Hawking: There aint no heaven.

[TPRJones]

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.

[Leisher]

So where are we disagreeing?

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

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.

[GORDON]

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.

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.



Edited By GORDON on 1305664083

[Leisher]

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.

You're skimming.

[GORDON]

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.

[GORDON]

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.

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



Edited By GORDON on 1305667362

[TheCatt]

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

[Malcolm]

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

I call so much bullshit on that.

[Malcolm]

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.

[TPRJones]

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.

<span style='font-size:7pt;line-height:100%'>DISCLAIMER: This post is not intended to be science.</span>



Edited By TPRJones on 1305669648

[Leisher]

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

Yeah, I figured.

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.

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...

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.

Exactly.

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.

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.



Edited By Leisher on 1305687497

[GORDON]

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.

[TPRJones]

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

[Malcolm]

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.

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

"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.



Edited By Malcolm on 1305833058

[TPRJones]

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*

[Leisher]

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?

[TPRJones]

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.

[GORDON]

yeah but ISM.

[GORDON]

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.

[Malcolm]

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.