Hawking: There aint no heaven.

[GORDON]

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech....t=faces

I've never liked the "I'm a scientist but I can still be religious" angle, because really, no you can't. At least not if you are a good scientist.

Falsifiability.

[Cakedaddy]

I disagree. Just because it can't be proven, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Not saying that it's per the Catholic/etc description exactly, or anything. Just saying there's lots of science around today that we didn't know about 100 years ago. Doesn't mean it wasn't there.

Hawkings claiming that he knows everything about everything and concluding "Nope. It's not there." is ridiculous.

[Malcolm]

I'd hear an argument for some type of existence after this one, somewhere, somehow. What seems insane to me is the notion there's one place in the multiverse where you go when you die that just happens to keep the karmic balance sheets from every single second of your previous existence. If the dude that made everything is that much of a prick accountant to hold every tiny-ass, stupid thing you've ever done against you in a court of cosmic law, then oblivion seems like promotion next to that shit.

[GORDON]

I disagree. Just because it can't be proven, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Not saying that it's per the Catholic/etc description exactly, or anything. Just saying there's lots of science around today that we didn't know about 100 years ago. Doesn't mean it wasn't there.

You don't know what falsifiability is, as it is the foundation of what makes science, science.

For something to be a 'fact' it needs to have the ability to be proven false. "God" can't be proven false. It's written right in the christian rulebook that we aren't allowed to have proof, because we are required to have faith. Proof would destroy the need for faith. That is the exact opposite of science.

To say god might exist just because there's been no evidence to say it doesn't exist opens the door to any other insanity you can think of, like I am keeping an invisible dragon in my garage.



Edited By GORDON on 1305603835

[Cakedaddy]

Hawking said, there's no heaven or afterlife. You are talking about religion. I've already said that Christians may not have things right either. So, didn't argue 'fact'. Has Hawkings gathered enough info that he can argue 'fact'?

For something to be a 'fact' it needs to have the ability to be proven false. "God" can't be proven false.

Bold claim, but, you haven't shared everything you know to me, so, maybe you know he can't be proven false. But when you continue with:

It's written right in the christian rulebook that we aren't allowed to have proof, because we are required to have faith. Proof would destroy the need for faith.

Now you are talking about religion.

Are we arguing the scientific view of God, or the religious view? Is there a scientific barrier keeping God from being proven false, or a 'written rule'?

And I would argue that God DID try to show everyone that he was real about 2000 years ago. Short of flying down, sitting on your face and asking how his ass smells, what's a God gotta do to prove he's there?

[Leisher]

I've got to side with Cake on this one. There's no evidence to prove God is false or even Judgement City (a different concept of after life).

To say that the proof is that he can't be proven false because some book written by a man says so, well, that's just silly. That's like saying Einstein's Theory of Relativity has to be bullshit because we've seen Sci-Fi movies that ignore it.

Is the concept of a higher being controlling the known universe pretty ridiculous? Of course. However, look at a zoo or an ant farm, it's not like the concept is that ridiculous.

Hawking making a statement that there is no God or Heaven is a mistake. Simply put, that's his opinion, and there's nothing wrong with it. But scientifically speaking, he can't prove one way or another if there's a God, Heaven, Hell, Judgement City, or if we all become those blue things in Avatar when we die.

And the last time I checked, scientists have been wrong before. A LOT.

I don't post this as a church goer or a bible thumper, of which, I am neither. In fact, I think I'd label myself an agnostic. Too much schooling about God as a kid mixed with too much science as an adult has made me that.

[TheCatt]

And I would argue that God DID try to show everyone that he was real about 2000 years ago. Short of flying down, sitting on your face and asking how his ass smells, what's a God gotta do to prove he's there?

How do you know He did anything about 2000 years ago?

[Leisher]

And I would argue that God DID try to show everyone that he was real about 2000 years ago. Short of flying down, sitting on your face and asking how his ass smells, what's a God gotta do to prove he's there?

How do you know He did anything about 2000 years ago?

Thanks for posting that question. That was the one thing in Cake's post that made me go "huh?" and I forgot to add it in my response.

[Malcolm]

My favourite argument to put up against monotheists is that...

A) There's pretty much nothing in the entirety of the universe that happens exactly once. Seriously. Big bangs, black holes, universes forming, I'm even 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999% certain there's intelligent life somewhere out there umpteen hundred bajillion light-years away and unintelligent, mundane life in our solar system (only a couple bajillion light-years away). Toss in parallel universes and the theory only gets stronger.

B) Once you buy into A, if one higher being exists, then there's zero logic to prevent others from existing as well unless the current "god" killed all his buddies.



Edited By Malcolm on 1305647794

[GORDON]

You can't suggest something exists based only on 'there's no evidence it doesn't exist.' It just doesn't work that way. If you can't put together the simplest evidence of the existence of a deity or heaven using the scientific method, then stop arguing. And you can't give any evidence, because of you could it would have been done by now.

If there is a god let him strike me dead for saying that.

Oh damn, nothing happened.



Edited By GORDON on 1305649072

[GORDON]

Well, I take it back. Of course you can suggest anything you want based on no evidence, just don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

[TPRJones]

I've got to side with Cake on this one. There's no evidence to prove God is false or even Judgement City (a different concept of after life).
...
Hawking making a statement that there is no God or Heaven is a mistake. Simply put, that's his opinion, and there's nothing wrong with it. But scientifically speaking, he can't prove one way or another if there's a God, Heaven, Hell, Judgement City, or if we all become those blue things in Avatar when we die.

Not exactly. It is true that there is currently no way to prove conclusively that God does or does not exist. There probably never will be. But we can certainly talk probabilities.

If we took the time to list every myth or religion mankind has ever come up with, I'm sure we could number them in the thousands easily. Now let's also list every myth or religion that could have been invented, but that no one actually did; all the possibilities that could someday be imagined if someone were to take the near-infinite amount of time required to imagine everything that could be imagined. Now we are approaching infinity.

Now, we must pick which one might be true. There is no evidence for or against any of these ideas, real or imagined. Due to their nature there may never be any such evidence. But we must pick one, and a certain subset of them claim there is horrible punishments for picking the wrong one. So pick carefully.

Since there is no evidence for or against, let us for now give them all an equal probability of being true. So, divide 1 by infinity, and the odds of any one of them being true approaches zero.

Is that a bit arbitrary? Yes, but so is religion. Is it fair? I think so. It acknowledges a tiny chance that any religion might be true, from Catholicism to Pastafarianism to Buddhism to Russell's-Teapotists.

They all get an equal shake. And we can say with some certainty that until some sort of evidence turns up it is reasonable for any scientist to conclude that all religions are bunk with about the same certainty he can conclude any of the currently popular scientific theories - like Relativity or Quantum Mechanics - are likely to be correct.



Edited By TPRJones on 1305653748

[Malcolm]

Not to be a bastard, but why does only one have to be true? Why not five or six? If god's god, he ought to be able to pull that kind of shit.

EDIT : I suppose I'll toss out another question. What's "god?" Is it some supreme being for whom anything is possible or is it he constrained by some rules, somewhere? Is god the dude who can break/rewrite the laws of physics at a whim, or is he the dude that just knows the system well enough to make any result eventually happen working through rules already in place?



Edited By Malcolm on 1305654339

[TPRJones]

Absolutely more than one could be true, especially if you are dealing with a near infinity of possibilities. But for simplicity lets compress the possibilities that don't contradict together, leaving only all the contradicting possibilities. Which leaves us with a near infinity of contradicting possibilities and the same basic argument applies.

As to what "god" is, the basic idea is it's currently a meaningless word so define it how you wish. And now you've made a religion.

[Leisher]

You can't suggest something exists based only on 'there's no evidence it doesn't exist.' It just doesn't work that way. If you can't put together the simplest evidence of the existence of a deity or heaven using the scientific method, then stop arguing. And you can't give any evidence, because of you could it would have been done by now.

I disagree with that. I know scientists have worked to prove or disprove the existence of something based on their beliefs, God being one of them.

As for the rest of what you said...

They all get an equal shake. And we can say with some certainty that until some sort of evidence turns up it is reasonable for any scientist to conclude that all religions are bunk with about the same certainty he can conclude any of the currently popular scientific theories - like Relativity or Quantum Mechanics - are likely to be correct.

I remember a book or movie featuring the Norse or Greek gods talking amongst themselves here in the modern age. They didn't exist with us, and had no power over us. They were lamenting the days when man used to believe in them, and thus, they had power and did walk among us.

It reminds me of this because there are so many variables in this argument that I think it's interesting that science chooses to completely ignore them in the case of "Is there a God?"

(Or perhaps, they don't apply, but if not, why? Especially since the variable could literally change the laws of science.)

And please understand, I'm the agnostic who leans towards science. I'm not arguing "There is a God!", I'm arguing "I don't think we can so easy just dismiss the idea." And don't for a second think I don't know how ridiculous the argument is, and how it reminds me of 5 year old boys arguing over who's tougher Hulk or Spider-Man:

"Spider-Man would just dodge all of Hulk's slow attacks."
"Nuh uh, Hulk would pick up a planet and throw it at Spider-Man."
"Spider-Man would just jump on it."
"Hulk would build a wall of planets and then hurl the planet at Spider-Man, and when he jumped on, he'd be crushed."
(continued forever)

It just seems to me that before we say conclusively that "There is no God.", we need to know what God is, and what it means if there actually IS a God.

Is God simply a concept?

Is God a construct of the human mind? Can the power of many human minds give power to a concept (the idea behind the Norse/Greek gods I talked about above)? This would be an even more fascinating possibility. What if God was real and existed based on belief?

If God is an entity, where would it exist? Is another dimension possible? Is our universe simply an ant farm?

If God is God why would he take Gordon's orders to strike him down? Out of some petty vengeance? Wouldn't he be above such things (See footnote below)? More importantly to this debate, would he have the ability to simply not be proven? Isn't that the faith he asks from his followers?

Going to the invisible dragon story, I think there is a huge variable that Sagan misses/ignores, what if God doesn't want to be found, and he has the power of...God? Sagan believes even if God exists, if he has no power over us then it doesn't matter if he exists, and he's correct. However, what if God simply chooses not to use the power, but he always has the ability to use it at any time. If that still means it doesn't matter if he exists, then the same can be said of nuclear weapons.

Now given that there is a mathematical possibility that God does indeed exist, even if it turns out that God is simply brain power given form or an alien race or even some 6 year old and the universe is his marble set, when you add in all the variables, doesn't it leave the door open enough to say "God's existence cannot conclusively be dis-proven nor proven...at this time."

That's all I'm saying.

Now someone please post a "There is a God, and here's why" thread so I can take the opposite position and start pointing out how ridiculous it is...

Point #1: Everything we know about God came from man.


Footnote: Shit. I just realized I can't actually make this joke without posting a spoiler for Thor, so I'm going to go there and make my comment.

[GORDON]

I disagree with that. I know scientists have worked to prove or disprove the existence of something based on their beliefs, God being one of them.

That's not true, there doesn't need to be any work done to disprove god, because the entire concept doesn't fit the scientific method. If it can't be falsified, it isn't science.

Science never proves anything, ever, it only disproves things. God can't be disproved. End of scientific discussion.

Philosophy, theology, psychology, fine. But it isn't science.

[TPRJones]

What if God was real and existed based on belief?

If so, then that raises a myriad of other questions. Why haven't we found Santa's workshop at the north pole? Where exactly is Hogwarts? While the idea of belief giving existence is always fun to play with in fiction, in the real world there's many things that have captured the popular imagination strongly enough to have created plenty of evidence by now.

If God is God why would he take Gordon's orders to strike him down? Out of some petty vengeance?

See pretty much any chapter of the Old Testament, or read some of the writings in the Quran. If any of the major religions are correct, the answer to your second question quoted here is a resounding yes.

However, what if God simply chooses not to use the power, but he always has the ability to use it at any time. If that still means it doesn't matter if he exists, then the same can be said of nuclear weapons.

Interestingly, God is a lot like nuclear weapons. Neither have directly effected humanity in a long time, but both have long-reaching effects on policy and how countries interact. And both are weapons of mass destruction.

doesn't it leave the door open enough to say "God's existence cannot conclusively be dis-proven nor proven...at this time."

Absolutely! And the degree to which that door is open is on the close order of the same one that allows one to accurately say that "Gravity's existence cannot be conclusively proven nor disproven." Because nothing can be proven true. A scientific theory is a formulation that meets the known facts and can always be proven wrong later. So it is completely scientific for me to say that I have a theory that "There is no god."* Demonstrate some facts that contradict this theory, and we'll come up with a new theory.

* Okay, not completely scientific due to issues of falsifiability and the fact that I'm not providing some mathematical structure to the theory. But the basic point I'm making is sound.



Edited By TPRJones on 1305658147

[TPRJones]

I do think there's room in all this to talk probabilities. But how one would assign meaningful probabilities to any of this is beyond me.

[GORDON]

If God is God why would he take Gordon's orders to strike him down? Out of some petty vengeance? Wouldn't he be above such things (See footnote below)? More importantly to this debate, would he have the ability to simply not be proven? Isn't that the faith he asks from his followers?

What is amusing (to me) is that my little "strike me down" demonstration did more to disprove the idea of a god than anyone else in this thread has provided evidence that a god does exist.

Two hands at work accomplish more than a thousand clasped in prayer.

Shit in one hand, and wish in the other....

[Leisher]

That's not true, there doesn't need to be any work done to disprove god, because the entire concept doesn't fit the scientific method. If it can't be falsified, it isn't science.

Science never proves anything, ever, it only disproves things. God can't be disproved. End of scientific discussion.

But that's so incorrect.

Just because science cannot prove God exists or doesn't exist TODAY, doesn't mean that's the end of the scientific discussion.

You sound like someone else: "Man made global warming is real. Everyone agrees. Those who don't are idiots. End of scientific discussion."

Because the scientific process can be summed up by "I'm right, so shut up."

Ok, I'm just kidding, but there is NOTHING wrong with discussion. To say it should end based on abilities and knowledge we have today is ridiculous.

And let me bring "Judgement City" back into the discussion. Why are we discounting that? (Has anyone else seen Defending Your Life or do I need to explain the concept?)

If so, then that raises a myriad of other questions. Why haven't we found Santa's workshop at the north pole? Where exactly is Hogwarts? While the idea of belief giving existence is always fun to play with in fiction, in the real world there's many things that have captured the popular imagination strongly enough to have created plenty of evidence by now.

That's what is fascinating about this subject.

Take Santa for example. How many kids believe him to be true? That much power should give him some life right? Well, what if it does? It's fact that people are genuinely nicer to one another during the holidays. Is it a Christmas miracle? Is it simply the season when the weather is terrible and people are spending money they don't have or is it some general consensus of good will infecting us all?

Why haven't we found the north pole? Is it because enough adults are in on the "lie" that it prevents Santa from materializing? Or maybe because children of different nationalities essentially picture different santas?

Or maybe the idea that that much brain power could make something exist is hogwash?

Fun to discuss though.

See pretty much any chapter of the Old Testament, or read some of the writings in the Quran. If any of the major religions are correct, the answer to your second question quoted here is a resounding yes.

That's why I had the footnote on my statement. I realize you probably don't want to read Thor spoilers, but I pretty much ripped how God seemed to change personalities from the Old Testament to the New Testament.

Interestingly, God is a lot like nuclear weapons. Neither have directly effected humanity in a long time, but both have long-reaching effects on policy and how countries interact. And both are weapons of mass destruction.

This should be your signature.

Absolutely! And the degree to which that door is open is on the close order of the same one that allows one to accurately say that "Gravity's existence cannot be conclusively proven nor disproven." Because nothing can be proven true. A scientific theory is a formulation that meets the known facts and can always be proven wrong later. So it is completely scientific for me to say that I have a theory that "There is no god."* Demonstrate some facts that contradict this theory, and we'll come up with a new theory.

* Okay, not completely scientific due to issues of falsifiability and the fact that I'm not providing some mathematical structure to the theory. But the basic point I'm making is sound.

I think the fact is that there are no facts. Again, it's what makes this discussion fun.

I do think there's room in all this to talk probabilities. But how one would assign meaningful probabilities to any of this is beyond me.

Exactly.

That's all I'm saying. It's just like in the NFL, when the season starts, the Cleveland Browns have a chance of winning the Super Bowl. As stupid and unrealistic as that sounds, it's mathematically possible. Same thing here...

What is amusing (to me) is that my little "strike me down" demonstration did more to disprove the idea of a god than anyone else in this thread has provided evidence that a god does exist.

Actually, it did nothing to disprove it. You keep assigning characteristics to God as if he/she/it/whatever is human. You have no idea how God thinks, acts, etc. Vengeance was so Old Testament. It's New Testament stuff now. Later you might stub your toe. Guess what? God did that!

Actually, the one thing you have proven today is that if YOU had the power of a god, you'd be Q.