No evidence of God (1)

Roberto Angelone

Jun 17th 2012, 12:23

My Karma ran over your Dogma - this is no Buddha to Buddha form filling incident - Let's call the Woden & get it spotted - Religious Dogma is like Swiss cheese - it's got many holes in it. The idea that religion can have a useful, fool-proof, take on how people should go on with their lives is not only delusional but is a bottom-less pit where rationality, common sense, the bleeding obvious have been thrown into - Listen into that pit as hard as you like - they will not make a sound...

Anthony Galea

Jun 5th 2012, 19:02

I suggest, Ramon, instead of relying on your own made-up philosophy, you might try to expose yourself to actual philosophers like Immanuel Kant on the issue of God (with scientist Catholics from Pasteur to Joules to Pascal proving an interesting insight into religion's relationship with science).

Please, don't present us your own ideas as though they are philosophical writings; they are not. They are merely your opinion, and should be presented as such.

Maybe one day you'll realise this; that you are just one of us.

Giov DeMartino

May 25th 2012, 15:43

Kemm ghandna professuri Malta!

Joseph Meli

May 24th 2012, 18:19

It seems that some persons cannot believe of His existance, (maybe after they come face to face with Him) therefore, for those who, from time to time, lift their heads toward a starry night sky and wonder if a Creator-God does exist. And, if a Creator-God does exist, can it be proven?

The ancient sages have pointed out that only a “fool” would say in his heart: “There is no Creator-God’. There is a simple proof for the existence of a Creator-God, which I outline in the following commentary.
And, it is my firm conviction, as it is with many others, that it is the duty of each person to prove for themselves that a Creator-God does exist, and then, to truly search for His will, His ways and to live accordingly.

But even most scientists accept and know this law to be true, they refuse to acknowledge the “eternal something/source” as an eternal intelligent mind, which believers refer to as a Creator-God. The willingly ignorant scientists refer to creation as the result of a mindless, random Big Bang! Outrageous to say the least!
In sum, we can observe life, order, complexity and design which are “a something”. Therefore, according to the physical laws of science, the most logical and rational answer is that an eternal, self-existent intelligent being, a CREATOR-GOD, created these elements.

We all know that physical laws are true then it follows that (1) the universe is a “something”, therefore a “something” must have created it __a law of physics. That is, it always takes “something” to produce “something” . As I said before:- So any sort of “Big Bangs” do not create anything ---- they just destroy things. And, there doesn’t necessarily need to be an explosion for a “big bang to destroy things.

Take a massive and thundering noise (Big Bang) from festa fireworks if you are too close, the can destroy one’s ear drums, or your windows, etc., but not create another window pane . The military have to cover their ears when firing off colossal artillery weapons.

In short, our experiences tell us that “big bangs” associated with explosions DO NOT create life, design, order and complexity __ elements which are characteristic of creation. They destroy them!! In fact not as yet proven.

Keep in mind that with a bang you destroy and that from “nothing you produces nothing” ---- a law of physics. As a lay person, we all understand this to be true. For “it always takes a something to produce a something”, while “a nothing produces nothing”!! So be it!!

Joseph Meli

May 24th 2012, 18:13

May I give an example that Wood (Matter) contains Energy.. That is, set it on fire and it gives off heat, which is a form of “energy”. Question: Where does energy come from? It cannot be “created or destroyed”. Energy is eternal - it’s an eternal “something”. Remember, (1) it “always takes something to create something”.
Therefore, if energy is an “eternal something”, it had to come from an “eternal source“ (something)”. That “eternal something/source” we call the CREATOR-GOD!

The Creator is eternal (no beginning or end) __he always was and always will be __he is self-existent.

Even though most scientists accept and know this law to be true, they refuse to acknowledge the “eternal something/source” as an eternal intelligent mind, which believers refer to as a Creator-God.

The argument can go on and on when one side does not believe yet facts are facts and cannot be twisted or misunderstood. So what is white is white and what is black is black, I see it in colour while you see it in black and white, but it is still there to see..

Roger Vella Bonavita

May 21st 2012, 10:10

Regardless of whether or not there actually is a personal God, what is incontrovertible is that we only "believe" in his existence; we do not and cannot "know" he 'is who is'. In fact the Nicene creed which mass goers all round the world recite during the Mass states clearly "Credo in unum Deum.." i.e., 'I BELIEVE in one God'. The is a world of difference between KNOWING and BELIEVING. Knowing means one is certain and one can prove the truth or otherwise of a statement. Implicit in 'belief' on the other other hand is an act of faith. The Christian church does not claim that the existence of 'God' is an undeniable and proven fact - it only maintains that all Christians believe that there is a God. St Augustin, one of the great fathers of the church famously wrote: 'My God I believe, help thou my unbelief'. Even he did not know. The existence of God cannot be proved through reason. To doubt is human.
Roger Vella Bonavita
Perth
Western Australia
Roger Vella Bonavita

Alex Ellul

May 7th 2012, 16:02

Kenneth Cassar, you had also failed miserably by not replying to my reply when you challenged m e to, as you said and I quote: " I would love to know how the media "suppresses" some scientists".
Kenneth Cassar

May 3rd, 15:51

I would love to know how the media "suppresses" some scientists.











Alex Ellul

May 4th, 16:21

The BBC banned one scientist, David Bellamy from presenting further programmes for the fact that after having been an AGW campaigner, Bellamy became skeptical about the theory that man is causing the planet to warm. Now, after many years, bellamy has been proved correct by the man who started it (the global warming scare) all, Dr, james Lovelock himself. Read about it. This is only just one case. \then there are Felischman and Pond who had their reputations assassinated by MIT and the New York Times following their discovery of nuclear fusion by means of a desk-top device. The truth is now coming forth, with many scientists claiming 'cold fusion' is real. If you want more,just ask........................

Kenneth Cassar

May 4th 2012, 15:55

@ Alex Ellul:

Try not to be so irritated at Diego Csaba. He is only complaining about noisy bells. And he does have a point. Of course, you're free to disagree, but don't lose any sleep over it.

Kenneth Cassar

May 4th 2012, 15:48

@ Alex Ellul:

"according to science, before space and time were created, the situation was pure chaos".

That cannot be true. Nothing is not chaos, since chaos would be something. Chaos is itself dependent on space and time to even exist.

"please change the word hypothesis to pure speculation".

Speculation, hypothesis, makes no difference.

"There is nothing, absolutely nothing scientific that suggests that space and time can be created out of a non-space and non-time condition. It is mathematically impossible".

Mathematics is itself constrained and dependent upon space and time. What preceded space and time cannot be mathematical, so the rules of mathematics wouldn't apply.

"To suggest such a thing is in the same level that God has created everything. Your belief is just another religion not science. Not science at all".

It would depend on what you mean by "god". If you simply mean an impersonal non-anthropomorphic first-cause or "prime-mover", I have declared a million times that I have no problem with that. You choose to call it "god". I don't, since by "god" people generally mean much more than that.

"You seem to have been hit on a raw nerve considering the way you are answering to my comments, and it also looks obvious that the more science is thrown at you the more irritable you become"

Science "thrown at me" makes me irritated? Believe that if you like.

"...and the proof is the way you ask me about from where did I get the 'exact figure of 70%'.

Oh, so now, saying that I won't be pedantic and ask where you got the exact 70% figure, proves I am irritated? What kind of warped logic is that?

"You said it in a manner that gives one the impression that you have never heard of this established scientific knowledge. Dark matter is what gives approx. 70% of the total mass of the universe and dark energy is that energy which is driving the expansion of the universe but cannot be accounted for with present scientific knowledge and theories".

I could ask the scientists whom you fail to name, that same question (where did they get that figure), but like I said, I won't be pedantic. I'll accept it as a rough estimate, as it probably is.

"I would suggest that besides reading Hawking you read some scientific book".

Oh, so now, from being a great scientist with a great mind (your words), he has become someone whose books are not even scientific! Are you sure it is not you who are irritated by my replies, and not vice-versa. You certainly give that impression. And what other scientific books would you suggest?

"Hint: that which explains how a very perfect thing cannot be the result of stupid chance" (in reply to my question asking you to define what you mean by "god".

Sorry to disappoint you, but you gave me no definition at all, since a single word (a name) explains nothing at all. And I have already explained how, for one thing, there is no perfection in the universe, and secondly, how evolution shows us that chance occurrences (mutations in the case of biological beings) can "improve" beings through evolutionary time through natural selection. So yes, given enough time, chance can beget improvements (though not perfection, since there is no such thing as absolute perfection).

Alex Ellul

May 4th 2012, 15:12

@ Kenneth Cassar: You have failed to comment on a previous post of mine:

Alex Ellul

Yesterday, 13:24

Kenneth Cassar, before the big bang there were no laws "of science" as you call them. Nothing existed, not time, nor space nor matter but absolute mathematical chaos. Therefore no physical laws could exist. But from this state, an organised law-abiding universe emerged. There are two possibilities for the creation of this immensity, this universe so big that it can only be measured in light years, is 15 billion years old, is expanding at a speed approaching the speed of light, each tinu sub-atomic particle controlled by forces that obey physical laws to perfection. Now, all this could have occurred either:
1. By intelligent design, or
2. Stupid probability.

Now you tell me by what probabilistic theory could such great, immense mass and force obeying perfect laws could have happened by pure probabilistic chance. A for me, their is no mathematical logic by which such a universe could have occurred by pure probability. This is mathematics and postulations or hyperbole.

Alex Ellul

May 4th 2012, 14:35

@Kenneth Cassar, You seem to have been hit on a raw nerve considering the way you are answering to my comments, and it alsolooks obvious that the more science is thrown at you the more irritable you become and the proof is the way you ask me about from where did I get the "exact figure of 70%". Well first of all here is what I wrote:

>>Hawking does not know what constitutes approx 70% of all matter and energy contained in the universe. No scientist in fact can account for this immense amount of matter and energy."<<

You said it in a manner that gives one the impression that you havenever heard of this established scientific knowledge. Dark matter is what gives approx. 70% of the total mass of the universe and dark energy is thatenergy which is driving the expansion of the universe but cannot be accouted for with present scientific knowledge and theories.

I would suggest thatbesides reading Hawking you read some scientific book.

Diego Csaba

May 4th 2012, 09:38

Great article - couldnt agree more. Now lets get rid of all those church bells keeping us up each morning and Malta will be a wonderful place to live

Kenneth Cassar

May 4th 2012, 07:43

@ David Seychell:

"But according to our current and well tested Big Bang model, time and space had a definite beginning. This rules out infinite time..."

Does it really? In the absence of time, what is there? Nontime perhaps...but what is nontime? And if probability theory applies only to an environment of space and time, would a state of nontime even be constrained by probability theory?

If, in a space-time environment, probability theory tells us that given enough space and time, something will probably happen at least once, would a nonspace-nontime "environment" make a chance occurrences impossible, or more probable? We cannot know for sure, since we have to work under conditions of space-time. Can something come out of "nothing" in nonspace-nontime "conditions"? Hawking suggests that it can. Others might say that it cannot.

There is no proof on either hypothesis, and little evidence either way. We'll just have to wait and see, if we ever will.

Kenneth Cassar

May 4th 2012, 06:47

@ David Seychell:

True, it is probable (though not absolutely certain) that both space and time had a beginning. But we even have a difficulty conceptually phrasing "what was there" before space and time (was it an infinity of non-space and non-time?) let alone fully understand it.

As far as I'm concerned, whatever preceded the "big bang" (if this question even makes any sense, considering no space and time), is a mystery, and will remain a mystery for a long time if not forever. I'm quite comfortable with admitting ignorance on this point, rather than inventing a concept devoid of any substance in order to fill the knowledge gap. I'm not troubled by mystery, and will keep my mind receptive for new evidendce, in whatever direction the evidence takes us. Others are happy to simply invoke "god", whatever they mean by that. Perhaps they think of the mystery itself as "god". They are, of course, free to do so.

And like I said, I have no problem with the possibility of a non-anthropomorphic "prime-mover" or "first-cause".

David Seychell

May 3rd 2012, 18:28

@Kenneth Cassar
"Not really. The people who think so, do so because - understandably - we cannot even begin to grasp the infinity of time, which makes "chance" probable. You won't win the lottery in one lifetime, but you probably would at least once if you lived forever."

I agree that with infinite time, even an extremely unlikely event must happen. But according to our current and well tested Big Bang model, time and space had a definite beginning. This rules out infinite time, at least for as far as our evidence goes.

"At the Big Bang, the universe and time itself came into existence, so that this is the first cause." -Stephen Hawking, 1997

Kenneth Cassar

May 3rd 2012, 15:51

I would love to know how the media "suppresses" some scientists.

Kenneth Cassar

May 3rd 2012, 15:37

@ Alex Ellul:

Please pardon me for pressing on this point, but I feel I must.

You tell me that the probability of "perfectness" (by which I assume you meant organized matter or structure and not actually perfection) coming out of chaos, is mathematically zero.

Now let us deconstruct this. I gather from your previous posts that you accept that the "big bang" (chaos) really did happen. I also notice (since you mention it) that what you call "perfectness" (by which perhaps you meant organised complexity) is present today, and that it followed the big bang.

Now, how can you actually claim that it is impossible for organised complexity ("perfectness") to be derived from chaos (the "big bang"), when we're actually the living proof of just that!

Kenneth Cassar

May 3rd 2012, 15:25

@ Alex Ellul:

I am not "avoiding scientific truths", and my reluctance in debating ad infinitum on what are essentially just theories is far from being an "inanity".

But if you insist, yes, without being pedantic and demanding where you got the precise 70% figure from, I will agree that we have yet much to discover, and perhaps plenty that we never will.

However, Hawking, whom I quote for the reasons already stated (to debunk misrepresentations of him, and not because I am so "ready to quote"), never claimed absolute certainty on the composition of the entire universe. That's just another of your misrepresentations of him (and I am being kind in calling them misrepresentations).

I'm also amazed at how you have turned from favourably mentioning Hawkins to wrongly claim his supposed belief in some kind of god, to actually making a feeble attempt at ridiculing him through your misrepresentations (and childishly laughing at him - you of all people, who claimed it is some scientists who have inflated egos!)

Then, after taking a break from "humbly" laughing at a world-renowned scientist such as Hawking, you go on to tell us that no, its not as simple as saying God did it, but to say that God did not do it is like saying perfectness came out of chaos.

Allow me to point out that you are wrong on two counts. First of all, there is no "perfectness" in the universe, even conceding that perfection is subjective. One needs only look at natural illnesses to immediately get that point. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, anyone knowledgeable on cosmology and evolutionary biology will tell you that indeed matter (and life) does indeed tend to become more complexively organised given enough time. You only have to have a little knowledge on evolution to see how simple beings evolve in complex and organised ones in evolutionary time. I'm obviously assuming you accept evolution as a fact.

Now, please tell me, are you really interested in a rational reasoned discussion, or are you only interested in misrepresenting, slandering and attempting to ridicule Hawking? If it's the latter, then I'm not interested in wasting my time replying to infantile posts.

And to think that on April 27th, you called Hawking a "great scientist", just because you thought he suited the point you wished to make. Oh well.

Alex Ellul

May 3rd 2012, 13:55

Kenneth Cassar, it seems that while you are so ready to quote Hawking, who possesses a great brain and has written great books on science of aimed for the great masses, you seem to be avoiding the scientific truths that I am presenting you with, by saying inanities such as:

>>I won't even go there. We've already determined that its mostly theory, so there is no use wasting time disagreeing, is there?<<
So, Kenneth, you must agree with what I have said about the scientific fact that we don't know what 70% of our universe is made of. But Hawking knows how it was made. Haha. It must be the perfect case of the hen not knowing how to make an egg but knows how to make an omelette. LOL.

>>I've already made my agreement on this clear enough. But you'll understand that simply saying "God did it" won't do.<< No, it's not simple to say "God did it". It's a very complex question/answer and the fact is that it is so complicated that to say that God did not do it is like saying that perfectness can come out of chaos. The probability of this, mathematically, andthis IS science, is nil, zero. Try working that outmathematically. Hawking knows about this probability because other scientists have said it, but the media hype Hawking but and supress others.

Alex Ellul

May 3rd 2012, 13:24

Kenneth Cassar, before the big bang there were no laws "of scince" as you call them. Nothing existed, not time, nor space nor matter but absolute mathematical chaos. Therefore no physical laws could exist. But from this stae, an organised law-abiding universe emerged. There are two possibilities for the creation of this immensity, this universe so big that it can only be measured in light years, is 15 billion years old, is expqnding at a speed approaching the speed of light, each tinu sub-atomic particle controlled by forces that obey physical laws to perfection. Now, all this could have occured either:
1. By intelligent design, or
2. Stupid probability.

Now you tell me by what probabilistic theory could such great, immense mass and force obeying perfect laws could have happened by pure probabilistic chance. A for me, their is no mathematical logic by which such a universe could have occured by pure probability. This is mathematics and postulations or hyperbole.

Kenneth Cassar

May 3rd 2012, 13:05

@ Alex Ellul:

At this point, it would be helpful if you gave us your definition of what you mean by "god". Only then can I give my opinion on whether Hawking (or indeed I) believe (or allow for the possibility) in your version of "god".

Kenneth Cassar

May 3rd 2012, 12:45

@ Alex Ellul:

"Hawking does not leave out God, but excludes Him from the cause".

What exactly do you mean by that? Are you saying that Hawking believes a God is possible but that God played no part in the creation of the universe? If that is the case, in what sense should we call such a hypothetical useless impersonal being "god"?

Kenneth Cassar

May 3rd 2012, 12:34

@ Alex Ellul:

"...while blind faith followers quote them like a bible-belt Christian quotes the bible".

You would do well (if you wish to be fair) to check who introduced Hawking in the discussion in the first place.

My Hawking quotes are only a means of correcting misrepresentations on him. I don't believe Hawking is infallible (no one is), but I also don't believe in misrepresenting people either.

Kenneth Cassar

May 3rd 2012, 12:27

@ Alex Ellul:

"I have read Hawking and others".

You evidently have not read his latest work.

"When it comes to what caused or/and what was before the big bang, it's all postulating, nothing more".

Yes, with current knowledge and information, its all just theories. On this we certainly agree.

"Hawking does not leave out God..."

I've already answered this with a direct quote. Let me repeat it: "The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second. If you like, you can call the laws of science 'God', but it wouldn't be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions." (Hawking on Channel 4).

"...but excludes Him from the cause and he is agnostic and not atheistic about it all".

If you define "God" simply as "nature", then you would be correct.

"Now for the meat..."

I won't even go there. We've already determined that its mostly theory, so there is no use wasting time disagreeing, is there?

"The obvious truth is that we are not able to define the cause of the big bang, what created it, while we cannot even account for 70% of creation".

I've already made my agreement on this clear enough. But you'll understand that simply saying "God did it" won't do.

"The problem with some scientists is that while their ego starts getting bigger and bigger and approaches infinity, their belief in a supreme being commences its decline, approaching zero, while blind faith followers quote them like a bible-belt Christian quotes the bible; no difference really".

That's just your own personal prejudice. I won't argue on personal subjective opinions. If you wish to believe that decline in belief in God is the result of a swelling ego, suit yourself.

Alex Ellul

May 3rd 2012, 11:58

@Kenneth cassar,

I have read Hawking and others. When it comes to what caused or/and what was before the big bang, it's all postulating, nothing more. Hawking does not leave out God, but excludes Him from the cause and he is agnostic and not atheistic about it all. Now for the meat:

Hawking does not know what constitutes approx 70% of all matter and energy contained in the universe. No scientist in fact can account for this immense amount of matter and energy. Let's say it again: 70%. So, we know what 30% of the universe is composed of, but we lack the knowledge on the other 70% of all matter and energy. So what do we do? W call that matter DARK MATTER and the unaccountable energy DARK ENERGY. As an aside, we also can account for a fraction of our DNA, its utility, while no utilisation of the bigger chunk of our DNA can be found, so we call it junk DNA.

The obvious truth is that we are not able to define the cause of the big bang, what created it, while we cannot even account for 70% of creation.

The problem with some scientists is that while their ego starts getting bigger and bigger and approaches infinity, their belief in a supreme being commences its decline, approaching zero, while blind faith followers quote them like a bible-belt Christian quotes the bible; no difference really.

Kenneth Cassar

May 3rd 2012, 11:19

@ Alex Ellul:

"Stephen hawking ends his famous book, A Brief Histroy of Time with '.....for then we shall know the mind of God'."

You need to update yourself with his latest work, where he explains what he meant by that.

"Science has never proven that fairies do not exist, neither can it prove that they do. Same for the God discussion".

Precisely.

"It is only proselytising atheists that try to convince others that it is for believers to prove that God exists otherwise he does not".

Actually, nobody really says that. What we say is that the onus of proof is on the claimant. To use your analogy, we cannot prove fairies don't exist, but the onus of proof is on who makes the claim that they do. However, it is obviously true that failure to prove something does not necessarily mean it is not true. And yes, you are free to believe in anything, as long as the beliefs are not imposed. But I don't see anyone imposing anything here.

Kenneth Cassar

May 3rd 2012, 11:09

@ Alex Ellul:

"Hawking is now god".

Nobody has said that, but of course, you are free to believe it.

Kenneth Cassar

May 3rd 2012, 10:50

@ Francis Saliba MD:

"Yes, unlike some, Hawking uses his brains and his knowledge evolves".

True. Nobody ever said that the "big bang" by itself created the universe, since nobody knows for sure what preceded the big bang, so in this sense, Hawking is saying nothing new. The "big bang" is, to put it simply, the expansion of all matter from a "fixed point" and a "single mass". What preceded the "big bang" remains an open question.

Then again, someone who refuses to read particular books (and yet comments on their authors) wouldn't know the details therein, would he?

Alex Ellul

May 3rd 2012, 10:40

Hawking is now god.

Kenneth Cassar

May 3rd 2012, 07:58

"The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second. If you like, you can call the laws of science 'God', but it wouldn't be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions."

Stephen Hawking on Channel 4 in June 2010

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7976594/Stephen-Hawking-God-was-not-needed-to-create-the-Universe.html

Kenneth Cassar

May 3rd 2012, 07:51

For the benefit of those who will comment on Hawking even though they refuse to read what he actually wrote:

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.”

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going."

Stephen Hawking & Leonard Mlodinow- The Grand Design (2010).

Then again, some theists will fail to contain their craving for claiming atheists as their own.

Kenneth Cassar

May 3rd 2012, 07:35

@ Francis Saliba MD:

Yes, unlike some, Hawking uses his brains and his knowledge evolves. Nobody ever said that the "big bang" by itself created the universe, since nobody knows for sure what preceded the big bang, so in this sense, Hawking is saying nothing new. The "big bang" is, to put it simply, the expansion of all matter from a "fixed point" and a "single mass". What preceded the "big bang" remains an open question.

Then again, someone who refuses to read particular books (and yet comments on their authors) wouldn't know the details therein, would he?

Kenneth Cassar

May 3rd 2012, 07:26

@ David Seychell:

I won't drag on this topic forever, so I'll be brief.

"Every scientist on Earth, whether atheist, agnostic, believer or whatever, admits that the Universe is fine tuned for life with a precision so big that chance alone is virtually impossible".

Not really. The people who think so, do so because - understandably - we cannot even begin to grasp the infinity of time, which makes "chance" probable. You won't win the lottery in one lifetime, but you probably would at least once if you lived forever.

"In his book the Grand Design, Hawkings was quick to jump to conclusions which were never scientifically tested".

I honestly appreciate the fact that you have read the book before commenting on it. Yes, when putting forth hypotheses or theories, all scientists jump to conclusions. Theory is all about possibilities or probabilities. Only time will tell whether Hawking's musings will be proved wrong or built upon.

Francis Saliba M.D.

May 2nd 2012, 17:18

@ Kenneth Cassar, Today, 08:02

Consider the clear possibility that Hawking actually uses his brains and his knowledge evolves. He is now doubting that the "big bang" theory, by itself, is sufficient by itself to account for the present state of the universe and that religiosity may have to be invoked.

David Seychell

May 2nd 2012, 15:35

@Kenneth Cassar (2nd and last part)

String theory also known as M-theory is therefore Hawkings solution to kick God out of the equation. But M-theory has several problems. First of all, it is incomplete, in fact it predicts everything. Imagine someone asking me what the next super5 winning numbers will be, and I say the five numbers will range from 1 to 42. A theory that predicts everything is like a theory that predicts nothing.

Secondly, even if M-theory is correct, it would be very hard to prove it. Infact it predicts the existence of extremely tiny strings. In order to confirm such objects, one would need a particle accelerator the size of the whole Solar System. But most importantly M-theory has in favour absolutely no empirical evidence or observational data. In fact many scientists consider it as no more than a promising mathematical curiosity. All this does not mean that it is incorrect, it means that until it is scientifcally tested we cannot say. In fact Hawking himself, in his book the Grand Design admits this but not in the same open way I just did.

"M-theory is the most general supersymmetric theory of gravity. For these reasons M-theory is the only candidate for a complete theory of the Universe. If it is finite -and this has yet to be proved-it will be a model of a universe that creates itself." - The Grand Design

Hawkings said, "If" but what he didn't say is that it's a big "If". As Hawking's said, (see the above quote), M-theory/string theory, is based on "supersymmetry". Supersymmetry is a theoretical model of the fundamental particles. There is no direct evidence for the existence of supersymmetry. Hawkings book the Grand Design was published in 2010, the following year, results started to come out of the Large Hydron Collider, the most powerful particle accelerator in the World. At these high energy levels, scientists were expecting to see evidence in favour of supersymmetry. But the LHC experiment found no signs of Supersymmetry.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/08/lhc-supersymmetry-physics/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14680570

In fact Scientific American Magazine published an article titled "Is Supersymmetry Dead?"

"Although they may never be able to strictly disprove super­symmetry, if the collider fails to find it, the theory’s usefulness may fade away, and even its most hard-core supporters may lose interest. That would be a blow not just to supersymmetry but also to even more ambitious unified theories of physics that presume it, which include string theory and other approaches"

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-supersymmetry-dead&amp;page=2

Since String theory/M-theory is based on Supersymmetry, the death of supersymmetry would be fatal blow to M-theory.


Conclusion

In his book the Grand Design, Hawkings was quick to jump to conclusions which were never scientifcally tested.

David Seychell

May 2nd 2012, 13:19

@Kenneth Cassar Part one

Every scientist on Earth, whether atheist, agnostic, believer or whatever, admits that the Universe is fine tuned for life with a precision so big that chance alone is virtually impossible.

For instance, consider the fine tuning of the Strong Nuclear force. Inside a Star, when the hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass of the hydrogen is converted into energy. If this amount were a little bit smaller, 0.6 per cent instead of 0.7, a proton could not bond to a neutron and the result would be a Universe with just Hydrogen. With no heavy elements there would be no carbon no water, no oxygen, no rocky planets no life. Had it been slightly bigger, like 0.8%, no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. No hydrogen means no stars and no stars means no heavy elements means no water no carbon no rocky planets means no life. By the way notice that this is just one parameter, and like this lucky "accident" there is over one hundred others.

There are two possible explanations for the overwhelming design of the Universe. The Intelligent Designer, and the multiverse theory. If there is an infinite number of parallel Universes, and in each Universe the parameters are randomly set, than you would expect to find at least one Universe with the lucky parameters, and that Universe would be ours. String theory or M-theory predicts a virtually infinite number of different parallel Universes. This is Hawkings solution to the problem of the origin and fine tuning of the Universe. Mystery solved? Not quite.

Kenneth Cassar

May 2nd 2012, 08:49

Can someone please point me to some literature that shows Napoleon to be an expert in metaphysics?

Kenneth Cassar

May 2nd 2012, 08:47

@ Michael Debono:

"You asked who created God. God has been there from eternity".

If you say so, then it must be true. Then again, you can't blame me for putting forth another hypothesis that has equal evidence - that matter has been there from eternity.

Kenneth Cassar

May 2nd 2012, 08:02

@ Francis Saliba MD:

Now that's funny. My impression, after reading his latest book (which you will not read) is the exact opposite - that Hawking has finally tired of bending over backwards in order not to offend the easily offended, and has finally made his atheism clear for all to see (his earlier works gave the impression that he was agnostic).

Then again, I won't waste any time arguing about impersonal "prime-movers" or "first causes", since I have no problem with that hypothesis.

It does puzzle me, however, how in the same post you both claim that Hawking must be an agnostic (who is lapsing from atheism), and that his literature is atheist literature (that you refuse to read - such is your openness towards weighing claims to discover or reconfirm the truth). It would help if you made up your mind on this point.

Then again, that's too much to ask from someone who makes it his life's mission to denigrate that which he knows little about, and is not even willing to learn - and instead bases his "knowledge" on snippets from the internet.

Francis Saliba M.D.

May 1st 2012, 17:08

@ Kenneth Cassar, Yesterday, 10:51

My suspicion that Hawking is lapsing from his notorious atheism results from his declaration that the religious must come in somewhere in the "big bang" theory to explain the onset of the world as we know it.

I have better use for my money than squandering it on buying atheist literature and I have a better use for my time than reading it even if it was given to me as an (unwanted) present.

Mr Michael Debono

Apr 30th 2012, 11:11

Yes Napoleon believed in the existance of God. His remark on his way to Egypt confirms it. If there is someone who tries toberate Napoleon Judgment then one should compare their own intelligence with that of Napoleon. Napoleon with his vast intelligence could not but believe in the existance of God. Those who mock Napoleon should evaluate their intelligence and see what it reaches. Doing this you notice how limited is our intelligence.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 30th 2012, 10:55

@ Alex Ellul:

When one copies, word for word, whole paragraphs, and omits the source, that is plagiarism.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 30th 2012, 10:51

@ Francis Saliba:

Buy yourself Stephen Hawking's "The Grand Design". You'll find your alternative explanation there. A book-length explanation on such a complex topic cannot be reduced to a few sentences on a message board.

Then again, you may always keep believing Hawking is an agnostic. Whatever makes you happy.

Mr Michael Debono

Apr 30th 2012, 10:51

Kennet Cassar.
You asked who created God. God has been there from eternity. He has no beginning and no end otherwise he would not be God.Even applying a little intelligence one will come to that conclusion. We are humans and we have a starting point but will not have an end. If this does not satisfy you then you ought to explain the gegginingand you will come to the conclusion that God has existed for ever, has no beginning and no end. That is the essence of God.

Francis Saliba M.D.

Apr 27th 2012, 15:33

@ Kenneth Cassar.

Hawking is clearly debunking the "big bang" theory, on its own, as the origin of our universe and that it is clear to him that "clear religious implications" must be invoked to provide an adequate solution.

It would appear that his unrelenting "self-declared atheism" is undergoing a subtle change towards "agnosticism" as a prelude to the acceptance of a religious belief in an intelligent prime mover who would give a sense of direction to the evolutionary progress towards the marvellously complicated but harmonious universe like ours. He clearly finds it hard to believe that it could have happened by a haphazard chance against incredible impossible odds.

Can you suggest an alternative explanation? I can't.

Francis Saliba M.D.

Apr 27th 2012, 15:33

@ Kenneth Cassar.

Hawking is clearly debunking the "big bang" theory, on its own, as the origin of our universe and that it is clear to him that "clear religious implications" must be invoked to provide an adequate solution.

It would appear that his unrelenting "self-declared atheism" is undergoing a subtle change towards "agnosticism" as a prelude to the acceptance of a religious belief in an intelligent prime mover who would give a sense of direction to the evolutionary progress towards the marvellously complicated but harmonious universe like ours. He clearly finds it hard to believe that it could have happened by a haphazard chance against incredible impossible odds.

Can you suggest an alternative explanation? I can't.

Alex Ellul

Apr 27th 2012, 15:12

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 25th, 13:55

@ Alex Ellul:

"Atheist acolytes think they know everything, which is the perfect formula for getting egg all over one’s face".

And do you know what we call people who think they know everything, and then copy and paste whole articles without mentioning the source (wikipedia)? Plagiarists.

Kenneth Cassar, i had missed your comment copied here. By your comment you prove that you do nor know the meaning of plagiarism,
How can one plagiarise a dictionary, an encyclopedia, a wikipedia? Plagiarism is one copying an author's work claining it to be one's own when using it for a doctoral thesis or publishing a book.. You accuse me that saying that 'mixing NaOH with HCl produces NaCl and water' is plagiarisng a chemistry book, which is not. It is basic knowledge attributable to no specifc person. That's what dictionaries and ecyclopedias and Wiki are.
Which shows that while you think you know it all you know, as I do, nothing. We know nothing and everyhing is still out there to be discovered.

Alex Ellul

Apr 27th 2012, 10:33

.Continued from my previous post:
However, we have already experienced political systems where God was officially removed from all apsects of officialdom, even banning all expressions of faith, teaching of faith-based culture and theology. The atheist Soviet experiment lasted 70 years and while it lasted it created an equal distribution of misery among its citizens and people living in its areas of influence. The Soviets invaded countries, occupied and imposed dictatorships in all its neighbouring states spreading misery everywhere they went. That the Soviet Union imploded and disappeared from the face of the planet within a space of seven decades was just a logical conclusion due its incompatibility with human nature. Compared to these 70 years of experimenting with atheism, the previous hundreds of thousands of years of human history were a resounding success, despite the hiccups of wars, dark ages and a snake-and-ladder like developement. The averaged graph of our history has always been up in spite of or because of our beliefs.
Measuring God
The ancient Greek philosophers debated the existence of the smallest particle that can exist, atomos, from which the english word atom derives. One who believed in such a particle had the problem of trying to explain what this can be, how small it can be and other parameters. But someone who did not believe in such a particle did not have the problem of trying to understand or explain the theory. For the unbeliever, the discussion STOPS there. But for the believer the discussion just STARTS there. This holds true for any discussion, be it the existence of the smallest particle possible or the existence of God and all the thoughts and discussions that come with it. So, ever since Man started walking upright and ‘ruining’ cave walls with graffiti of antelopes and bison, the search for a god or gods must have

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 27th 2012, 07:12

@ David Seychell:

You could provide me with a whole book on quotations of scientists and their fascination with the wonders of the universe. And yet, you would not have given one flimsy evidence of the existance of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnisapient and benevolent creator god.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 27th 2012, 07:07

@ Alex Ellul:

I'll limit myself to David Seychell's first quote, and won't waste much more of my time.

Since Stephen Hawking is a self-declared atheist, he couldn't have meant what you think he meant.

Apparently it is you who don't get it, not atheists.

Alex Ellul

Apr 26th 2012, 22:48

Ever since we humans became what we are, walking upright, painting graffiti on cave walls, hunting bison and harvesting wild grains, the question of what happens to our consciousness after death must have always been a very important intellectual discussion.
It is known, through archeological research that even neanderthals must have philosophied about conscoiusness, sufferring, death and afterlife. Neanderthal sites discovered along the northern Mediterrenean coast from Israel to Gibraltar show that the Neanderthals took care of their sick and injured and laid flowers in the graves when burying their dead relatives.
Archeology and history show and prove, and nobody can dispute this fact, that the ascent of Man from a cave dweller to a space traveller developed in resonance and in correlation with a faith-based philosophy or philosophies, belief in a powerful creationist entity or entities and the belief that consciousness does not end with physical death but in some form or other continues to exist in some way or another.
This paradigm has been going on for hundreds of thousands of years of human history. It is only now, lately, in our human development that the idea that man can do better with an atheist paradigm, one that says that faith hinders the development of man, that religion is bad, that belief in a creator god or gods is passe

David Seychell

Apr 26th 2012, 15:12

Here are some quotations from scientists which might interest readers.

“If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million, [the universe] would have recollapsed before it reached its present size . . . The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the big bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications.” - Stephen Hawking

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist) "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

George Ellis (British astrophysicist) "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word."

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".

Paul Davies: "The laws... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose".

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the theological or design argument."

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life."

Alex Buds

Apr 25th 2012, 23:25

Proving that God exists is only half the struggle.

There are millions of religions on earth which believe in God - even if he existed, how would you know yours is correct and not the others?

All believers in any religion are actually atheists with respect to every religion except their own. The difference between atheists and believers is tiny - a difference of opinion on one particular religion only out of thousands.

Mr leo attard

Apr 25th 2012, 20:48

Perhaps it would be best for us all to shut up -- we will definitely get proof of God's existence or not, proof that no idiot can doubt, when we die, which we will all eventually do. Now, either we will be telling nonbelievers ''I TOLD YOU SO'' or the atheists will be right and they will be ables to tell us -- NOTHING! because they won't be existing to say anything!

Mr leo attard

Apr 25th 2012, 20:41

sorry, Mr Casha, but i disagree with your comment on the doctors' interpretation of healing -- yes, there are those cases of those who heal and don't heal as expected --- but when the healing is sudden, inexplicable and associated with a religious factor, they consider it a miracle. i am not going to repeat, but some of the Lourdes miracles involved cases of hip bones and ear bones being destroyed and then, on visiting Lourdes, they just heal and tests show the bone regenerated. Now non-believers often mock the concept of 'faith' as the cop-out of believers when faced with inexplicable situations, but then so do believers who talk of ''the at present limited knowledge of science''. I understand your arguments and are well presented; but it' s a question of interpretation -- ex: adam and eve could be a metaphor, but so could 'original sin' -- My personal interporetation: man evolved from amino acis in the sea, eventually evolving into an animal just like the other apes, living in the innocence of all animals, until he reached that point ion evolution that separated him from the other animals, thee time when man developed a sense of good and evil, a conscience (the eating of the tree of knowledge, another metaphor) and that sense of good and evil has ever since been man's blessing and curse (our departure from paradise)

Victor Pulis

Apr 25th 2012, 16:02

David Seychell

Today, 14:30

"Man is just another creature in the vast universe and science has proven this if nothing else.

As far as we know, Earth is at the centre of the Universe.

Religion still believes that man is something special because he was created in the image of god!"

You believe the same thing even though you're not fully aware of it.

This last sentence gets the cookie! It reminds me of the scene in Star Wars where Obi Wan Kenobi tells the guard "You don't need to see their identification" and the guard replies Ï don't need to see your identification ". So now I'm a believer and don't know it!!

Victor Pulis

Apr 25th 2012, 15:57

That is a self assessment that could very well be biased and questionable in the eyes of an independent observer. Francis Saliba MD
What did you mean by this quote? Please indulge me as I'm not as quick witted as you.
Can you rephrase it in more simple English? Thank you very much.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 25th 2012, 13:55

@ Alex Ellul:

"Atheist acolytes think they know everything, which is the perfect formula for getting egg all over one’s face".

And do you know what we call people who think they know everything, and then copy and paste whole articles without mentioning the source (wikipedia)? Plagiarists.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 25th 2012, 13:51

@ Mr Michael Debono:

"Those who question the existance of God should imitate Napoleon on his way from Malta to Egypt and look at the sky full of stars. Someone has surely created what we see.These are the words of Napoleon textually".

Shall we take Napoleon's word for it, then? In that case, pity he's not here any longer, or we would have asked him - if nothing comes from nothing - who created God?

Please do some research. Such arguments have been thrown in the bin centuries ago.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 25th 2012, 13:45

@ Alex Ellul:

Possibilities and hypothesis are not evidence. And please stop beating a straw man by claiming that atheists think they know everything. We don't, and we never claimed we do. Usually the ones who think they know everything are the ones (a minority of believers, I would think) who believe God actually speaks to them.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 25th 2012, 13:40

@ Alex Ellul:

"You can take the horse to the water but you cannot make him drink, especially if he is ignorant of the scientific knowledge necessary to understand that water is so important for one's metabolism and life itself".

You've got the saying all jumbled up. For, to go with your saying, you are actually refusing to take the horse to the water (I am asking you to produce the evidence), and secondly, I find the water (evidence or knowledge) so important that I am asking you to lead me to it.

Now, once again, where's the evidence?

Francis Saliba M.D.

Apr 25th 2012, 13:34

@ Victor Pulis,Today, 10:32

What I have to say I say clearly and unambiguously. God help me if I were to need you to elaborate on what I could possibly be implying.

Your usual ploy is to ask questions slyly insinuating that I may have meant something that I never meant at all and that I never implied. Then you waste your time, and the time of your readers, attacking the fabrication created by you. I do not waste my time discussing such strawman arguments.

Alex Ellul

Apr 25th 2012, 11:54

There are many instances of as yet scientifically unexplainable experiences and phenomena: Medically unexplainable, sudden cures, near death experiences, identical twins sharing the same experience at the same time even though separated by thousands of kilometers, and so on and so forth. It could be that such phenomena may be scientifically acknowledged and explained by future scientific findings and discoveries, but one cannot just rule out the possibility that these phenomena do not exist just because these cannot be explained by current science knowledge. Such attitudes are comparable to the Pope's treatment of Galileo, or the treatment that some modern scientists have experienced and who practically had their reputations destroyed because they claimed discoveries that went against their peers established scientific base and consensus. To name a few of these modern scientists:
The Big Bang Theory: Monsignor George Lemaître
Monsignor Lemaître was a Belgian CATHOLIC PRIEST, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven. He was the first person to propose the theory of the expansion of the Universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble. He was also the first to derive what is now known as the Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article. Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom'.
Quasi Crystals: Dan Shechtman
In 1982, Shechtman lost his job as a scientist when he humbly declared his great discovery. But according to the established science of that time, such crystals could not exist. The other scientists, Pope-like, refused to look through the ‘telescope’ and declared Shechtmen a heretic. He was awared the Nobel prize only last year, nearly 30 years later, after having been rehabilitated by the scientific community.
Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR, also referred to as cold fusion) Fleischman and Pons
F&P made a great discovery in 1989, claiming that they were producing nuclear fusion reactions at very low energy levels. These were demonised by the scientific community, MIT, then the press while another scientist (Eugene Mallove) who took up the issue and was revealing how the scammmers were had demonised the two scientists, was foundmurdered at his home. The issue is still hot, however, during the last few years indipendent and self funded scinetists have made great strides in developing the science, proving that F&P were actually honest scientists and that there science was correct. LENR is on th way of providing cheap energy to the world.
The above is to show that we never know everything and most probably know nothing. Feynmen, the greatest mathematican of our time, says that science is the belief in the ignorance of the expert.
Atheist acolytes think they know everything, which is the perfect formula for getting egg all over one’s face.
.

Mr Michael Debono

Apr 25th 2012, 11:41

Those who question the existance of God should imitate Napoleon on his way from Malta to Egypt and look at the sky full of stars. Someone has surely created what we see.These are the words of Napoleon textually.

Victor Pulis

Apr 25th 2012, 10:52

If there was an entity that created the universe, and I'm not admitting that there is, it is not the loving just merciful god religions make it out to be. And this is evident in historical and personal experiences. nature is indiscriminate towards its creation. Man is just another creature in the vast universe and science has proven this if nothing else. Religion still believes that man is something special because he was created in the image of god! This primitive idea was developed when man was still thinking of the universe as being an inverted bowl with holes in it letting in the light of the stars on a flat earth underneath! Now we...or some of us know better.

Francis Saliba M.D.

Apr 25th 2012, 10:26

@ Ramon Casha

If you “cheerfully admit your ignorance of quantum physics” then it follows that you should not try to invoke it as a scientific proof that God does not exist. Atheists have now revised the lie that science has proved that God does not exist. They now preach that science renders the belief in God unnecessary. One must keep in mind that Einstein’s relativity and Planck’s quanta are both theories with unresolved conflicts between them and while some phenomena are explained by the quantum theory others are explained by relativity.

On the purely rational level even if one accepts, for argument’s sake, that there is no need to postulate the existence of God as a prime mover to explain this magnificently organised, complicated and purposeful universe it, is much more reasonable to postulate that this universe is the result of an intelligent plan and an intelligent planner rather than the end result of millions of chance occurrences spread haphazardly over billions of years, starting with a big bang of nothing or of some subatomic particle that must have created itself and that subsequently evolved according to natural laws that came into existence spontaneously in the absence of a lawgiver.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 25th 2012, 09:58

@ Francis Saliba MD:

"That is a self assessment that could very well be biased and questionable in the eyes of an independent observer".

That may apply equally to believers, don't you think?

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 25th 2012, 09:10

@ Alex Ellul:

By the way, the purpose of Amazon.com reviews is to sell books. So please, for your own good, don't take all reviews as "Gospel truth". After all, you wouldn't blindly believe an Amazon.com review claiming that there is proof God does not exist, would you?

Now how about getting me "out of the cave" and showing me some evidence?

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 25th 2012, 07:10

@ Alex Ellul:

Evidence of near-death experiences is no evidence of an afterlife. Clue: NEAR death.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 25th 2012, 07:07

@ Gerry Cowie:

"Ramon Casha has managed several paragraphs of nonsense in his vain and desperate attempt to disprove the existence of God and miracles".

He has never even tried.

"I wish to draw this to Roger Tirazona's attention as he keeps trying to suggest that religion "vilifies" humanism! Yet here is Ramon Casha, who has no interest in God, going to great lengths to attract others into his minority group".

First of all, it is not religion that vilifies humanism, but some of the religious. That much is beyond question. Secondly, please look up the definition of non sequitur, as you have just indulged in one. What has trying to attract others in "minority groups" got to do with vilification?

"Ramon...you actually manage to bring out a lot of opposition to your views from those who do believe in God".

What's the problem with that?

"Let us pray for Ramon and all those who seek so hard to try to deny God!"

It isn't hard to deny the existence of God, seeing that there is no evidence of "his" existence. But thank you. It's the thought that counts.

Francis Saliba M.D.

Apr 24th 2012, 22:18

"Funny, I don't believe in a divine entity and yet I feel all the above". (victor Pulis, today at 20:05).

That is a self assessment that could very well be biased and questionable in the eyes of an independent observer.

Clifton Carl Barbara

Apr 24th 2012, 21:18

Great article, keep up the good work

Gerry Cowie

Apr 24th 2012, 19:35

Ramon Casha has managed several paragraphs of nonsense in his vain and desperate attempt to disprove the existence of God and miracles.

I wish to draw this to Roger Tirazona's attention as he keeps trying to suggest that religion "vilifies" humanism! Yet here is Ramon Casha, who has no interest in God, going to great lengths to attract others into his minority group.

Ramon, you amuse the majority of the population with your letters and, rather like your friend John Guillaumier, you actually manage to bring out a lot of opposition to your views from those who do believe in God.

Let us pray for Ramon and all those who seek so hard to try to deny God!

David Seychell

Apr 24th 2012, 18:59

There is no definitive proof of the existance of God or the inexistence of God. Therefore it is up to each one of us to choose which idea is the least absurd. Either God created everything or everything simply poped-out from nothing. Who knows, perhaps Casha is right after all, perhaps Nothing created Everything. If you think about it, it's not totally illogical.

Roger Tirazona

Apr 24th 2012, 18:53

"Evidence of the Afterlife: The Science of Near-Death Experiences"

But near-death is not death. Nobody can honestly say they died and came back. Not all that is called science is actually science. Ghost hunters call themselves scientists...but it's pseudo-science.

Evidence? Is it really evidence? For it to be evidence it has to be irrefutable data within a scientific community that is not open to interpretation. if there is evidence there is no point to faith any more.

Alfred Hili

Apr 24th 2012, 16:12

Society must focus on the cultivation of virtue and maintenamnce of ethics, the most basic of which are: an obligation of altruism and humanism for other individuals within the community; the upholding of righteousness and moral disposition to do good; and a system of norms and propriety that determines how a person should properly act within the community.
We should be trustworthy on whom others could find no fault, thus contributing to unity of a world wide brotherhood of love.
This is only possible if we have a very close relationship with God.

Alex Ellul

Apr 24th 2012, 15:57

Book by Dr. Jeffrey Long, Evidence of the Afterlife: The Science of Near-Death Experiences
Editorial reviws of ths book on Amazon:

Dr. Jeff Long and journalist Paul Perry have done a phenomenal job in clarifying current events in the study of near-death experiences. Dr. Long’s work is leading us closer to a rational solution of the afterlife mystery.” (Raymond Moody, M.D., Ph.D., author of Life after Life )

“This important book about near-death experiences provides compelling evidence that mind and consciousness cannot be reduced to brain activity.” (Mario Beauregard, Ph.D., Neuroscientist at the University of Montreal and co-author of The Spiritual Brain )

“If someone asked for proof that life after death exists, refer them to this book. Dr. Long and Paul Perry have gone way beyond faith and into science, providing us with well-documented proof of what we have known absolutely for 35 years - there is life after death.” (Dannion and Kathryn Brinkley, authors of Saved by the Light and Secrets of the Light )

“Is there life after death? ...Radiation oncologist Dr. Jeffrey Long argues that if you look at the scientific evidence, the answer is unequivocally yes. Drawing on a decade’s worth of research on near-death experiences... he makes the case for that controversial conclusion.” (Time.com )

“Long answers skeptics . . . does a fine job of summarizing some of the transformative changes from NDEs.... The end result of all this testimony, according to Long, is ‘there is life after death.’” (Spirituality and Practice )

One immediately notices that research into near death experiences is being carried out by scientists. While some try to justify NDE's by claiming, on suppositions, that it is the effect of elevated levels of CO2 (also blamed for global warming incidentally) in the blood stream during brain death or close to this, other scientists have dug deeper into the many thousands of NDE experiences around the globe and become more and more convinced that consciousness does not cease to exist after death. Of course, science requires more research to prove this theory based on observation, however, those who write here claiming arrogantly that there is no life beoynd life may one day end up with a lot of egg on their faces.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 24th 2012, 14:47

@ Alex Ellul:

"Meanwhile the evidence of life after death continues to bug fundamentalist atheists".

What evidence?

Alvaro Santiago

Apr 24th 2012, 13:50

@ Alex Ellul

The multiverse theory is just that, a theory. It has not been proven and forms only a small part of our cosmological understanding. It has both proponents and detractors, and generally lies at the sidelines of our cosmological understanding.

The main tenet of religions is that there is an entity, existing outside space and time, that has created every single elementary particle in existence, and as Mr. Ellul and his '7 billion' friends wish to believe, that we can understand Her motives. It was unclear to me whether Mr. Ellul was defending the existence of a god, or his god, therefore I assumed the former.

When nations start to define or base their constitutions, public morals and social norms on as yet unproven, or unprovable, scientific theories, then I am certain that people like Mr. Casha and myself will be among the protesters. No person can single-handedly say that there is no god, and no person should. You misunderstand atheism as an assertion that a creator does not exist, or should exist. Yet what truly ruffles your feathers is that atheism is only the assertion that your god most probably does not exist, therefore it has no place, or say, in the marital bed, in public discourse, in the political arena, and in what goes on, or should go on, in a woman's vagina.

Julian Pio Cefai

Apr 24th 2012, 12:56

@Alex Ellul
Good afternoon,
First of all well done to Mr. Casha for a great piece of writing. Second of all you ask for proof when proof should be provided by those that make the claims. We live in a world where there is no evidence and therefore no reason to believe in a god, doesn't that mean that it should be left up to the believer to show his/her/it's existence? If i say there is a unicorn in the sky I have to first show you why I think so rather than you showing me why there isn't. There is however plenty of evidence to suggest that there is no god, or if there indeed is, that the deity is either unjust or does really care much about humanity. For example people gladly say it is god that saved their sister from cancer but when a baby dies it is simply 'gods will and we cannot understand it'. If we are to attribute good to god then we must also attribute that to him/her it. What in our world points to an existence of god? Billions of people regimented from childhood to believe in a dictator who is always watching them? If you argue in favour of an existence of a creator you make a bigger problem then there already is, where did he come from? In a world where we know we came about through natural selection, where we can explain so much about our world and know more everyday, religion is a hindrance for which there is no need. Who of these people says he knows most about the universe, the man that is ready to learn after accepting that he does not know or the one who says he knows when he can't hold his argument. As for the humanist comment, I find it so totally immature and ridiculous (and this coming for a nineteen year old boy) and a very brave remark coming from someone who thinks that his mind is able to contemplate the very beggining of all because of faith (which basically means believe no matter what your brain tells you) or an upbringing in faith. Everything about organised religion screams tyranny and actions against thought. If you want people to believe absurd claims, you need absurd evidence and can't expect people with minds to just accept them. Big claims need big evidence. Forgive me if my arguments are not well structured or something like that.

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 24th 2012, 12:12

@ Alex Ellul:

"Now Ramon, can you please bring in front of us proof of the non-existence of that entity we refer to as God?"

I will, as soon as you bring us proof of the non-existence of fairies. Why do you persist in illogical thinking, even after such a non-argument has been rebutted a million times. The onus of proof lays on the claimant of the existance of something.

"Because you see, there are about 7 billion stupid people, and I m one of these, who believe or just give it some sort of probability, that such an entity may, just may, exist".

Straw man argument. Ramon never called you stupid.

"But you talk like you have the proof, the certified proof, peer reviewed scientific proof that such a being never existed, does not exist and will never exist".

Actually, he doesn't. Again, the onus of proof is on the claimant.

"Or maybe since there cannot be entities more intelligent than humanists, than there cannot be a God or gods, because man is god".

Straw man argument no.2

"Meanwhile the evidence of life after death continues to bug fundamentalist atheists"

What evidence?

Alex Ellul

Apr 24th 2012, 11:46

"John Azzopardi again tries and fails to point to actual evidence of the existence of God." I'm not hereto defend John Azzopardi and I do not remeber what he actually said or inferred. What matters is the fact that the existence of God is as debatable as the existence of parallel universes. We have never met a universe different and separate from ours, but such may exist, or not.

Now Ramon, can you please bring in front of us proof of the non-existence of that entity we refer to as God? Because you see, there are about 7 billion stupid people, and I m one of these, who believe or just give it some sort of probability, that such an entity may, just may, exist. But you talk like you have the proof, the certified proof, peer reviewed scientific proof that such a being never existed, does not exist and will never exist.

Or maybe since there cannot be entities more intelligent than humanists, than there cannot be a God or gods, because man is god.

Meanwhile the evidence of life after death continues to bug fundamentalist atheists