Proof of God

[Robin]

Yes, I am aware of this problem.
In his book, Dawkins called it the real Boeing 747 problem.
Yes, if there is a god, then we will have the really big problem of god's nature and origins to solve.
But this still does not preclude him from existing.

Well no, Dawkins raises the issue of probability, which I don't think is a structural problem with god. The problem I am raising is that a complex entity will be dependent on less complex parts. This, by definition cannot be god since god must be the fundamental unit of existence.

Traditional theologians (and Aristotle) have known this for centuries and have insisted that god (or the Prime Mover in Ari's scheme) is "simple". But this is not really satisfactory.

I know what you mean but, if there is a god and we find him, we will surely be closer to a solution, not further away.

Not really since all god adds to the equation is "mind", which does not say anything about origins

Okay, perhaps I've missed something here.
Is Hawking's hypothesis any more of an hypothesis than the god hypothesis? Is it really testable? I don't mean these as rhetorical questions, I really want to know, because I had always thought that it was mere conjecture on Hawking's part, a way of seeing a little more clearly how the problem could possibly be solved. The initial grasping attempts towards a possible way to a solution as it were. Not an actual solution to the problem.
Am I wrong about this?

No, he has provided testable predictions. As far as I know he does not yet consider that the hypothesis has been demonstrated, although a number of the predictions have been successfully tested against observation.

 

[Belz...]

Oh, no, you have me confused with my dog, Ralph.
I often catch him sitting on the back porch looking up at the sky.
He glances at me over his shoulder, entreating me to join him in his searching enquiry.
He talks a lot of nonsense that boy.

Stop taking after him.