduliwa kinyume na matakwa ya hao wanaoamini mungu, na baada ya kuonekana kuwa sheria hizi ni ukweli wao hulazimika kutafuta sheria nyingine ambazo bado hazijajulikana vizuri ili wapate mahali pa kumweka mungu. Ni jambo la kusikitisha kwao kuwa mungu ni wazo tu linalofikirika, mungu anatengenezwa zaidi na ubongo kuliko kuwa halisi.

Mbali na kwamba Mungu hajaweza kuttatua tatizo lolote hapa duniani, Mungu ameleta matatizo kibao na naweza kusema Mungu ni mojawapo ya tatizo kubwa la dunia ya leo si kwa sababu yupo, ila kwa sababu hayupo. Angekuwepo asingekuwa tatizo, asingehitaji rundo la watetezi, bali angeonekana katika kazi zake, kama sheria za sayansi zinavyoonekana bila kuhitaji kuaminiwa kuwa zipo. Kazi ya sayansi hata hivyo si kuwashawishi wanaomuamini wasimuamini. Kazi ya sayansi ni kuwafumbua watu macho kwa kuweka ukweli wazi. Ni wazi kuwa wale ambao ukweli halisi haujawafikia, wataendelea kuamini visivyokuwepo.

Huhitaji kuamini kuwa gravity ipo, utaiona tu. Huhitaji kuamini kuwa dunia inalizunguka jua, n.k. ila ukweli unabaki kuwa hivyo.

Ukweli kuwa mungu ni wazo na si halisi ndo unaofanya kuwe na mamilioni ya wajasiriamali waliojiajiri katika kuelezea kuwa mungu yupo. Ndo maana wajasiriamali hawa wako tayari kutumia kila mbinu kuhakikisha kuwa watu wanawaamini (including kuua, kutisha, kuharibu, n.k.).

Right on point mazee, right on point.

Nimeongelea jinsi gani watu wa kale walivyokuwa wanaamini kwamba hata radi ni sauti ya mungu anaongea nao, watu walipokuja kugundua kwamba radi ni umeme tu ulio mawinguni tukamtoa mungu.

You are very right kwamba mungu ni kichaka cha kuficha yote tusiyoyajua na tunaposhindwa mambo. Hivyo tukiwa hatuna mipango kabambe ya kuhakikisha usalama migodini, migodi ikianguka na kufukia watu, Kikwete anasema "kazi ya mungu" kumbe angeweza kuzuia kwa kuweka systems nzuri zaidi.

Kwa hiyo utaona katika historia yote ya binadamu, gradually jinsi sayansi inavyozidi kuendelea ndivyo mungu anavyokosa kazi, kazi za mungu haziongezeki, zinapungua.

Mjanja anatakiwa aweze kuona pattern hii ina converge kwenye ulimwengu usio na mungu (personal supernatural god) .

 

[Mtazamaji]

ok,

simple questions. Kama mungu kweli yupo na kwa wanaoamini kwmaba kuwepo kwa kitu lazima kuwe po na source yake, then where didi god came from. what ws his source, who created him.

simple answer yeye ndio source.yeye ndio mwanzo na chanzo. kwa kuwa sayansi haisemi source ya mwanaume wa kwanza ni nini au source ya mwanamke wa kwanza ni nini kwa kutumia akili alizokupa mungu lazima ujue huyo mungu asiye kuwa na physical na chemical properties ambazo ndio kikomo cha uelewa wetu ndio chanzo.

Sasa na wewe simple question kwa wasiomanini kwama mungu yupo tuchukulie kigezo kidogo tu unaweza kueleza chanzo cha mwanamke na mwanaume wa kwanza kwenye hii universe.?

 

[Kiranga]

Sasa kama hujui unapokwenda au hujui hesabu huwezi kubisha hata nikikwambia unakwenda Mbagala wala huwezi kuna mansingi wa kubisha hata nikisema 10+11=50. Na kwa msingi huo huo siwezi kukuthibitishia uwepo wa mungumoja kwa moja.Kukuthibitishia uwepo wa mungu nitakuuliza kiini cha uhai ni nini? Rejea maswali yangu hayo ndiyo yananifanya Niamini uwepo wa mungu.

Hujaelewa niliposema kwamba ninaweza kuwa sijui exactly nakwenda wapi, lakini nikawa najua direction. Hata kama sijui nyumba ninayokwenda ikoje, lakini kama najua iko kaskazi, na wewe unaniambia iko kusi, nitajua kwamba huniambii ukweli.

Naweza kuwa nimesahau nilipopark gari langu, halafu wewe ukaja na kuniambia kwamba gari lako liko mfukoni mwa suruali yako uliyoivaa, nitakuona mwehu. Sihitaji kujua nilipopark gari langu ili kujua kwamba hii habari ya kwamba gari langu liko mfukoni mwa suruali yangu ni wehu.

Inabidi uamini uwepo wa mungu sababu hata kisayansi kila kitu kina malezo ya chanzo chake. Mungu kampa bianadamu akili zaidi ya tembo,sungura ndio maana leo hii tunaweza kuelezea theory kama za plate tectonic, magnetism ,solar sysstm, etc lakini maelezo haya yana ukomo. Na ukomo wa maelezo ya kisayansi ndio kiashiria kuwa kuna Nguvu zaidi zinazo control hizi theroy na law tunazosoma .

Huwezi kusema inabidi niamini uwepo wa mungu just because kisayansi kila kitu kina chanzo chake. The fact kwamba kila kitu kina chanzo chake haimaanishi chanzo hicho ni lazima kiwe mungu. Mtoto akiupiga teke mpira, mpira ukaanza kwenda, mwendo wa mpira una chanzo, chanzo chake ni mtoto. Haina maana kwamba kwa kuwa mpira una mwendo, basi lazima chanzo cha mwendo huu kiwe mungu.

Halafu ukishasema sayansi inasema kila kitu kina mwanzo wake, hii ni sababu tosha ya kutoamini mungu, kwa sababu dini inasema mungu hana mwanzo.

Hii kanuni binafsi inananipa imani zaidi ya uwepo mungu . Kwa akili za kibadamu alizotupa mungu zimezama kwenye physical/ chemical properties and characteristics.Na mungu na uhai ni zaidi ya hivi vitu.Tutamjuaje mungu kisayansi wakati hana physical wala chemical properties. Kwa nini watu wakifa wasirudishiwe uhai ili watu wengi wazidi kuamini kutokuwepo kwa mungu.

Hapa hujasema lolote, unajuaje kwamba akili ya binadamu imetoka kwa mungu ? Unasema mungu ni zaidi ya uwezo wa akili ya kibinadamu, unawezaje kujua kitu kilichozidi uwezo wa akili ya binadamu?

Uwepo wa mungu ni imani kama unavyoamini phsysics chemistry,biology. tofauti iliyopo ni unaweza ku proove kwa sense organ sayansi za kibanadamu. Lakini ukiendelea kudadavua baadhi ya theroy za kisayansi ndo unatakiwa kuelewa kuwa kuna kiiini na chanza hata cha haya maelezo ya kisayansi. Ni mungu.

Utawezaje kuamini kitu ambacho hakiwezi kuwa proved ?

labda wanasema mungu hayupo watupe empirical evidence kwa kujibu maswali yyangu yale juu. Source ya uhai ni nini?Sorce ya mwanamke/ mwanaume wa kwanza ilikuwa nini?

Nita assume mungu yupo mpaka pale hayo maswali fulani yatapopatiwa majibu. Ni kama wewe unavyoamini mungu hayupo sababu hakuna physical or chemical evidence.Ukisema imani potofu hata sayansi imekuwa na baadh ya theory potofu kwa kipindi fulani

When you assume you make an ass of u and me. Don't.

 

[Kiranga]

Nawaonea huruma sana watu wanaoishi na utupu wa kutokumwamini Mungu. Ukiachilia mbali moto wa milele, hapa hapa duniani wanakosa faraja na matumaini vinavyotokana na imani ya uwepo wa Mungu.

Nawaonea huruma sana wanaoishi kwa kufuata uongo wa kuamini mungu. Ukiachilia mbali kukosa kuishi maisha yao bila ya kuwa na hofu ya moto usiokuwepo, wanaingia faraja ya uongo inayotokana na imani ya uwepo wa mungu, faraja inayowanyima kujiamini katika uwezo wao kama binadamu na kuweka mkazo kwenye mungu ambaye hayupo.

 

[Kiranga]

Well said MM, problem people want God who they can see with human eye-masanamu
God is a working force. Period

Mimi sina tatizo ukiniambia "god is a working force" halafu unionyeshe logic, kwa mfano mtu akiniambia anaamini kwamba sheria za physics ndizo mungu, kwa sababu ndizo zimeumba ulimwengu na ndizo zinazo run ulimwengu, nitamuelewa, nitaona huyu anaongelea mungu anayeeleweka.

Kwa hiyo tatizo sio kwamba nataka mungu nitakayemuona kwa macho, nataka mungu anayeweza kuelezeka bila contradictions.

Sio unaniambia unaamini kuna mungu kwa sababu kila kitu kinahitaji muumbaji, wakati hiyo sheria yako mwenyewe ya kusema kila kitu kina muumbaji inamfunga mungu naye ahitaji muumbaji, na muumbaji wake naye ahitaji muumbaji, in a never ending nest of russian dolls.

Ukichunguza sana utaona, this personal god business with omnipotence etc etc is just hogwash.

 

[Kiranga]

simple answer yeye ndio source.yeye ndio mwanzo na chanzo. kwa kuwa sayansi haisemi source ya mwanaume wa kwanza ni nini au source ya mwanamke wa kwanza ni nini kwa kutumia akili alizokupa mungu lazima ujue huyo mungu asiye kuwa na physical na chemical properties ambazo ndio kikomo cha uelewa wetu ndio chanzo.

Sasa na wewe simple question kwa wasiomanini kwama mungu yupo tuchukulie kigezo kidogo tu unaweza kueleza chanzo cha mwanamke na mwanaume wa kwanza kwenye hii universe.?

Kwa nini source lazima iwe mungu? Kwa nini isiwe mathematical symmetry kwa mfano ?

Kuhusu hilo swali la mwanzo wa mwanamme au mwanamke wa kwanza, hata nikikwambia sijui, haina maanza jibu lake ni lazima liwe mungu.

Ukiniuliza 1 + 1 = ? Nikakwambia sijui jibu, huwezi kusema kwa kuwa sijui jibu lazima jibu liwe 11, naweza kukwambia kwamba ingawa sijui jibu la 1 + 1 ni nini, lakini najua 1 < 5, na 5 + 5 = 10, kwa hiyo 1+ 1 < 10 na haiwezi kuwa 11.

 

[Hukumuzuku]

Kwa nini source lazima iwe mungu? Kwa nini isiwe mathematical symmetry kwa mfano ?

Kuhusu hilo swali la mwanzo wa mwanamme au mwanamke wa kwanza, hata nikikwambia sijui, haina maanza jibu lake ni lazima liwe mungu.

Ukiniuliza 1 + 1 = ? Nikakwambia sijui jibu, huwezi kusema kwa kuwa sijui jibu lazima jibu liwe 11, naweza kukwambia kwamba ingawa sijui jibu la 1 + 1 ni nini, lakini najua 1 < 5, na 5 + 5 = 10, kwa hiyo 1+ 1 < 10 na haiwezi kuwa 11.

Sir, since you're so knowledgeable about the metaphysics of God's existence and whatnot, why not challenge and deconstruct (and in your own words please) all propositions contained in below article instead of peddling cheap, frivolous arguments?

Hawking's New Book Does Not Dismiss The Real God From Creation, Jesuit Scholars Say

ROME, ITALY, September 3 (CNA/EWTN News) - Dr. Stephen Hawking's new book, "The Grand Design," makes the bold claim that the universe "created itself from nothing" based on physical laws such as gravity, making God unnecessary for a self-created and self-unfolding model of the universe. However, two Catholic scholars trained in physics say his remarks misconstrue the real relationship between God and creation.

A Jesuit priest and scholar, former president of Gongaza University Fr. Robert Spitzer, says that Hawking's dismissal of God in favor of physics reflects fundamental confusions about the Christian concept of God, as the creator of all that exists-- both the physical universe, and the laws of physics which apply to it.

When this is understood, Fr. Spitzer said, Hawking's basic confusion becomes clear. Although Hawking talks about the universe "creating itself from nothing," he is presupposing that this "nothing" somehow involved gravity and other fundamental laws of physics, Fr. Spitzer explained.

But principles such as gravity are not irreducible or self-evident axioms. Rather, they are non-physical laws which govern the ordinary operations of the physical world. Thus, the Jesuit priest stated, there is no comparison between a creation which unfolds and develops according to laws followed by matter, and Hawking's proposal of "spontaneous creation" from "nothing."

"Let's take the law mentioned by Dr. Hawking above - the law of gravity," Spitzer wrote. "It has a specific constant associated with it and specific characteristics, and it has specific effects on mass-energy and even on space-time itself. This is a very curious definition of 'nothing'."

"Now," he continued, "if we rephrase Dr. Hawking's statement in the above fashion, then he has clearly not explained why there is something rather than nothing. He has only explained that something comes from something," by describing the development of a functioning universe on the basis of laws such as gravity.

Historically, many Christian theologians, as well as non-Christian philosophers, have argued precisely the opposite of Hawking's point: namely, that the laws of physics can only be ascribed to an infinite, intelligent and non-physical creator.

Brother Guy Consolmagno, SJ, an astronomer at the Vatican Observatory, explained to CNA on Friday how the preconditions for the universe's unfolding and operations were not a form of "nothing," as Hawking considers them to be. Rather, he said, they are the conditions created by God for the ordering of the world.

"God is the reason why space and time and the laws of nature can be present for the forces to operate that Stephen Hawking is talking about," he told CNA.

Hawking's dismissal of God, Br. Consolmagno said, was based not only on his incorrect designation of physical laws as "nothing," but also on a failure to grasp the notion of God's transcendence. As such, he concluded, Hawking was really dismissing a kind of "god" in which Christians do not believe.

"The 'god' that Stephen Hawking doesn't believe in, is one I don't believe in either. God is not just another force in the Universe, alongside gravity or electricity. God is not a force to be invoked to . . . 'start a scene or two' and fill the momentary gaps in our knowledge."

Rather, Br. Consolmagno said, "God is the reason why existence itself exists."

This profound mystery, Fr. Spitzer said, was one which Professor Hawking was actually indicating, at the very same time he was attempting to dismiss it.

"In my view," he concluded, "Dr. Hawking has not yet shown the non-necessity of this reality. Indeed, he implies it by assuming the existence of a beginning in his assertion about the universe coming from nothing."

 

[Kiranga]

Sir, since you're so knowledgeable about the metaphysics of God's existence and whatnot, why not challenge and deconstruct (and in your own words please) all propositions contained in below article instead of peddling cheap, frivolous arguments?

It is not in my nature to back down from an interesting challenge. The reason I did not address the piece is that it is not scientific, and does not address scientific questions with something more than the authority of theologiocal (even religious) fiat. The fiat mainly being "if the laws of nature created the universe, then the reason we have these laws of nature is god, god is the reason there is existence" no further demonstration on how this came about.

Why must existence spring from god and nothing else ?

Hawking's New Book Does Not Dismiss The Real God From Creation, Jesuit Scholars Say

ROME, ITALY, September 3 (CNA/EWTN News) - Dr. Stephen Hawking's new book, "The Grand Design," makes the bold claim that the universe "created itself from nothing" based on physical laws such as gravity, making God unnecessary for a self-created and self-unfolding model of the universe. However, two Catholic scholars trained in physics say his remarks misconstrue the real relationship between God and creation.

A Jesuit priest and scholar, former president of Gongaza University Fr. Robert Spitzer, says that Hawking's dismissal of God in favor of physics reflects fundamental confusions about the Christian concept of God, as the creator of all that exists-- both the physical universe, and the laws of physics which apply to it.

First off, this whole piece would've been really helpful if the Catholic priests would've defined what do they mean by "God". Do they mean god as revealed in the Christian doctrine, the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent personal god or a moreirreducible force form?

I am aware of Catholic priests who contributed a lot to the understanding of the cosmogony of our universe (George Lemaitre comes to mind) and they don't always strictly subscribe to the Judeo Christian god. I am prepared to accept a "god" 9for lack of a better word) if that god is equated with the laws of physics, or mathematical symmetry. The priests do not say clearly which god are they talking about, they leave me to specualate that, because they are Catholic priests, and are disputing Hawking, then the large possibility is that they are propounding Catholic doctrine, which is centred on a personal god with all his omni-properties.

Furthermore, the priests make a fiat statement that, god created the laws of physics which created the universe, and therefore Hawking cannot say that the universe created itself without needing god.

But they don't show us that the laws of physics were created by god, in giving in to the notion that the actual creation of the universe happenned by laws of nature (and not by the word of god) they contradict the biblical account.

When this is understood, Fr. Spitzer said, Hawking's basic confusion becomes clear. Although Hawking talks about the universe "creating itself from nothing," he is presupposing that this "nothing" somehow involved gravity and other fundamental laws of physics, Fr. Spitzer explained.

But principles such as gravity are not irreducible or self-evident axioms. Rather, they are non-physical laws which govern the ordinary operations of the physical world. Thus, the Jesuit priest stated, there is no comparison between a creation which unfolds and develops according to laws followed by matter, and Hawking's proposal of "spontaneous creation" from "nothing."

"Let's take the law mentioned by Dr. Hawking above - the law of gravity," Spitzer wrote. "It has a specific constant associated with it and specific characteristics, and it has specific effects on mass-energy and even on space-time itself. This is a very curious definition of 'nothing'."

The critique on labelling an existence which can carry the laws of physics as "nothing" (if indeed that is the accurate characterization) is legitimate. The assumption that these laws of physics must come from a god, a Judeo-Christian god no less, is not only an assumption, but a preposterous one. Hawking simply said, you don't need a god to have a universe, you can have laws of physics which rise spontaneously and create universes.

You cannot say simply that, because you have these laws of physics, then these laws of physics must come from god 9not the Judeo-Christian / personal/ supernatural anyway). No you can't. Not unless you redefine your god to be mathematical harmony / symmetry or some non personal logical abstract like that.

"Now," he continued, "if we rephrase Dr. Hawking's statement in the above fashion, then he has clearly not explained why there is something rather than nothing. He has only explained that something comes from something," by describing the development of a functioning universe on the basis of laws such as gravity.

Even if Hawking cannot explain why there is something instead of nothing, why the laws of physics exists in the first place. This does not prove that they must come from god.

If a kid find some unexplained money in his pocket, one is not justified to say that the money must come from the kids father, by fiat, without showing how can one arrive at that conclusion.

Historically, many Christian theologians, as well as non-Christian philosophers, have argued precisely the opposite of Hawking's point: namely, that the laws of physics can only be ascribed to an infinite, intelligent and non-physical creator.

Why must this "creator" be god? Even a Judeo-Christian god ? Why must this creator be intelligent? Why can't this be a force of harmony or some fluctuations originating in another universe that borders on ours in a multiverse?

Brother Guy Consolmagno, SJ, an astronomer at the Vatican Observatory, explained to CNA on Friday how the preconditions for the universe's unfolding and operations were not a form of "nothing," as Hawking considers them to be. Rather, he said, they are the conditions created by God for the ordering of the world.

"God is the reason why space and time and the laws of nature can be present for the forces to operate that Stephen Hawking is talking about," he told CNA.

Why is god the reason? What kind of god is this, the Judeo-Christian one? Why only god? Why not some fluctuations from another universe ?

Hawking's dismissal of God, Br. Consolmagno said, was based not only on his incorrect designation of physical laws as "nothing," but also on a failure to grasp the notion of God's transcendence. As such, he concluded, Hawking was really dismissing a kind of "god" in which Christians do not believe.

How do we know that god transcends? By just believing so? You don't know something by believing.

"The 'god' that Stephen Hawking doesn't believe in, is one I don't believe in either. God is not just another force in the Universe, alongside gravity or electricity. God is not a force to be invoked to . . . 'start a scene or two' and fill the momentary gaps in our knowledge."

Rather, Br. Consolmagno said, "God is the reason why existence itself exists."

Why should existence be predicated by god ? If one was to say that existence in this universe and other universes in the multiverse has no beginning and no end because it transcend time, and that there are universes with no time at all, others with multiple time dimensions (just as we have multiple spatial dimensions) and in totality all the universes cancel out, no need for a god ?

This profound mystery, Fr. Spitzer said, was one which Professor Hawking was actually indicating, at the very same time he was attempting to dismiss it.

"In my view," he concluded, "Dr. Hawking has not yet shown the non-necessity of this reality. Indeed, he implies it by assuming the existence of a beginning in his assertion about the universe coming from nothing."

In my view, even before Hawking's book, the issue was not the falsification of the notion that god was needed to create the universe, but the establishment that god is needed to create the universe.

Can the Catholic priests show us that god is needed in order for a universe to exist?

And I don't mean by using the fiat of "god is the reason for existence, for there to be things as opposed to not being things" because one can argue that this could be an axiom of the structure of the multiverse, without the need of a god

 

[Mtazamaji]

Kwa nini source lazima iwe mungu? Kwa nini isiwe mathematical symmetry kwa mfano ?

Kuhusu hilo swali la mwanzo wa mwanamme au mwanamke wa kwanza, hata nikikwambia sijui, haina maanza jibu lake ni lazima liwe mungu.

Ukiniuliza 1 + 1 = ? Nikakwambia sijui jibu, huwezi kusema kwa kuwa sijui jibu lazima jibu liwe 11, naweza kukwambia kwamba ingawa sijui jibu la 1 + 1 ni nini, lakini najua 1 < 5, na 5 + 5 = 10, kwa hiyo 1+ 1 < 10 na haiwezi kuwa 11.

Sasa source ya uhai ni nini? wakati wewe unauliza kwa nini awe mungu mimi nauliza kwa nini asiwe mungu?
souce ya uhai haiwezi kuwa mathematical symmetry hiyo ni subject nyingine.

 

[Estmeed Reader]

Je, na ya mchango wa Bonde la Ufa (mwanzo wa binadamu)?

 

[Kiranga]

Sasa source ya uhai ni nini? wakati wewe unauliza kwa nini awe mungu mimi nauliza kwa nini asiwe mungu?
souce ya uhai haiwezi kuwa mathematical symmetry hiyo ni subject nyingine.

Mimi nimesema sijui, the onus of proof is always on the party that says it knows.

Wanaosema wanajua kwamba source ya uhai ni mungu inabidi watuonyeshe ni kivipi mungu katengeneza uhai, na kwa nini uhai usiweze kutokea kwa njia nyingine yoyote zaidi ya mungu.

 

[Mtazamaji]

Mimi nimesema sijui, the onus of proof is always on the party that says it knows.

Wanaosema wanajua kwamba source ya uhai ni mungu inabidi watuonyeshe ni kivipi mungu katengeneza uhai, na kwa nini uhai usiweze kutokea kwa njia nyingine yoyote zaidi ya mungu.

Kivipi munngu katengeza uhai?

• Sababu uhai hauwezi ukatengenzwa na kitu ambacho sio hai. Na kitu ambacho ni hai cha kuweza kuumba uhai ni zaidi ya mwanadamu. Ni mungu. Uhai wa kwanza haukutokea ghafla tu.
• Muungu aliumba jike akaumba na dume.we unadhani jike na dume ya kwaza duniani yalitokea tu? Hii sio .sio formula yaphysics wala chemistry ni logical thinking inahitajika ukiongolea mambo ya mungu , as God can not be realised with human sense organs
• Kwa kutumia hii logical thinking binadamu ndio kiumbe mwenye akili kwa hiyo source ya binadamu inaweza kuwa ni kiumbe zaidi ya binadamu. huyu kiumbe ni Mungu.

Hiyo njia nyingine yeyote unayosema wewe labda itaje mimi kwangu njia nyingine yeyote ile ni Mungu.

 

[Hukumuzuku]

It is not in my nature to back down from an interesting challenge. The reason I did not address the piece is that it is not scientific, and does not address scientific questions with something more than the authority of theologiocal (even religious) fiat. The fiat mainly being "if the laws of nature created the universe, then the reason we have these laws of nature is god, god is the reason there is existence" no further demonstration on how this came about.

Why must existence spring from god and nothing else ?



First off, this whole piece would've been really helpful if the Catholic priests would've defined what do they mean by "God". Do they mean god as revealed in the Christian doctrine, the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent personal god or a moreirreducible force form?

I am aware of Catholic priests who contributed a lot to the understanding of the cosmogony of our universe (George Lemaitre comes to mind) and they don't always strictly subscribe to the Judeo Christian god. I am prepared to accept a "god" 9for lack of a better word) if that god is equated with the laws of physics, or mathematical symmetry. The priests do not say clearly which god are they talking about, they leave me to specualate that, because they are Catholic priests, and are disputing Hawking, then the large possibility is that they are propounding Catholic doctrine, which is centred on a personal god with all his omni-properties.

Furthermore, the priests make a fiat statement that, god created the laws of physics which created the universe, and therefore Hawking cannot say that the universe created itself without needing god.

But they don't show us that the laws of physics were created by god, in giving in to the notion that the actual creation of the universe happenned by laws of nature (and not by the word of god) they contradict the biblical account.



The critique on labelling an existence which can carry the laws of physics as "nothing" (if indeed that is the accurate characterization) is legitimate. The assumption that these laws of physics must come from a god, a Judeo-Christian god no less, is not only an assumption, but a preposterous one. Hawking simply said, you don't need a god to have a universe, you can have laws of physics which rise spontaneously and create universes.

You cannot say simply that, because you have these laws of physics, then these laws of physics must come from god 9not the Judeo-Christian / personal/ supernatural anyway). No you can't. Not unless you redefine your god to be mathematical harmony / symmetry or some non personal logical abstract like that.



Even if Hawking cannot explain why there is something instead of nothing, why the laws of physics exists in the first place. This does not prove that they must come from god.

If a kid find some unexplained money in his pocket, one is not justified to say that the money must come from the kids father, by fiat, without showing how can one arrive at that conclusion.

Historically, many Christian theologians, as well as non-Christian philosophers, have argued precisely the opposite of Hawking's point: namely, that the laws of physics can only be ascribed to an infinite, intelligent and non-physical creator.

Why must this "creator" be god? Even a Judeo-Christian god ? Why must this creator be intelligent? Why can't this be a force of harmony or some fluctuations originating in another universe that borders on ours in a multiverse?



Why is god the reason? What kind of god is this, the Judeo-Christian one? Why only god? Why not some fluctuations from another universe ?


How do we know that god transcends? By just believing so? You don't know something by believing.



Why should existence be predicated by god ? If one was to say that existence in this universe and other universes in the multiverse has no beginning and no end because it transcend time, and that there are universes with no time at all, others with multiple time dimensions (just as we have multiple spatial dimensions) and in totality all the universes cancel out, no need for a god ?



In my view, even before Hawking's book, the issue was not the falsification of the notion that god was needed to create the universe, but the establishment that god is needed to create the universe.

Can the Catholic priests show us that god is needed in order for a universe to exist?

And I don't mean by using the fiat of "god is the reason for existence, for there to be things as opposed to not being things" because one can argue that this could be an axiom of the structure of the multiverse, without the need of a god

Its easy to see your rambling assessment is rather pathetic and way off point even to a casual reader like myself. Your understanding of what's contained in the article is superficial and highly misconstrued, and does not appear to address the profoundness of propositions advanced by the sources quoted in it. You appear to be dazed and confused dude. Pole sana.

 

[Kiranga]

Its easy to see your rambling assessment is rather pathetic and way off point even to a casual reader like myself. Your understanding of what's contained in the article is superficial and highly misconstrued, and does not appear to address the profoundness of propositions advanced by the sources quoted in it. You appear to be dazed and confused dude. Pole sana.

I read most of the classics and I know where the objection is coming from. I stated the objection and a critique of that objection.

In a nutshell, you and your priests did not answer the simple question, why must the laws of nature come from god ? Why must existence spring from god ?

 

[pmwasyoke]

Kiranga unahitaji kuombewa.

 

[Braniac]

ok,

simple questions. Kama mungu kweli yupo na kwa wanaoamini kwmaba kuwepo kwa kitu lazima kuwe po na source yake, then where didi god came from. what ws his source, who created him.

Mimi naamini kuwepo kwa kitu lazima kuwepo mwanzo (source) wake. Hata hivyo pia naamini M'mungu sio kitu.

 

[Braniac]

Right on point mazee, right on point.

Nimeongelea jinsi gani watu wa kale walivyokuwa wanaamini kwamba hata radi ni sauti ya mungu anaongea nao, watu walipokuja kugundua kwamba radi ni umeme tu ulio mawinguni tukamtoa mungu.

You are very right kwamba mungu ni kichaka cha kuficha yote tusiyoyajua na tunaposhindwa mambo. Hivyo tukiwa hatuna mipango kabambe ya kuhakikisha usalama migodini, migodi ikianguka na kufukia watu, Kikwete anasema "kazi ya mungu" kumbe angeweza kuzuia kwa kuweka systems nzuri zaidi.

Kwa hiyo utaona katika historia yote ya binadamu, gradually jinsi sayansi inavyozidi kuendelea ndivyo mungu anavyokosa kazi, kazi za mungu haziongezeki, zinapungua.

Mjanja anatakiwa aweze kuona pattern hii ina converge kwenye ulimwengu usio na mungu (personal supernatural god) .

Hapa unajaribu kutumia ujinga wa watu wachache kuhusu Mungu ( yaani hasa Mungu ni nani?) kujumuisha watu wote wenye imani ya Mungu. Kwa maneno mengine kuwapo kwa watu wanaoamini kuwapo kwa mungu bila kujua hasa huyo Mungu ni nani hakuondoi ukweli kwamba kuna Mungu. Kutumia hoja hii ni sawa na kusema kwamba Tanzania haina raisi kwa sababu tu kuna watu ambao bado wanaamini kuwa Nyerere ni raisi wa Tanzania. ( It is a totally flawed argument).