Thunderdome 2015 » Printable Version of Topic » Hawking: There aint no heaven.

Forum: Internet Links
Topic: Hawking: There aint no heaven.
started by: GORDON

Posted by GORDON on May 16 2011,17:58

< 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.

Posted by Cakedaddy on May 16 2011,19:32

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.

Posted by Malcolm on May 16 2011,19:52

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.

Posted by GORDON on May 16 2011,20:40

(Cakedaddy @ May 16 2011,22:32)

QUOTE

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. >

Posted by Cakedaddy on May 17 2011,07:45

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'?

QUOTE

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:

QUOTE

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?

Posted by Leisher on May 17 2011,08:17

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.

Posted by TheCatt on May 17 2011,08:19

(Cakedaddy @ May 17 2011,10:45)

QUOTE

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?

Posted by Leisher on May 17 2011,08:25

(TheCatt @ May 17 2011,11:19)

QUOTE

(Cakedaddy @ May 17 2011,10:45)

QUOTE

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.

Posted by Malcolm on May 17 2011,08:55

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.

Posted by GORDON on May 17 2011,09:16

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.

Posted by GORDON on May 17 2011,09:31

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.

Posted by TPRJones on May 17 2011,10:35

(Leisher @ May 17 2011,10:17)

QUOTE

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.

Posted by Malcolm on May 17 2011,10:43

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?

Posted by TPRJones on May 17 2011,10:53

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.

Posted by Leisher on May 17 2011,11:30

QUOTE

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...

QUOTE

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.

Posted by GORDON on May 17 2011,11:46

(Leisher @ May 17 2011,14:30)

QUOTE

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.

Posted by TPRJones on May 17 2011,11:47

QUOTE

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.

QUOTE

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.

QUOTE

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.

QUOTE

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.

Posted by TPRJones on May 17 2011,11:50

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.

Posted by GORDON on May 17 2011,11:51

(Leisher @ May 17 2011,14:30)

QUOTE

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....

Posted by Leisher on May 17 2011,12:37

QUOTE

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?)

QUOTE

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.

QUOTE

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.

QUOTE

This should be your signature.

QUOTE

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.

QUOTE

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...

QUOTE

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.

Posted by TPRJones on May 17 2011,12:52

So it sounds like we are on the same page. When I say it's reasonable for a scientist to conclude "There is no god" I mean it in the way that it's reasonable for a scientist to conclude "E=mc^2". It's the way things are ... based on what we currently know and the estimated likelihood of evidence to the contrary appearing anytime soon.

So where are we disagreeing? Maybe we're assigning different probabilities to the likelihood of evidence to the contrary appearing anytime soon? I'd place that likelihood at so close to zero as to practically be zero. Roughly in the same league with finding proof that a human-appearing alien with the powers of flight, super-strength and near invulnerability is working undercover as a reporter for The New York Times while secretly rescuing people from peril on a daily basis.

Posted by Leisher on May 17 2011,13:14

QUOTE

So where are we disagreeing?

I don't think we are. I think we're just discussing possibilities.

QUOTE

I'd place that likelihood at so close to zero as to practically be zero.

Ok, maybe there. I'd argue that number is higher. Hell, I'd argue it's impossible to calculate at this time.

I think "What is God" needs to be answered before anything else. Because in the purest and simplest sense, God exists because we're having this discussion. Is the God we're discussing an entity? That's the trick in the question.

So yeah, all those variables I discussed and more come into play. That's why I think the number would be higher.

That's also why I get what Hawkins, Gordon, and you are saying, but also why I can buy into Cake's argument.

Again, agnostic = me.

Posted by GORDON on May 17 2011,13:18

(Leisher @ May 17 2011,15:37)

QUOTE

But that's so incorrect.

You don't know the scientific method, because yes, there is a point where you are allowed to say "The discussion is over" if the other guy isn't following the rules.

In science you observe, question, formulate a hypothesis, test it, and make a conclusion. Saying "God exists" skips all of that and goes to the last step, making a conclusion. There isn't any evidence for me to look at, you have no methodology for me to scrutinize and attempt to duplicate, and there is nothing for me to do with your random stringing together of two words, "God exists." That isn't science, end of discussion.

Example 2:
You observe that water freezes and you test it and model it and come to the conclusion, "Water freezes at 21 degrees F." That's your theory. You haven't proven anything, even those you froze water a thousand times at 32 degrees F.

I come along and say, "Yeah but look, at higher pressure water doesn't freeze at 32 degrees F." I've just disproven your theory.

You now have to revise your theory to state, "Water freezes at 32 degrees F under 1 atmosphere." And then I look at what you did, study your methodology, and attempt to again find fault with the statement you made.

This is how science works. Nothing is ever proven, things just haven't been disproven yet. Louis Pasteur did some famous experiments in the 1800's which strongly suggested that life never springs from lifelessness with a few flasks of broth with crooked necks. The theory he made at the end of his experiments was that you needed something alive to create something alive, and thus frogs didn't just magically form from river mud. This can be actually disproven at any time, if someone can present frogs forming from mud. Pasteur didn't prove anything, he just hasn't been disproven. yet.

Same with evolution. There are, literally, a million pieces of evidence that suggest evolution is a valid theory, and a single piece of evidence that proves, "No, god did it" will topple it. Evolution has never been proven, it just hasn't been disproven.

And on our subject, you've given me no evidence god exists, you've given me no methodology to scrutinize, and therefore you have given me nothing to disprove. The discussion is over. This isn't science, and science is a mean bitch with a 12" strapon. She has rules and you don't fuck with her.

Posted by Leisher on May 17 2011,13:58

QUOTE

You're skimming.

Posted by GORDON on May 17 2011,14:03

(Leisher @ May 17 2011,16:58)

QUOTE

You're skimming.

Two or three posts appeared while I was writing my wall of text.

But yeah, I basically stopped reading your post when you said it wasn't valid for me to say, "End of discussion," because it just so wrong. It isn't me being glib or edgy or whatever, it is perfectly valid for me to wave my hand at your anecdotes and statistics and probabilities and say show me evidence, or stop calling it science.

Like I said, theology, philosophy, or psychology, but not science.

Posted by GORDON on May 17 2011,14:18

(Leisher @ May 17 2011,15:37)

QUOTE

I hope you weren't serious about anything in this chunk of text.

Posted by TheCatt on May 17 2011,14:25

Maybe it's just me, but people are seriously less nice around the holidays, and most nice during disasters.

Posted by Malcolm on May 17 2011,14:33

QUOTE

It's fact that people are genuinely nicer to one another during the holidays.

I call so much bullshit on that.

Posted by Malcolm on May 17 2011,14:49

I'll go that god is he who isn't worried by any of the rules every other being in this universe has to play by. As an example, if god wants to fuck with gravity, everything falling accelerates at exactly 1 ft/sec/sec for as long as he likes. And god doesn't like terminal velocity, so fuck that, too. He can turn lead into gold without the cumbersome alchemy textbooks or Philosopher's Stone.

I'll go two criteria...

1) God isn't constrained by rules of any sort. Saying, "this can't do that" is tantamount to saying "this isn't god."
2) This sort of follows from (1), but just to make it explicit... god had damn well better exist completely independent of any other form of life.

Posted by TPRJones on May 17 2011,14:58

(Leisher @ May 17 2011,15:14)

QUOTE

I'd place that likelihood at so close to zero as to practically be zero.

Ok, maybe there. I'd argue that number is higher. Hell, I'd argue it's impossible to calculate at this time.

I think I've got it. I'm looking at all the myriad of gods that man has come up with and asking "could one of these be right"? So, thousands of possibilities, and what are the odds that one is correct? Seems pretty slim, given that there is no evidence to distinguish one from the rest. Thus my very low estimations.

You are asking "is there a god"? It's a binary proposition, either there is or isn't. Without any other means of diluting the odds, you might naturally gravitate towards 50%.

Different questions from different approaches giving different gut instincts on the odds.

DISCLAIMER: This post is not intended to be science.

Posted by Leisher on May 17 2011,19:57

QUOTE

Two or three posts appeared while I was writing my wall of text.

Yeah, I figured.

QUOTE

But yeah, I basically stopped reading your post when you said it wasn't valid for me to say, "End of discussion," because it just so wrong. It isn't me being glib or edgy or whatever, it is perfectly valid for me to wave my hand at your anecdotes and statistics and probabilities and say show me evidence, or stop calling it science.

Like I said, theology, philosophy, or psychology, but not science.

Basically, the crux of my argument isn't that "God exists = science", it's just that I don't feel like he should make that statement and declare it to be a fact.

There is soooooooo much we don't know yet, even about things we do know about. The only thing in your statements that I disagree with is that the issue has been resolved, and the proper conclusion reached.

As long as there can be a chance of some other explanation for something, be it God or aliens or whatever, I don't think it's proper to conclusively say "It cannot be this" when that "this" is an unknown. It's too big of a variable. Does that variable make sense and adhere to scientific laws (dealing with this question only)? Of course not.

But perhaps you're making a good defense of the existence of God without realizing it? Follow me here.

We're told about all the things that God has done, and it all comes from the word of men. For fun, let's replace God with Q. Q is pretty powerful and can do most of the stuff in the bible, right? But he didn't create the universe. Maybe he made Earth, maybe he didn't. Maybe he helped mankind evolve (All Good Things), maybe he didn't. However, if he did his "tricks" if front of early man, how do you think they'd view him? Q could easily be described as vengeful. But then he leaves and people still think he's around watching (hello New Testament).

Ridiculous? Oh, absolutely. However, that's the point. That's why it's a hard question to prove or disprove, which is exactly what you've said as well. You're probably more correct in stating that it's not a scientific question, which again means Hawkings shouldn't use science to answer it. It probably should be more in the theology or philosophical camps yet scientists (both believers and non) keep trying to ask and answer it.

All I'm saying is that whether the odds are 50% or .00000001% that there is, in fact, a God then someone shouldn't simply say "Nope, doesn't exist", and again, the ONLY fact I hang that nail on is because we, as a species, simply do not know all the variables in the question.

That's why I think the question "What is God?" is more important to answer than "Is there a God?" ("God is the name for mother on the lips and hearts of all children.")

And maybe I should put "God" in quotes because I'm really trying to get across that I'm not debating from the traditional big guy with white beard viewpoint, but rather considering the word to be vast possibilities from God to Q to a concept.

QUOTE

I hope you weren't serious about anything in this chunk of text.

No, that's why I put that last line in there about it being fun to discuss. When I was writing it, I was reminded of Ted Bundy's execution and how people turned off everything that might consume power during his execution. As if the prison would then have more power to fry him.

It's a ridiculous concept, but it's fun to imagine and talk about possibilities no matter how crazy. That's part of science too. Making conclusions based on those discussions isn't, of course, but simply discussing possibilities before taking courses of action to disprove them is, and even if one were to argue that it doesn't, simply the act of discussing what is and isn't science is science.

So to sum up, I'm not disagreeing with you about how today's science and knowledge says "bullshit", I'm just saying that we don't know all the facts, therefore, how can we say 100% that it's not possible? IT MOST LIKELY IS!!!! I cannot state enough that I don't feel I've taken a contrary position to yours as I agree with almost everything you've said. But as long as there's a sliver of a chance, even if it's the small mathematical probability that TPR points out, that isn't 100%.

And that's what makes the question so fucking impossible. As you said "the other guy keeps changing the rules"...which brings us to...

QUOTE

Exactly.

QUOTE

50/50? Yeah maybe. Granted, as Gordon points out, if we're strictly sticking to today's knowledge of science, no, it is like .00000000000000000000000(lots more zeros)1%. But who the hell knows what we'll know tomorrow that might raise or lower those odds?

You know what's funny? I think my "Q theory" up above would get MUCH better odds.

P.S. I think someone should consult Guiness and see if this is the longest discussion about the existence of God that hasn't resulted in a war or someone's death.

Posted by GORDON on May 18 2011,20:39

Oh sweet jesus.... Kirk Cameron has chimed in, and his brilliant argument is "prove there is no heaven."

< http://entertainment.blogs.foxnews.com/2011....t=faces >

Kirk, it doesn't work that way. The onus of proof is not on the detractor.

Posted by TPRJones on May 19 2011,03:44

What else would you expect from someone who considers atheism to be a religion?

Posted by Malcolm on May 19 2011,12:22

(GORDON @ May 18 2011,22:39)

QUOTE

I think I'll take this opportunity to fuck with Kirk, and I'll even use religion to do it.

QUOTE

"Why should anyone believe Mr. Hawking's writings if he cannot provide evidence for his unscientific belief that out of nothing, everything came?”

So, Kirk, why does existence have to start with nothingness? Hell, why does existence need a "start?" Why couldn't there be some amorphous aether that's always been around? Buddhists and Hindi look at existence like a circle and not a line with some definitive beginning and end. Christians, I'd like to add, being dudes with more unscientific beliefs than you can shake a Bunsen burner at, have at various times believed: the sun danced in the sky, the walls of a city came a-tumblin' down at the sound of a trumpet, Jacob wrestled for days on end with some pseudo-angel-like thing, etc. Hardcore Christians bitching at people for being unscientific is like Mussolini hating on someone for being too authoritarian.

Posted by TPRJones on May 19 2011,18:57

(TPRJones @ May 19 2011,05:44)

QUOTE

What else would you expect from someone who considers atheism to be a religion?

Really? No one here wants to argue that with me? And I had such a good comeback, too. *sigh*

Posted by Leisher on May 19 2011,20:13

(TPRJones @ May 19 2011,21:57)

QUOTE

(TPRJones @ May 19 2011,05:44)

QUOTE

What else would you expect from someone who considers atheism to be a religion?

Really? No one here wants to argue that with me? And I had such a good comeback, too. *sigh*

I was actually too stunned by that to comment.

If someone isn't in an organization and doesn't believe in a higher power, they're in a religion? WTF?

Posted by TPRJones on May 20 2011,02:40

I see that said a lot, people saying that atheism is just as much of a religion as any other. Which is silly.

No. Atheism is a religion like off is a tv channel.

Posted by GORDON on May 20 2011,04:25

yeah but ISM.

Posted by GORDON on May 21 2011,17:03

The rapture didn't come today, and I don't want to upset half my family on facebook, so I'll put this here: Happy "God doesn't exist" Awareness Day.

Posted by Malcolm on May 21 2011,17:09

I'm thinking god'll show up in a few billion years when the sun bloats into a red giant. Although he might not bother if we've found a new planet to colonize. If the second coming is the start of the existence's "game over" screen, then wouldn't that imply we fucked up? Sure, every now and again "game over" means you've achieved a goal, but it more often implies you suck.

Posted by Cakedaddy on May 21 2011,20:54

If you asked me to blow you, and I didn't, would I also not exist?

Last night, I asked God for it to rain again tonight, and it is. So he does exist.

Posted by TPRJones on May 21 2011,21:37

A more accurate analogy would be, "If some crazy old guy convinced thousands of people that Cakedaddy was going to blow you and he didn't would Cakedaddy then also not exist?"

Posted by GORDON on May 22 2011,06:31

If I was told something existed because my parents said so, and there was a really big club where everyone elses parents said so, too, then is Scientology a valid religion?

Or something.

Posted by TPRJones on May 22 2011,09:00

In as much as the word "valid" can be used with the word "religion", then yes, Scientology is a valid religion. Pretty much any belief system that has reached a second generation is as "valid" as any other religion. Presumably this includes Jedi at his point.

Posted by GORDON on May 22 2011,10:11

You know what I mean. "I prayed for a pony" is silly so I brought up scientology because it is silly, too.

Posted by Leisher on May 22 2011,13:35

QUOTE

Presumably this includes Jedi at his point.

Whoa! What are you implying?

Posted by Cakedaddy on May 22 2011,14:30

I'm just saying, your argument that there is no God because he won't do what you say, when you say it "Strike you down", is as valid as people saying there is a God because "I believe there is".

Arguing the existence of God with some people (Gordon) is impossible because they've closed their minds to it (end of discussion). They don't really base that on anything other than weak arguments (lack of falsifiability or religion if fake). They provide no science to prove God false, just other theories. (you can't prove Him false)

When I said that He tried to prove his existence 2000 years ago, I was of course referring to Christ. There were the miracles and what-not, but those are instantly rejected as fake. Pics or it didn't happen, I guess. It just depends on which version of history you want to believe. The Christians that said He was here and did all that stuff, or the Jews who say He was here, but all of the stuff claimed by Christians was fake. It will be interesting to see what history looks like 2000 years from now when people talk about WWII. Was there really a holocaust, or is it just Jewish ramblings. They recorded what was going on the best way they could back then. Because people choose to reject it now doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.

And even if all of religion is fake and made up. That still doesn't disprove God, or an afterlife.

Was listening to the radio on the way to New York last week. Came across a religious channel and decided to see what they had to say. They just happened to be debating the existence of God. It was a dumb debate as a pastor/minister/whatever was playing the part of the disbeliever, so, whatever. But, they brought up some interesting points. One, they conceded there was a Big Bang. So, they asked what was before the BB? All that mass, crammed together waiting to go Bang, and that matter had existed for an eternity. It just always was. Implying it's acceptable to believe matter just was and always has been. Then they brought up intelligence. Matter is matter. It has no intelligence. It's just stuff. Yet, when you put matter together in a certain way, it suddenly has intelligence. The dandelion knows to grow it's seeds attached to little puffy things so the wind will carry it. Where does that intelligence come from? Because again, matter can not think. It just exists. So that intelligence is being introduced from somewhere. Just two points they were trying to make that I found interesting. Oh ya, the other option for the matter, if it hadn't been around for eternity, was that it blinked into existence simply to go Bang.

Lastly, if you believe Hawkings, then you also must believe that there is no such thing as free will. Something I have argued for many years. I KNOW we talked about this back at OAPI and Gordon and Leisher disagreed. Hawkings said we are simply computers reacting to stimuli. If there really is no intelligence, and we are simply computers. Then, you are reacting to situations per your programming. This brings up the question of who's doing the programming? But, if no one is, then in some distance part of the universe, is there a world where IBM PCs are just randomly forming and running spreadsheets battling against Apple IIs and Commodores? Because technically, that would be possible.

Posted by GORDON on May 22 2011,15:04

(Cakedaddy @ May 22 2011,17:30)

QUOTE

I'm just saying, your argument that there is no God because he won't do what you say, when you say it "Strike you down", is as valid as people saying there is a God because "I believe there is".

No, I said there is no god because no one can provide me a shred of evidence that it exists. The 'strike me down' stuff was just to give vapors to the True Believers.

Come back when you have some.

The onus of proof is not on me, it is on those saying "god exists because I believe it in my heart to be true." That aint evidence. Please, PLEASE prove me wrong. I fucking dare you.

Posted by GORDON on May 22 2011,15:07

(Cakedaddy @ May 22 2011,17:30)

QUOTE

Arguing the existence of God with some people (Gordon) is impossible because they've closed their minds to it (end of discussion).

Holy shit.

My mind is completely open, it's just that

THERE

IS

NO

EVIDENCE.

Is this really such a hard concept to understand?

Posted by GORDON on May 22 2011,15:15

(Cakedaddy @ May 22 2011,17:30)

QUOTE

Then they brought up intelligence. Matter is matter. It has no intelligence. It's just stuff. Yet, when you put matter together in a certain way, it suddenly has intelligence. The dandelion knows to grow it's seeds attached to little puffy things so the wind will carry it. Where does that intelligence come from? Because again, matter can not think. It just exists. So that intelligence is being introduced from somewhere. Just two points they were trying to make that I found interesting.

Except it isn't interesting, it is just straight-up lack of understanding how evolution works. But, you don't need to convince me that many, many arguments in support of "intelligent design" are based simply on ignorance of science.

I wonder if there is an "Evolution for Dummies" book. I get tired of saying the same things over and over.

Do y'all need a Praise God and Sunny Jesus subforum so y'all can talk about how eyeballs are just so "irreducibly complex" that they couldn't have possibly evolved naturally, where I won't go and call all of you morons?

Posted by Cakedaddy on May 22 2011,16:38

There's no evidence that you choose to accept or even consider. You chalk it all up to 'fake'. So, like I said, it's impossible to have a discussion with you. You always end up at "You are nuts (or a moron)".

There is lots of proof that MANY of the stories in the bible actually happened. You choose to ignore that. Like I said, "Pics or it didn't happen."

Posted by GORDON on May 22 2011,16:39

My son likes science.

My mother in law just got my son a "Global Warming Experiment Kit."

I wish people would stop bombarding me with your religions.

Posted by GORDON on May 22 2011,16:40

(Cakedaddy @ May 22 2011,19:38)

QUOTE

Unless I missed something, the bible isn't god. Please point out where I said nothing in the bible happened so I can stand corrected.

Citation or it never happened.

Posted by GORDON on May 22 2011,16:56

< Evolution for Dummies. >

I've never read this particular book, but it couldn't possibly hurt.

< Here is an essay I wrote back in 2005, it bears reading again. >

This quote jumped out at me: "Now, I figured out years ago that it doesn't accomplish anything to debate people on whether or not God exists, no matter which side you're arguing. You will never convince anyone, ever."

But for me, this is the funnest debate ever, because I can't possibly be proven wrong. Peeps have failed for several to provide evidence that their gods existed, and it aint going to happen today.

Posted by Cakedaddy on May 22 2011,17:12

You get hostile when this topic comes up. Are you sure you are having fun?!

So you concede that some of the stories happened, but not all of them. And the ones that didn't happen, are the ones that support proof of God. Neither of us can prove or disprove that Christ turned water into wine, healed the sick, gave sight to the blind, rose from the dead, etc. Some of us choose to believe that happened, some of us don't. Not much you can do now because God chooses not to be as blatantly in our faces as he once was. He came to us, said "I'm here and here is my son to die for all of your sins. Fresh slate for everyone." And now he leaves it up to you to believe or not.

So really, the only evidence are the stories in the bible. Are they just stories, or historical records?

Also, I'm pretty sure you were the one that made this debate about God. My original reply was challenging Hawkings claim to a lack of an afterlife. God or no God, you still can't prove there's no afterlife. Only evidence to support it that I know of would be the many documented cases of near death or actual death and brought back experiences. Proof of an after life? Of course not. Evidence that there might be something? I think so. But for Hawkings to state the theory (or fact?) that there's no after life. . . well, I guess I need pics now.

Posted by GORDON on May 22 2011,17:59

Rereading, my main statement time and again has been, "Theology, psychology, (something else), but not science," because nothing about a supreme being stands up to scientific scrutiny. This is incontrovertible fact, and I have asked anyone to prove me wrong, time and again. Nobody has, because nobody can. God aint science.

And nope, not angry at all, because I'm not wrong. You keep bringing things up I never said... apparently I have now admitted to "some stories in the bible are true." I haven't, in this thread, though I have done several studies and have empirical evidence that a book called "The Bible" does indeed exist, and of several different versions the most common one that is studied (and claimed to have been read) was edited by some government official named "King James." I "concede" that as a historical text it might have some value, in spite of having been edited and censored for thousands of years, and if we are talking about the New Testament (which the Jews do not... are they all wrong, too?), then I think as a philosophical leader, Jesus Christ had a lot of good ideas, many of which I have taught to my son without the religious spin. But do I think Jesus is the offspring of some diety? Nope. But no one has asked me what I thought about Jesus, or the significance of the bible, they are just assuming they know what I think about it.

Your zeal and the way you keep capitalizing pronouns like "He" and "Him" is making me uncomfortable, so I am backing out of this conversation. Another incontrovertible truth is that more blood has been spilled over the existence of gods than for any other reason, and often times it is the peeps who believe in the peaceful and benevolent gods killing the peeps who don't.

Someone else can take over for a while if they are so inclined.

Posted by Malcolm on May 22 2011,18:30

(Leisher @ May 22 2011,15:35)

QUOTE

Presumably this includes Jedi at his point.

Whoa! What are you implying?

Yeah, that's not a religion. That's just tiny microbes that live in your blood and somehow talk to you with some kind of weird, fucked up hive mentality.

Posted by Malcolm on May 22 2011,19:21

QUOTE

"I'm here and here is my son to die for all of your sins. Fresh slate for everyone."

I don't recall asking anyone to die for me or expressing any desire for a slate to be refreshed. I don't recall asking the supreme being to come down/send down an avatar to this particular planet to die for my "sins," which back in the day pretty much meant "anything that isn't kowtowing to your local political/societal authority figure." Shit, that's still the main thrust of Catholicism, the "universal Christianity." You're literally born unclean and evil. On another note, "sin" looks to be positively vital to existing in an intelligent way.

A world without sin is boring as fuck and presumably would stagnate since you can't fucking play everything safe all the time. If you're not pissing off at least someone, your actions probably don't mean much. I'm sure the first time an ancient Greek portrayed Zeus in a theatrical production, there were some priests predicting thunderbolty retribution. When he didn't, they best they could probably do was backpedal with, "Well, Zeus must have a sense of humour or consider it flattery."

QUOTE

Neither of us can prove or disprove that Christ turned water into wine, healed the sick, gave sight to the blind, rose from the dead, etc.

If the creator thinks that's what we needed was a Jew turning H2O to merlot two thousand years ago only to be crucified by the local bureaucrats, I immediately retort with, "Well, the cure for cancer or AIDS or the plague might've made more of a point." You know what would go a long way towards convince me of god's existence? Discovering the cure for Alzheimer's written in old-time Aramaic in the same cave as the Dead Sea scrolls. The same way that a Nostradamus quatrain reading, "On September 11, 2001, a terrorist organization will fly planes into the World Trade Center," would've convinced me he had real prophetic powers.

QUOTE

So really, the only evidence are the stories in the bible. Are they just stories, or historical records?

Are there parts in the Bible that have some trappings of real, provable historical shit? Yeah, no doubt. I fully believe there were two cities that correspond, in some part, to descriptions of Sodom and Gomorrah. I have no doubt that the ancient Hebrews had to wage lots of wars to get/keep their land. When they won, they got to stay there and build up the temple. But like any other society, every now and again someone bigger moves in on the block and kicks your ass.

Let's talk about something else that used to be relegated to the vaults of mythology. I firmly believe there was a city the Athenians called "Troy" and they waged war against its inhabitants. I'm sure as fuck not buying the notion that Athens ultimately went to war with Troy because the gods got in a tiff over the results of a fucking beauty contest.

QUOTE

Only evidence to support it that I know of would be the many documented cases of near death or actual death and brought back experiences. Proof of an after life? Of course not. Evidence that there might be something? I think so.

So, LSD and magic mushrooms are possible proof of something beyond this life? Or perhaps your brain just gets into fucked up states with the proper chemistry. Every near death experience you can find, I can find an acid trip that's just as weird.

QUOTE

Not much you can do now because God chooses not to be as blatantly in our faces as he once was.

Odd how God got fewer and fewer things attributed to him as our understanding of science increased. When Port Royale, the infamous pirate city, was demolished by an earthquake and the resulting tsunami in the late 17th century, it was because its wickedness offended him, specifically the Christian God (I don't recall Buddha taking any credit, but who knows). Did Japan piss off God a few months ago with their constant Shinto worship or did they just happen to live in a tectonically active region of the planet? God's either lazy, schizophrenic, or is incapable of interacting with people on the grand scales he used to. I'm having a hard time believing any of those options if he's really the dude that inspired all the text in the Bible. If you can string all those words together, you understand humanity enough to keep a decent, active relationship going with it. Did the almighty develop stage fright or muteness?

And now that I'm on the Bible, damn near every "law" laid down has an asterisk after it.
"Thou shalt not kill ... well, unless..."
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour ... well, unless..."
"God is everywhere, but if you aren't in this specific type of building at least once a week singing badly-harmonized hymns to him, he gets really pissed at you."

Posted by TPRJones on May 23 2011,03:18

(Leisher @ May 22 2011,15:35)

QUOTE

Presumably this includes Jedi at his point.

Whoa! What are you implying?

That there are some people that actually believe they are Jedi. And they've had kids by now. That means second-generation Jedi, which I think is what makes it a religion.

Posted by Cakedaddy on May 23 2011,19:09

QUOTE

Your zeal and the way you keep capitalizing pronouns like "He" and "Him" is making me uncomfortable, so I am backing out of this conversation.

This coming from a guy who capitalizes his entire name. . .

I guess God isn't science then. He's not an earthly being and is not bound by earthly rules. So, ya, I guess using science (man's rules) to prove/disprove something that doesn't live by man's rules can be difficult.

But over all, I don't think you really participate in discussions/debates about God and religion. It's seems more like an opportunity for you to mock and ridicule. TPR does the same thing. If there really ever was going to be an honest discussion, the condescending overtones should be left at the door.

I'm much like Leisher when it comes to God/religion. I believe because that's how I was raised and that's what I was taught. But I haven't been to church except for funerals and weddings since some time in the '80's. So, I'm not a die hard Christian. But, for the first time ever, after you brought up God/religion (even though you hate talking about it), I decided to participate in the discussion to see where it would lead. And like I said, it's impossible to have this type of discussion with you because of your attitude. Again, you just want to mock and ridicule. And that's fine. You be you. But don't act like you've been having an honest debate/discussion this whole time.

Posted by TPRJones on May 23 2011,19:32

I can't fault you for including me there. I admit I get a bit hyperbolic about religion. I have to work with religious people and keep my mouth shut so I don't get fired. I am beset on all sides daily by Christianity and I work with people that have been known to mock and ridicule atheists and anyone they think isn't as Godly as they are. I admit I've got a little bit of anger about that. So when the discussion does come up where I can talk about it without fear of losing my job, I tend to put more of that anger into it than I should.

I'm sorry. I can't promise to stop. But I do admit to it.

Posted by GORDON on May 23 2011,19:51

I've never mocked nor ridiculed, I have simply stated that "god" does not fit into the world of science, and I have stated why. Nor have I engaged in any sort of debate about it, I have stated fact. There is no debate on this point.

As for TPR's comments, sometimes I too get tired of living in a demon haunted world in which I have one sibling who joined a cult, another who sings happy birthday to jesus on christmas, a mother in law who wants to teach my son all about how jesus made the trees and the animals, a huge movement that wants to teach creationism alongside evolution in science classrooms, another massive cult that thinks the bible wasn't enough so they pulled a new story out of a hat, literally, and chronicled jesus walking among the native americans and encouraging them to take a bunch of underage wives, another massive religion that covers up pedophilia among its ranks, another massive religion invented by another pedophile that kills women for daring to get raped, and other crazy people putting up billboards saying the world is coming to an end. I am surrounded by ghosts and spirits and invisible men in the sky threatening to spank me if I don't behave and their billions of adherents on earth who think it is their job to spread the word whether I want to hear it or not. Every single day I am subjected to this. Every single day I take a deep breath and tolerate everyone elses belief systems.

But apparently I'm an ass if I dare to talk about my belief structure on my message board.

That's how I see it.

And, I can accept that.

Scientologists, moonies, Jonestown, heaven's gate, the manson family, Aum Shinrikyo, Branch Davidians, Raelians.

Posted by Malcolm on May 24 2011,11:02

QUOTE

I have simply stated that "god" does not fit into the world of science...

There's a way to cheat that statement. H.P. Lovecraft wrote shitloads of stories that sort of lay out a blueprint for it.

Let's examine archaeology. And let's take the infamous < Baghdad battery >. It is unarguable that these things had the ability to generate electric current. We've found evidence that electrolyte fluids could have been contained within at some point. It's also unarguable that hooking enough of these things up in series would generate larger electric currents. The best theory we've come up with is that they were used for electroplating, with maybe a secondary purpose of medicinal use or maybe it was just the old world's equivalent of a joy buzzer. < This absolute psycho > thinks it's evidence that the ancient Egyptians had technology to provide indoor electric lighting for their pyramids/tombs/crypts/whatever. To date, no one can find the ancient Egyptian analogue to light bulbs or wires, though. Does it make Giorgio wrong? Not exactly. But there's nowhere near enough evidence to call it likely or even feasible. If, sometime in the future, examples of those two components are buried in some as yet uncovered mummy's sarcophagus, then it'd force a reexamination of what we consider "likely."

And while I'm on the ancient Egyptians, how about all the modern attempts to reconstruct their building techniques? We're just making educated, probability-based guesses on those using the best available info. To put the matter to rest for certain, we'd need a goddamned time machine.

Let's consider "the perfect crime." We'll pretend some entity can perpetrate some rather significant action; where humans are concerned, we usually care about murder or theft in that regard. Let's pretend you can commit the perfect theft. Can you set things up so that a reasonably clever group of people presented with all available evidence still can't definitively pin the crime on you (like the first "Die Hard" flick insinuates)? Forensic examiners work on the theory that every offender takes something from the scene with him (even if it's just a few carpet fibres) and leaves something of himself at the scene (even if it's just a few molecules of DNA). Obviously the effectiveness of that theory waxes and wanes with the tools the examiners have. In fact, forensic examiners are essentially trying to reverse engineer what went on during the commission of a crime. And therein lies the rub. Reverse engineering proves something could have happened. Whether or not it actually did is all down to probability. Forensic science has all kinds of way to hedge bets, though, because it's got a pretty narrow focus most of the time, e.g., what happened in a really specific environment with really specific individuals. Not every field is so lucky.

If god exists, then he ought to be able to pull off the perfect crime. And if he can, you'd never even know he was around.

Posted by Cakedaddy on May 24 2011,13:48

If you don't see referring to God as "she" simply to ruffle feathers, offering a separate forum where you won't call believers 'morons', calling religious beliefs insanity, etc as ridiculing, then, I dunno. I guess I misinterpreted you.

What I find funny is that, I challenged Hawking's ability to conclude there is no heaven. You introduced God and religion. I pointed out that I'm talking about an afterlife from a scientific perspective. You kept the discussion on God/religion. So, off it went. If you hate talking about it (because you are bombarded with religion all day long), then why did you steer the discussion in that way?! I even said, before you did, that the discussion is shifting from a scientific discussion, to a religious one. So, I followed that path, and then you kept playing the science card over and over. Which discussion did you want to have?!?! Just because I might not agree with Hawkings about there not being an afterlife, doesn't mean I'm arguing religion or God. I simply stated there was NO way he could prove the lack of an afterlife. Or, if I missed something, please point it out to me.

And no, you are not an ass for talking about it on your message board. It's the way you say things that makes you an ass. :-) Actually, I don't think you're an ass. I was just pointing out that saying things like that don't contribute to a good discussion.

Posted by Malcolm on May 24 2011,13:56

Alright, back in the vein of afterlives, are we considering "afterlife" to be your consciousness persists (because otherwise, you'd see it not really as "after" life so much as just another life) after you check out of this life in some other state for some period of time? How about just having your physical matter recycled in a future living being?

Posted by TPRJones on May 24 2011,16:36

QUOTE

...calling religious beliefs insanity...

For the record, I do seriously consider religion to be a form of mental handicap or insanity, typically instilled by brainwashing. That is not me trying to be insulting, or being hyperbolic, or mocking you; that is my honest impression.

If you find it insulting I'm sorry, but it is clear to me that talking to someone who isn't there is clearly psychotic behavior. Just because it's endorsed by a religious organization doesn't lessen that.

BUT, back on the topic at hand, I find it unlikely to consider the possibility of an after-life in anything other than a religious perspective. It implies there is an external factor to human consciousness, and so far it seems the brain is all you need. And when the brain is dead you are dead. Not much reason to expect otherwise.

Although, if we postulate two technological advances - the ability to "download" a consciousness and time-travel - then we can have a quasi-scientific afterlife. Send agents all throughout history to secretly embed consciousness collectors in everyone who ever lived, then take them back to the future and we can all live happily ever after in the big computer together. It's not completely ridiculous, and has the advantage of being more possible than the usual supernatural alternatives.

"And Man saw there was no Afterlife, so He built one for Himselves."

Posted by Malcolm on May 24 2011,17:15

Spending eternity with everyone that ever lived sounds like one possible definition of hell.

Posted by TheCatt on May 26 2011,10:06

< Religion kills kids. >

QUOTE

The Wylands, who are 43 and 22, respectively, and are members of the Followers of Christ Church, told authorities they believed that prayer and anointing oils would heal their daughter's hemangioma, an abnormal growth of blood vessels that was occluding her vision.

In the past two years, Oregon's Clackamas County has prosecuted two other couples from the same church whose children died from untreated ailments. One, Jeff and Marci Beagley, were convicted of criminally negligent homicide last year and sentenced to 16 months in prison.

Their 16-year-old son, Neil, died of complications from an untreated urinary tract blockage.

Posted by GORDON on May 26 2011,20:27

Looks like the bible is in for a massive rewrite.

< http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-611844 >

Posted by Malcolm on May 26 2011,23:51

(GORDON @ May 26 2011,22:27)

QUOTE

Looks like the bible is in for a massive rewrite.

< http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-611844 >

Gonna be a bit. Their current Genesis translation looks like it was written by a drunken Japanese electrical engineer who took a night college course in English while recovering from severe head trauma.