Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 lagoda
Joined: 11/20/2009
Msg: 301
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the UniversePage 13 of 19    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.”

Albert Einstein
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 302
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/16/2012 8:31:08 AM

There is plenty of evidence for the existence of God and atheists repeatedly deny it when it's pointed out to them.

I say there's no evidence for 'gods' at all, let alone any particular one. So now's your chance to prove me wrong.
 Yule_liquor
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 303
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/16/2012 9:06:43 AM

actually his existence is discarded based on the attributes alleged to him.


And just what are these "attributes" that serve as the necessary evidence to "discard' God's existence, if I may ask?


others are unnecessary given the ability of the universe to come about and work without him.


Just like you demand proofs; I will ask you to furnish proof just as to how the Universe came into being on its own; and please don't circular logical terms such as "it does because it can" or hollow assertions/conjectures such as "it is due to a quantum effect". If it is then you'd have to show unquestionable proof that the quantum realm existed "a priori" ; how it functions, and whence it came from!
................................................................

@Guitar


There is plenty of evidence for the existence of God and atheists repeatedly deny it when it's pointed out to them.


Whatever 'evidence" may be out there (if any at all); would not likely be perceptible by a hardened atheist; unless of "god' himself elects to (figuratively) open that person's eyes!
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 304
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/16/2012 9:25:44 AM

Not only does science prove nothing (about the presence or absence of God); it cannot prove how anything in this universe ever came into being.

That is, obviously, not true.


The notion that the Universe created "itself" requires as much faith from an empiricist as the belief in as Deity does from a theist, regardless as to how much scientific jargon that they adorn their propositions with.

This is just a straw man wrapped in anti-intellectualism.


Thus for one to say that the Universe "created itself" IMO is like taking a hand full of scrap metal pieces with you on top of the highest skyscraper; then tossing it out the window and expecting it to assemble itself into a Rolex watch upon impact!

It isn't like that at all, so what you've really shown is that your opinion is based on misinterpretation and/or misunderstanding.


just because we, mere humans in this dimension, can't test for other dimensions, doesn't mean they don't exist.

Doesn't mean they do, either. This is a "god of the gaps" fallacy. "I don't know, therefore god."


It is not a matter of filling in the "gap" with God; its a matter of understanding that both possibilities are equally likely, when it concerns matters outside the confines (for lack of a better term) of this Universe.
{my emphasis)
You are making an argument that actually supports agnosticism, since if all 'possibilities are equally likely' it follows that all are equally unlikely as well.
That argument = agnosticism.



There is plenty of evidence for the existence of God and atheists repeatedly deny it when it's pointed out to them.


Whatever 'evidence" may be out there (if any at all); would not likely be perceptible by a hardened atheist; unless of "god' himself elects to (figuratively) open that person's eyes!

All that's required is evidence that reaches a basic standard of objective rationality.
Bleating pre-emptively, before you've even presented any evidence, that no one will believe it anyway is just an attempt to squirm out of having to present anything to back up your claims while blaming someone else for your failure.

'Hardened atheists' aren't the problem for those who seek to prove the existence of deities, the lack of any evidence is the problem.
 balrog67
Joined: 4/1/2012
Msg: 305
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/16/2012 9:26:20 AM

None of the attributes of God are contradictory.


Yahweh is alleged to be omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient.

Yet he was so incompetent in his creative abilities that he had to throw up his hands and drown his creation like kittens in a toilet - and in a petulant fit of rage.

He was so weak that he could not defeat Judah's enemies because they had iron chariots.

He was so stupid that he forgot what words he wrote on the tablets of stone and wrote completely DIFFERENT words on the next set.

This all-powerful deity is a bumbling buffoon.
 Yule_liquor
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 306
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/16/2012 11:13:23 AM

That is, obviously, not true.


science can only explain physical phenomenon & properties of this universe; it does not explain it epistemologically(that is; why its properties{such as physical constants} are what they are).


This is just a straw man wrapped in anti-intellectualism.


Oh is it? well when you can serve up the necessary PROOF that the universe has indeed created "itself" and have provided answers to every conceivable question as to how it did it; then and only then can we subtract all the conjectures. Rebuking or questioning presumed "junk" science does not equate to being anti-intellectual.


your opinion is based on misinterpretation and/or misunderstanding.


misinterpretation/misunderstanding of what? Somebody else's(an atheist) opinions or conjectures!


You are making an argument that actually supports agnosticism, since if all 'possibilities are equally likely' it follows that all are equally unlikely as well.
That argument = agnosticism.


I have no qualms against agnosticism; agnosticism is perfectly reasonable. My claim is against the atheist who must use the same conviction to deny the existence of a deity, as the theist uses it to accept it.


All that's required is evidence that reaches a basic standard of objective rationality.


That does not apply as it concerns matters of the supernatural; as you are trying to open a door with a key that doesn't fit the lock, just like the rules of physics do not apply at the level of the singularity. If we are to suppose that God is like he is in the Abrahamic sense; then he simply does not operate by empiric rules/principles. He will not furnish you with the evidence you require just to "win over" or to recruit believers (or theists from atheists). His 'rules' (for those who accept such a god)are that you must first believe (or have genuine faith) before any revelation is made(if any). He will keep the non believer blind (as non-nonsensical as that may sound to you or any other empiricist) of any his doings or so-called blessings, unless he wills it otherwise.


'Hardened atheists' aren't the problem for those who seek to prove the existence of deities, the lack of any evidence is the problem.


No true Theist ever strives to(physically) "prove" the existence of a deity; It is when a person shows enough faith; only then will he be shown the evidence, but only for his (opened) eyes to see!
 pappy009
Joined: 2/3/2008
Msg: 307
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/16/2012 12:14:16 PM
Why does a G-d have to be a deity. Who ever said that G-d lives behind a cloud. Who ever said that G-d has to be a personal being. Who said that there is a G-d particle, when or if G-d is the creator of particles why does G-d have to be a particle. I don't agree with atheistism, but they got the right to there understanding. Maybe G-d didn't create the universe, but then what did.

---That is, obviously, not true.---
Prove it.
Did space exist before the universe. Prove it.

---Yahweh is alleged to be omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient.---
Lets boil that down to one element...Isness, You is, I is, we all is..lol..try to grasp there language and then you can see what there intent was with this saying.

---Yet he was so incompetent in his creative abilities that he had to throw up his hands and drown his creation like kittens in a toilet - and in a petulant fit of rage.---
At the time of this sort of chaos, do you think the people of the middle east who wrote this were aware of Alaska, or Terra del fuago...they are talking about what happened to them. If there world was to collapse than thats the whole world according to them. CNN didn't exist at the time. Gee could it have been a tidal wave or an asteroid hitting the earth.

--This all-powerful deity is a bumbling buffoon.--
Yes nature is truly flawed..if indeed a g-d created it.
When your kids grew up were you around them everyday of there lives after they get married and have kids...I am sure you weren't...you allowed them to make there own mistakes did you not...so lets try to manifest this into the understanding that A G_D (whatever a G-d is) allows you that also. Funny how mankind is truly the flawed spieces here. The thing is that for some reason, mankind does not belong on this planet...

---This all-powerful deity is a bumbling buffoon.--
Imagine a world or people created perfect. What would be the point of the creation.

I disagree with Steve Hawkins, Something, which in our reality might be nothing, but in another reality, could have created this universe..it just didn't come along hap-haphazardly.
If the argument is about a G-d then why use the bible, a created book by the Romans to harness the people of the time from the anarchy of Gnostic Christianity. Or Greek, Egyptian Gnostcism. The reason for the burning of the Alexandrian Libraries..Try studying vedic literature then pose the argument. Like, get other sources. It get kind of boring arguing a G-d concept with people that have only one beef against religion...what does religion have to do with a G-d. its our construct.
 balrog67
Joined: 4/1/2012
Msg: 308
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/16/2012 12:53:10 PM

No true Theist ever.....


This is logical fallacy. Please see the 'No True Scotsman' error.
 balrog67
Joined: 4/1/2012
Msg: 309
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/16/2012 12:58:33 PM

Something, which in our reality might be nothing, but in another reality, could have created this universe..it just didn't come along hap-haphazardly.


Science does not assert that anything comes along hap-hazardly. Yours appears to be just another restatement of the Divine Fallacy - "It's just to awesomely cool and complicated for me to comprehend, therefore God done it."

Get out of the way and let Science continue with the inexorably outstanding job they've been doing for centuries now and these answers will be discovered.
 Kardinal Offishall
Joined: 2/26/2010
Msg: 310
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/16/2012 6:04:23 PM
Yule_liquor:



To try an rule out the existence of a "being" whose nature/attributes would not conform to the physical properties of this Universe is very vacuous to say the least!


Use of the concept of a "being" is inherently dicey in the manner in which you're using it, viz., in connection with the notion that such a being would supposedly not conform to the physical nature of our universe.

I've perviously highlighted the basic reasons why this sort of thinking is a grand metaphysical booby trap:

(1) We have a naturally-selected cognitive system -- often referred to as 'folk psychology' or 'theory of mind' within the academic literatures -- whose features literally imbue our perceptions, cogitations and experience of the social world in mentalistic terms (i.e., agency, beliefs, desires). Its inherent structuring of our experience in this way is something people are virtually not cognizant of -- it's a significant aspect of what the mid-20th century philosopher Wilfrid Sellars called the 'manifest image'; what the manifest image presents the universe as, and what scientific investigation demonstrates, are most often very different, mutually-exclusive pictures.

(2) Everything we know about mentality, scientifically, tells us that it is both physical and dependent on the physical. To think otherwise is to flatly contradict the collective message of the apposite modern sciences. That is, if you believe god is both non-physical and minded (has agency/volition), then you believe in an unjustified belief (a.k.a. believing in irrational beliefs).

I can't possibly do justice to these and other points in the space of a message board post, but suffice to say people have an instinct to see mentality in many places and thus are ontologically 'promiscuous' and 'horny' in their ascription of such an onerous notion.



If that were remotely possible, I'm sure it would have been done long ago by someone far more astute than yourself; and very likely would have won the Nobel prize in science


The onus, I'm afraid, would be on you to demonstrate how and why mentality can fly in the face of the message from the sciences I alluded to.

Show us why we should and could put stock in a Cartesian substance dualism, and you will have opened the door at least somewhat to the viability of a non-physical deity with agency as an ontological posit. That is likely to win you a Nobel (via demonstrating Cartesian substance dualism as well-substantiated empirical phenomenon).

Again, recall that you're the one asserting that some supposed deity is non-physical. The attributes which you are alleging on behalf of this postulated deity do not hold water when assessed against our empirical knowledge of mindedness.



If it is then you'd have to show unquestionable proof that the quantum realm existed "a priori" ; how it functions, and whence it came from!


At the core, a significant aspect of what the sciences are, fundamentally, is comparative theory appraisal; that is, assessing competing hypotheses/theories against empirical evidence, such that the best explanation is the one that best accounts for the focal phenomenon/phenomena, in accordance with a cluster-class of epistemic virtues, one of which, for illustrative purposes, is parsimony.

No one can any less posit quantum phenomena as a theoretical ontological posit in matters cosmogony than you or any other theist can posit some suitably (and sufficiently precise) defined deity.

You don't get a free pass just because you utter the monosyllabic word 'god'. 'Observing' such ontological posits directly is irrelevant: No one has directly observed living, breathing dinosaurs or bosons with their bare eyes (if that's what your intended point was); yet they are no less corroborated scientifically because of it.

Also, you are unfortunately question begging by assuming -- ironically, a priori -- that everything must have a cause.

I say this is ironic -- and in more than one way -- for the following reasons:

(1) If you believe in the existence of a god, then surely you must believe that such a god exists without a cause, and you must believe this on a priori grounds.

(2) You also must posit that such a god simply exists explanatorily prior to this universe...on apparently 'a priori' grounds. Yet you do not think a competing hypothesis can also make 'a priori' posits.

Both of these implicit assumptions are a contradiction, a breach of the rules. It runs both ways; god doesn't get any special ontological favors.

Have a nice day.






Guitar4Jesus:


None of the attributes of God are contradictory. You just misunderstand them


Specify the attributes of the god you believe in. You have to be explicit first before you can play the game; else I nor anyone has any idea what you're referring to when you utter the word god.



And the universe does not have the ability to come about and work without Him.


Says...you?



Science has shown that the universe (all physical reality) had a cosmic beginning 13.7 billion years ago. So if the universe at one point 'didn't exist' and then 'existed' it would be metaphysically impossible for it to come about by itself.


That doesn't follow in the slightest. Big bang cosmology demonstrates that our universe came into existence approximately 13.7 billion years ago. It doesn't demonstrate how or why, say, space and time came into existence, nor if anything else existed ontologically and explanatorily prior to it.

Indeed, theists often believe that anything existing explanatorily prior to a universe must by necessity be a great big fancy deity; however this doesn't follow, and many proposals in theoretical cosmology postulate much simpler models to explain the origin of this universe/multiverse.
 Yule_liquor
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 311
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/16/2012 10:10:14 PM
@Kard


Use of the concept of a "being" is inherently dicey in the manner in which you're using it, viz., in connection with the notion that such a being would supposedly not conform to the physical nature of our universe.


what would make God's supposed non conforming nature so troubling for you? Is it because the possible existence of such a "being" doesn't conform with what you would (supposedly)like for him (it) to be!


it's a significant aspect of what the mid-20th century philosopher Wilfrid Sellars called the 'manifest image'; what the manifest image presents the universe as, and what scientific investigation demonstrates, are most often very different, mutually-exclusive pictures.


Well that is all nice and interesting but this is not what we are talking about here. We are at the (figurative)confines of the Universe; the "non plus ultra" of the scientific method (most specifically math & physics) such that "scientific investigations" are of little aid in helping us discern what can be mutually exclusive and what can't.


Everything we know about mentality, scientifically, tells us that it is both physical and dependent on the physical.


I'm assuming that your term "mentality" includes the consciousness; if so then I cannot accept the above premise because it can't be shown that the consciousness resides locally. If not then it seems that you are crafting your own concept of what the mind's totally is comprised of.


if you believe god is both non-physical and minded (has agency/volition), then you believe in an unjustified belief (a.k.a. believing in irrational beliefs).


If I understand correctly, you seem to be alluding that God's consciousness ought to be contained inside some type of enclosure, then you'd probably be right by virtue of your own construct!


Show us why we should and could put stock in a Cartesian substance dualism, and you will have opened the door at least somewhat to the viability of a non-physical deity with agency as an ontological posit.


if this is a fancy way of you asking for empiric proof as to why you "should put stock" in a CSD, then I can't give you any and this is what the crux of the matter has been all along. I don't know if this is pertinent to your question in any way but if you want a "physical' answer then you might want to investigate (if you haven't done so already) on what made Ex-atheist philosopher Antony Flew convert to Theism. There is a lot written about this, as he was a much respected scholar by both Atheists and Theists. This is a Ytube clip that condenses it but there is alot more, if you care to look into it.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1e4FUhfHiU


The attributes which you are alleging on behalf of this postulated deity do not hold water when assessed against our empirical knowledge of mindedness.


First off; we don't know the totality of "mindedness" (yet); secondly, empiric knowledge is not the standard by which one can determine whether his attributes hold water or not!


Both of these implicit assumptions are a contradiction,


not if there are contingencies.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 312
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/17/2012 5:46:32 AM

It is not a matter of filling in the "gap" with God; its a matter of understanding that both possibilities are equally likely, when it concerns matters outside the confines (for lack of a better term) of this Universe.


That's a meaningless statement since "outside the confines of this universe" is a meaningless statement. What is "outside" the universe? How can something "outside" have influence on what's going on in the universe.

Basically, rather than answer any of the challenges, you're attempting to add attributes in order to fit the original premise of a god that I still have no reason to accept exists.
 Kardinal Offishall
Joined: 2/26/2010
Msg: 313
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/17/2012 3:28:22 PM
Yule_liquor:



what would make God's supposed non conforming nature so troubling for you? Is it because the possible existence of such a "being" doesn't conform with what you would (supposedly)like for him (it) to be!


What I would or wouldn't like matters to be is irrelevant. However, expecting to be taken seriously when the assertions one makes are unsubstantiated -- that is, fly in the face of empirically-gained knowledge -- is unfortunately wishful thinking.

I presume you are more intellectually respectable than a typical creationist, so I will provisionally assume that you are tethered to empirical reality.



We are at the (figurative)confines of the Universe; the "non plus ultra" of the scientific method (most specifically math & physics) such that "scientific investigations" are of little aid in helping us discern what can be mutually exclusive and what can't.


On the contrary: They are of much aid and are in fact highly relevant to this topic. The relevant sciences and scientific knowledge that I pointed to in my last post demonstrate why mentalistic thinking in the context of theology is so deliciously tempting and natural, and thus why it should abjured.

Essentially, it is like having built-in assumptions that are completely false -- assumptions that were hammered into our cognitive makeup by natural selection.

In other words, it is as if natural selection gave us false axioms, and additionally greased the proverbial wheels such that it was henceforth ridiculously easy to make equally false derivations from those axioms, namely derivations about non-physical gods with agency.

Interestingly, it is cognitive facts like these which make the job of convincing hardened, dyed-in-the-wool believers that they hold manifestly irrational beliefs so difficult and often well-nigh impossible.

Also, consider this: If one were a member of a hypothetical alien species that lacked our naturally-selected cognitive system of 'folk psychology' (the overarching system that governs how we perceive and think about the minds of our conspecifics, and possibly other non-human animals), such a theistic hypothesis -- viz., a non-physical god with a mind -- would not even present itself to such an alien as at all obvious.

Conversely, it's only 'obvious' to many humans (believers) by dint of the fact that they fall victim to their own 'instincts', their own cognitive adaptations.

Secondly, yes: The sciences completely undercut the notion that a mind can exist independently of a physical substrate. If you think otherwise you're only fooling yourself, and you have no good grounds for thinking that mind can exist otherwise.

Hence theistic conceptions that posit a non-physical god with a mind are incoherent, though they certainly 'feel' like a straightforward proposition at a gut level to believers -- all the more reason to abjure the very (irrational) notion.



I'm assuming that your term "mentality" includes the consciousness; if so then I cannot accept the above premise because it can't be shown that the consciousness resides locally.


I'm not sure what you mean by "resides locally;" you'll need to elaborate.

As already mentioned, consciousness is completely dependent on a physical substrate.



If I understand correctly, you seem to be alluding that God's consciousness ought to be contained inside some type of enclosure, then you'd probably be right by virtue of your own construct!


If you believe that one can use the concept 'consciousness' willy-nilly without any connection to empirical reality, then yes, one can use it in however many nonsensical ways they wish. However, such parlor tricks would not change the fact that they would still be trafficking in sheer fantasy.

There's a reason why virtually all cognitive scientists, neuroscientists, and philosophers of mind accept physicalism about the mind and reject Cartesian substance dualism. On the other hand -- and symmetrically -- theists and other assorted nuts typically reject physicalism and embrace Cartesian substance dualism.

It's funny the way the experts and non-experts array themselves with respect to the fault line here, which ironically parallels the situation with creationist vis-a-vis evolutionary biologists.

Appealing to one's intuition about consciousness will get them nowhere, fast.



if this is a fancy way of you asking for empiric proof as to why you "should put stock" in a CSD, then I can't give you any and this is what the crux of the matter has been all along.


Many theists engaging in naive philosophy of religion erroneously believe that they can help themselves to a buffet-sized serving of idiosyncratic intuitions and subjective gut feelings, unchecked by even a modicum of empirical constraints.

Such an exercise, however, is not intellectually respectable in the slightest; it's a hermetically-sealed cottage industry of fairy-tale creation, little better than the tripe spewed in mass quantities of irrational paroxysms by the New Age Industrial Complex.

In the pecking order of bullshit, it admittedly ranks superior to religious fundamentalism and the above mentioned New Age fantasies -- which is not saying much.



First off; we don't know the totality of "mindedness" (yet); secondly, empiric knowledge is not the standard by which one can determine whether his attributes hold water or not!


Asserting that there exists a non-physical god with a mind is in flat contradiction with what we know about minds scientifically.

And as I've pointed out before, there is good reason why people so casually assume that a non-physical minded god can exist: Our naturally-selected 'theory of mind' makes such thinking a natural instinct.

It is precisely for that reason why we should be prima facie skeptical of such innately-driven conclusions, rather than prima facie confident (ironically).

The naturalness with which we think about other minds is cosmically parochial and is a cognitive capacity, even the rudiments of which, do not extend too widely amongst other taxa, phylogenetically speaking.

Birds and fish do not think about other minds, because they lack the naturally-selected 'theory of mind' that we possess. Only humans would be so anthropocentric and deluded to think they possess the right sorts of cognitive adaptations -- the 'gold standard' -- with which inerrant metaphysical truths are issued instinctively, without need for scientific vetting.

Case in point: Putting epistemic faith in the deliverances of our naturally-selected 'theory of mind' about the ontology of minds is like putting faith in the deliverances of our naturally-selected faculty of physics ('folk physics') with respect to the ontology of the physical world.

Even most theists would not claim that they hold a privileged, untutored epistemic window on the workings of physics; yet this must likewise be their attitude when the matter of their knowledge of minds is concerned. It cuts both ways.

This is also why, incidentally, I alluded to mid-20th century philosopher Wilfrid Sellars' famous distinction between the 'manifest image of man in the world' and the 'scientific image of man in the world'.

The scientific image continually demonstrates just how false and misleading our naive, instinctive 'manifest image' of reality is. And it is that same epistemically untrustworthy manifest image which glibly issues in unexamined beliefs of non-physical deities in possession of agency/mind.

The troubles for theism run deeper than most people think. It is often said that theism is without proof; but what is worse is that many if not most or all conceptions of theism do not even get that far, because they cannot even get off the ground without being incoherent at the outset.
 Yule_liquor
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 314
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/18/2012 8:19:33 AM
@Kard


In other words, it is as if natural selection gave us false axioms, and additionally greased the proverbial wheels such that it was henceforth ridiculously easy to make equally false derivations from those axioms, namely derivations about non-physical gods with agency.


Do you realize what you are bringing forth by saying this? It took me a while to assess it but here it is!

By asserting that 'natural selection' (which is of nature) gives us (humans) "false axioms" by which to live and abide by; you are henceforth saying that the inner workings of nature itself is IRRATIONAL. In other words you have served an indictment on the rationality of that very essence that has created us and how we think(logically or otherwise); perceive, formulate beliefs (and axioms), etc. This of course undermines all that you have stated in subsequent paragraphs.

I say this because why would "nature" imbue us (or as you say "grease the wheels") making it even easier for us to believe such supernatural "non-sense"? Would this not be to our detriment? In other words, if I encounter adversity, why would nature (via natural selection) have wired me to "irrationally" seek supernatural guidance rather than the more efficient & definitive physical methods(whatever they may be in accordance to the situation I'm presented with)? Thus (logically speaking); being wired or primed in this way, would offer no advantage in the survival game; especially since you are saying that we must recognize this widespread and historically pervasive faulty way of thinking that has been irrationally set into our minds and set it aside, despite of the fact that this may be "impossible" (your words) for some to do!

Secondly, in saying this; you just cannot therefore hoard or confine this to one segment of nature as doing so would be akin to saying that the laws of gravity only apply to our galaxy and no where else!. Thus if nature has indeed displayed this element of irrationality in regards to how we have been "naturally selected" to think and (view such things) then it must follow that this irrationality is present uniformly throughout nature onto its deepest recesses. Which in short implies; that the pattern(s) by which you derived your thinking (and philosophy) emanates from the same irrational vein. So metaphorically, you are building your house(construct) on shifting sands!

To expound further, I can take the above captioned statement even further by adding that: not only has nature (irrationally) wired us to make false derivations from false axioms (thereby compounding the irrationality even further); but it (nature) may have done so in order for us to become more empirically inclined in that we might understand the totality of nature itself for the ultimate purpose of "marrying" us into the Deity(or intelligent designer) that we would have hitherto dismissed(as such was the case with Mr Antony Flew{ if you bothered to look into it}). Thus its possible that it may be nature's (irrational way perhaps) to bring us about 'full circle'. My point is that we can propagate this little fallacy to almost no end.

The flip side of my opus is that if it is NOT nature that is irrational; then it has to be you! I respectfully allude to this because if you are maintaining that nature is not irrational the why would you posit the the presence of this clearly irrational "kink" within its figurative corpus (thereby tossing the proverbial monkey wrench into its entire workings). Not only would it be irrational of you; it might also be disingenuous in that you'd be denying the Theist the very same irrational stratagem that you yourself are employing to bolster your argument.

Thus I'm not going to bother to address some of your other statements because the point seems moot.

Nice chatting, have a good day!
 null_locus_accede
Joined: 6/25/2011
Msg: 315
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/18/2012 4:33:34 PM
A scientist really can't say anything about creation because they are wholly incapable of grasping it. They are good at grasping stuff like conversion and entropy, but that's a dead end. Religion can't really say anything about creation either, as those chumps are more of a cargo cult in sheep's clothing.
Anyhoo, I see two sides to any god argument, and both are idiots beyond respite.
 Kardinal Offishall
Joined: 2/26/2010
Msg: 316
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/18/2012 7:10:31 PM
Yule_liquor:



In other words you have served an indictment on the rationality of that very essence that has created us and how we think(logically or otherwise); perceive, formulate beliefs (and axioms), etc. This of course undermines all that you have stated in subsequent paragraphs.


What I was saying was specific to our naturally-selected cognitive adaptation known as 'folk psychology/theory of mind', and in the following sense:

When its outputs, as used as unassailable premises in the theistic/religious thinking of believers, are appraised for their epistemic warrant regarding the nature of minds, they are found to fly in direct contradiction of what we know scientifically; ergo they are false presuppositions about the nature of minds, and therefore qua a premise in the theistic reasoning you were deploying it in -- viz., a non-physical god with a mind.

One of the main points is this: The theist flippantly makes the assertion 'non-physical god with a mind', as if this itself is a given.

What people like me are saying, by contrast, is that not even this can be taken as a given; that is, it must be argued for directly, not taken as an antecedently 'obvious' proposition.

A theist should first be asked to specify their operational concept of god, such that one knows what they mean; then they should be asked to support all of their premises with argument.

Hope that makes things clear.



I say this because why would "nature" imbue us (or as you say "grease the wheels") making it even easier for us to believe such supernatural "non-sense"? Would this not be to our detriment? In other words, if I encounter adversity, why would nature (via natural selection) have wired me to "irrationally" seek supernatural guidance rather than the more efficient & definitive physical methods(whatever they may be in accordance to the situation I'm presented with)?


I think we need to analyze this a bit more closely.

(1) The 'theory of mind' adaptation that I've been at pains to highlight is what makes thinking about mindedness so effortless and 'obvious' in humans.

(2) This above cognitive adaptation does not exist in a vacuum; it exists alongside many other adaptations. So when I used the colorful locution "grease the wheels," I was obliquely and metaphorically referring to the ways in which the outputs of the 'theory of mind' system can be used by other appropriate cognitive adaptions which have available as input those theory of mind outputs. And since those other 'consumer' systems have access in various ways to the theory of mind outputs, natural selection has indeed "greased the wheels" in a number of ways by making certain thoughts and feelings more likely than others -- 'predisposed', in other words.

(3) Both (1) and (2) would be strengthened even more should it turn out that the religious impulse is also itself a cognitive adaptation in this species.

Another point that I'd want to make -- and which you highlighted here -- is regarding the question of why, if supernatural beliefs in general are irrational, would natural selection have permitted so many humans to end up with such false beliefs, regardless of whether those beliefs issue indirectly, or directly from an adaptation for the religious impulse?

Or to put the point differently, Why wouldn't have selection purged such fitness harming designs?

Without expatiating at length, there are at least two factors that should be noted here. For one thing, one must consider cultural/memetic evolution, specifically as it pertains to the evolution of concrete spiritual/religious practices throughout human evolution, including the last few thousand years with the rise of major world religions, viz., the Abrahamic faiths, Eastern religious philosophy, polytheism, etc.

Also, and again, one must bear in mind the hypothesis that spirituality and/or religiosity is an evolved adaptation. There are a number of possibilities, not all of which are mutually exclusive. For instance, it's possible that much if not most or all of, say, the Abrahamic faiths, are fitness diminishing (in the evolutionary-biological sense) in various respects, or for various individuals, in which case cultural/memetic evolution of these faiths have lead to the generation of parasitic ideas which opportunistically take advantage of the evolved cognitive architecture of human minds.

Most of the New Atheists take a view very much along these lines, specifically holding that the religious impulse is a by-product of other adaptations -- rather than a directly selected one -- and postulate large faiths like Christianity and Islam as rogue 'memecomplexes' that parasitically tap into human minds, and in which they concomitantly are able find a propitious home.

Mind you, on this general view, the memes of religions, including modern ones, are in some respects analagous to genes: They replicate themselves by spreading to as many minds as perforce possible; that is, because of chance and necessity, just like genes.



Thus (logically speaking); being wired or primed in this way, would offer no advantage in the survival game; especially since you are saying that we must recognize this widespread and historically pervasive faulty way of thinking that has been irrationally set into our minds and set it aside, despite of the fact that this may be "impossible" (your words) for some to do!


There's another critical point that we need to recognize here. Being ontologically veracious and evolutionarily fit are not necessarily entirely coextensive with one.

Indeed, they are often ostensibly not, i.e., all else equal, a chemist that goes childless has a more accurate understanding of chemical reality than an individual who believes in a positively false brand of 'New Age chemistry' or alchemy, though if that latter individual has more offspring (and excepting for the moment inclusive fitness), then they would have higher evolutionary fitness than the childless chemist with a more accurate understanding of reality.

Our ancestors ironically may very well have had higher fitness because of a naturally-selected religious impulse and co-adapted group-oriented spiritual/religious culture. It turns out to be ridiculously easy, also, for cognitive and behavioral traits to be visible to selection; so even what might prima facie and intuitively look like minimal differences in these traits can have direct implications on survial and reproduction; and this incidentally bolsters the prospect that the religious impulse and associated co-adapted religious culture are actually naturally-selected adaptations.

But the jury is still out on this issue. For what it's worth, had you asked me about a year ago, I would have leaned in the direction of the by-product explanation for religion.

However I'm not so sure anymore. What might appear prima facie to be a by-product can easily turn out to in fact be an adaptation when a more broader and finer-grained investigation is performed; selection is a master tinkerer, capable or combining and adding to pre-existing parts in novel ways that befuddle even the best of human engineers.

So I would not be surprised if religion turns out be empirically corroborated as an adaptation. There are many ongoing and fascinating research programs being conducted on the matter.



Secondly, in saying this; you just cannot therefore hoard or confine this to one segment of nature as doing so would be akin to saying that the laws of gravity only apply to our galaxy and no where else!.


That's disanalagous.

The view within cognitive science is that the mind has what's technically referred to as 'domain-specific' components. These components are 'targeted' on suitably delineated domains, and there is no general rule whereby one can expect these components to directly interact with all or even most others.

I'm trying to simplify these points so as to avoid too much abstract explanations and technical jargon; but suffice to say I see what you're alluding to, though the conclusion you are drawing unfortunately does not follow and is not valid.

The following brief illustration might help clear up what you have in mind:

To take just a handful of examples, note that we're capable of reading, brushing our teeth, playing tennis, and posting messages on internet forums. Yet our underlying morphological, physiological, and cognitive adaptations did not evolve -- that is, were not selected -- for performing such tasks, since they are too recent (evolutionarily-novel).

Roughly, by your reasoning, we should be incapable of performing these tasks, by dint of being in possession of an overall organismic design which was not directly evolutionarily selected to do such things. Yet we manifestly can do these things, and in many instances quite well.

I'll comparatively schematize this with a pair of roughly analagous syllogisms to help juxtapose and bring out the contradiction:


(1) Natural selection predisposes people to derive incoherent, false theistic propositions (viz., non-physical gods with minds).

(2) Since natural selection predisposes us to such false conclusions, it must by necessity spill over to human cognition in toto, which would entail that we are in a dire epistemic position about what we can know.

Conclusion: Therefore we cannot trust our cognitive faculties very much.


The analagous syllogism runs roughly as follows:

(1) Natural selection has fashioned organismic adaptations (physical and cognitive) for ecological and social environments in the past.

(2) Since we are not adapted to extant ecological and social environments, it must by necessity mean that we cannot perform tasks like reading, brushing our teeth, playing tennis, or posting messages to internet forums.

Conclusion: Therefore we cannot read, brush our teeth, play tennis, or post messages to internet forums.


The above conclusion to the second syllogism clearly is false; and since I take the first syllogism to be roughly analagous, its conclusion, too, is false.

The line of thought you are taking, though, appears in the philosophical literature, and some of its inspiration also goes back to Kant in some respects. Evidence in cognitive science undercuts its force however.



To expound further, I can take the above captioned statement even further by adding that: not only has nature (irrationally) wired us to make false derivations from false axioms (thereby compounding the irrationality even further);


This is greatly over-generalizing; and at any rate it is not the argument I was making. My argument was applied in a specifically circumscribed manner, and moreover informed by the relevant literature on 'theory of mind' within cognitive science. (I can provide some citations if you wish.)



but it (nature) may have done so in order for us to become more empirically inclined in that we might understand the totality of nature itself for the ultimate purpose of "marrying" us into the Deity(or intelligent designer) that we would have hitherto dismissed


With due respect, this is sheer speculation on your part, and the above notion has been put forth by various theologians. It presupposes an answer, rather than marshals positive evidence and argument in its support.



(as such was the case with Mr Antony Flew{ if you bothered to look into it}).


I'm familiar with Antony Flew's case; and so far as I understand what happened, there is some controversy surrounding it. Either way, insofar as he now believes in the existence of god, it is not the god of Abraham, and rather a deistic conception.

And at any rate, if you wish to argue in favor of theism, you should advance a positive argument so that it can be appraised.



The flip side of my opus is that if it is NOT nature that is irrational; then it has to be you! I respectfully allude to this because if you are maintaining that nature is not irrational the why would you posit the the presence of this clearly irrational "kink" within its figurative corpus (thereby tossing the proverbial monkey wrench into its entire workings). Not only would it be irrational of you; it might also be disingenuous in that you'd be denying the Theist the very same irrational stratagem that you yourself are employing to bolster your argument.


Again, you're confounding and greatly over-extending the specific argument I was making. I was not speaking of "nature" in some all-encompassing sense. What I was saying, however, was especially focused on one naturally-selected cognitive adaptation, since its existence and operation is highly relevant to the focal issue.
 Kardinal Offishall
Joined: 2/26/2010
Msg: 317
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/18/2012 7:21:11 PM
null_locus_accede:


Perhaps you'd be interested in a recent discussion between author Robert Wright and cosmologist Lawrence Krauss on the subject of the latter's latest book 'A Universe From Nothing'.

What scientists like Krauss have to say on such issues is many times more illuminating than what any theologian or creationist has to say about such things.


http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/8727
 lagoda
Joined: 11/20/2009
Msg: 318
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/18/2012 8:01:18 PM

A scientist really can't say anything about creation because they are wholly incapable of grasping it. They are good at grasping stuff like conversion and entropy, but that's a dead end. Religion can't really say anything about creation either, as those chumps are more of a cargo cult in sheep's clothing.
Anyhoo, I see two sides to any god argument, and both are idiots beyond respite.


I wouldn't call all of the posters herein idiots; however, none of the proponents, has been able to successfully make their case with reliance on argumentum ad ignorantiam. Unfortunately, they've mostly clouded the debate with claims to the absurdity of asserting otherwise, also with little support.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 319
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/18/2012 9:40:03 PM
We are free to believe that we do not believe that we will never believe that we shouldn't believe and therefore...we believe that we are right, you are wrong, I will prove you wrong...I will prove myself right. And Stephen Hawking believes and respects Stephen Hawking. Bingo.
 Yule_liquor
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 320
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/19/2012 10:38:55 PM
@kard


When its outputs, as used as unassailable premises in the theistic/religious thinking of believers, are appraised for their epistemic warrant regarding the nature of minds, they are found to fly in direct contradiction of what we know scientifically; ergo they are false presuppositions about the nature of minds,


Then why has "nature' (via natural selection) allowed for such dysfunctional "outputs' (as you call "them"!) that has (according to thinkers such as yourself) resulted in the propagation of widespread IRRATIONAL beliefs (that permeates nearly all populations) to our very detriment in the manner that you've described. After all; what could be more IRRATIONAL than that which gives us the impetus to contradict what we ourselves have(or can) deduce(d) empirically. The only thing that I can say would be more IRRATIONAL is the very essence that has ontologically allowed for us to do this, and that would be nature itself.


Or to put the point differently, Why wouldn't have selection purged such fitness harming designs?

Without expatiating at length, there are at least two factors that should be noted here. For one thing, one must consider cultural/memetic evolution,


For which there is no empiric proof, just plain speculation derived (by dawkins) from observation.


it's possible that much if not most or all of, say, the Abrahamic faiths, are fitness diminishing (in the evolutionary-biological sense) in various respects, or for various individuals, in which case cultural/memetic evolution of these faiths have lead to the generation of parasitic ideas which opportunistically take advantage of the evolved cognitive architecture of human minds.


What evidence is there to suggest that (abrahamic or otherwise)faiths diminish fitness in the evolutionary sense? If anything it has served to strengthen the core of a tribe or clan who use such (or any) religion as a rallying focus, for the purpose of self motivation/perseveration even under the most horrid of physical or emotional circumstances; which may in turn have resulted in the very survival of that particular group of individuals that may have otherwise perished.


Most of the New Atheists take a view very much along these lines, specifically holding that the religious impulse is a by-product of other adaptations --


My above response points to the contrary. But if it is a "by product' of other adaptations then one can equally say that it is just a furthering of the sophistication of how nature fuses or blends different adaptations to synthesize a more forcefully efficient one. This explanation can come closest to sparing nature the condemnation of being irrational.


Being ontologically veracious and evolutionarily fit are not necessarily entirely coextensive with one............all else equal, a chemist that goes childless has a more accurate understanding of chemical reality than an individual who believes in a positively false brand of 'New Age chemistry' or alchemy, though if that latter individual has more offspring (and excepting for the moment inclusive fitness), then they would have higher evolutionary fitness than the childless chemist with a more accurate understanding of reality.


This is not invariably true because neither one is being put to the "survival" challenge within their environment, as would be necessary to determine who is fit to survive. In other words, in a putrid setting where one would be forced to devise a chemically sound water purification system (that would ensure survival); clearly the chemist who is 'veracious' in his discipline would be the one to survive even though his lineage would end.


What might appear prima facie to be a by-product can easily turn out to in fact be an adaptation when a more broader and finer-grained investigation is performed; selection is a master tinkerer, capable or combining and adding to pre-existing parts in novel ways that befuddle even the best of human engineers.


Perhaps unbeknownst to you; you now are vaguely hinting at the possibility that the "master tinkerer" could be perhaps prompted(or endowed) by some intelligent underpinning (sort of like what Flew came to accept!). Why else or how else could nature utilize such irrational means by which it undertakes its capabilities in "ways that befuddle"!


To take just a handful of examples, note that we're capable of reading, brushing our teeth, playing tennis, and posting messages on internet forums. Yet our underlying morphological, physiological, and cognitive adaptations did not evolve -- that is, were not selected -- for performing such tasks, since they are too recent (evolutionarily-novel).


While we did not evolve to perform such tasks; we did evolve to solve problems (so as to be able to devise solutions) in response to environmental stresses, which isn't unique to humans. To be able to do this is reasonable and rational(under the circumstances); but this doesn't mean that the impetus that has forced us to do it isn't an irrational one!


(1) Natural selection predisposes people to derive incoherent, false theistic propositions (viz., non-physical gods with minds).

(2) Since natural selection predisposes us to such false conclusions, it must by necessity spill over to human cognition in toto, which would entail that we are in a dire epistemic position about what we can know.

Conclusion: Therefore we cannot trust our cognitive faculties very much.


If you accept (1), then the conclusion can't be rendered false. The only 2 ways in which you can get out of it; is be either by denying that Nat Sel can predispose one to such "incoherent" propositions; or denying the idea any deity need conform to logical principles and epistemics.


I was not speaking of "nature" in some all-encompassing sense. What I was saying, however, was especially focused on one naturally-selected cognitive adaptation, since its existence and operation is highly relevant to the focal issue.


It doesn't matter; you cannot divorce one component of nature from another and expect its properties to be any different from the "whole". It would be irrational to think of it as such. In nature, the whole is equal the sum of its parts!
 Kardinal Offishall
Joined: 2/26/2010
Msg: 321
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/20/2012 4:26:34 PM
Yule_liquor:



Then why has "nature' (via natural selection) allowed for such dysfunctional "outputs' (as you call "them"!) that has (according to thinkers such as yourself) resulted in the propagation of widespread IRRATIONAL beliefs (that permeates nearly all populations) to our very detriment in the manner that you've described.


A couple of points to make here:

(1) I did not actually refer to the outputs of our 'theory of mind' adaptation as "dysfunctional" per se; in fact, I would even grant that the adaptation is functioning as it was designed to function.

(2) What is irrational is not the functional working of the theory of mind adaptation, but rather the way in which its outputs are used in the service of theistic thinking; that is, as a premise (or premises) about the nature of god -- a premise which contradicts our scientific knowledge about minds. This is a critical point.

(3) In my last post I addressed why, and under what evolutionary conditions, selection would have permitted both a larger cognitive adaptation for religion/spirituality as well as a co-adapted religious/spiritual culture at the group level to persist: Ancestrally speaking, it may very well have been fitness conducive at the level of the gene. (If this is what really occurred, it will be useful to think of all the relevant evolutionary episodes therein in terms of group selection, which would just be an equivalent formulation to one couched at the level of individual genes.)

Ultimately, so far as evolutionary history goes, if there are tensions between being ontologically veracious -- that is, understanding reality for what it is, in and of itself -- and being evolutionarily fit -- fitness would always win.

In other words, truth is not something that natural selection intrinsically worships just for its own sake.

Ultimately all biological life on this planet is governed by the underlying dynamics of replicators -- of genes and other replicating structures.

Albeit important, representing the world isomorphically – that is, truthfully -- is secondary, ultimately, to the interactors (e.g., organisms, superorganisms, birds nests) that do the bidding of the replicators.



For which there is no empiric proof, just plain speculation derived (by dawkins) from observation.


There are two problems with your response here:

(1) You took me out of context.

(2) Cultural evolution clearly occurs any time a culture changes. Memetics is still a young field of scientific investigation that is attempting to quantify, rigorously conceptualize, and model the epidemiology and evolution of culture, broadly speaking.



What evidence is there to suggest that (abrahamic or otherwise)faiths diminish fitness in the evolutionary sense?


Explain how either of the following are fitness-enhancing in the evolutionary-biological sense (and bear in mind that these are only but two of many possible examples):

(i) Suicide bombing
(ii) Celibacy amongst priests



If anything it has served to strengthen the core of a tribe or clan who use such (or any) religion as a rallying focus, for the purpose of self motivation/perseveration even under the most horrid of physical or emotional circumstances; which may in turn have resulted in the very survival of that particular group of individuals that may have otherwise perished.


That's very possible, and I'm sympathetic to this line if it turns out that the religious/spiritual impulse is in fact an adaptation.

However, you are still unfortunately conflating what would have been fitness conducive in ancestral human environments with the cultural evolution that has occurred over the last few thousands of years.

All bets are off when it comes to the matter of whether extant religions are what such a putative adaptation would have been designed to interface with under ancestral conditions, which is the statistical composite of environments that complex cognitive adaptations are built in response to.

Our sociocultural and technological environment has changed so drastically and rapidly that a putative cognitive adaptation for religion may no longer be fitness conducive if rogue, parasitic religious memes have evolved to take advantage of individuals, and for no other reason than to increase the fitness of the memes.

This would apply, mutatis mutandis, even in the case where religion turns out not to be a cognitive adaptation, in which case religious memes would have simply commandeered aspects of individuals' cognitive architecture.

Also, by and large, it is worth being mindful that humans do not maximize their fitness in modern societies.

It's important not to glide over any of the subtleties here.



But if it is a "by product' of other adaptations then one can equally say that it is just a furthering of the sophistication of how nature fuses or blends different adaptations to synthesize a more forcefully efficient one.


Well, no, not quite. There are technical distinctions regarding such matters. To simplify: If something is a by-product, then it really is a by-product; in such cases there has been no selection for the focal effect(s).

This is separate from the manner in which evolution tinkers endlessly with the structures and processes already in place.



This explanation can come closest to sparing nature the condemnation of being irrational.


Calling "nature" rational or irrational is probably not a very useful and coherent notion, to say nothing of having at least a patina of anthropomorphism. As I already alluded to, ultimately replicator dynamics are all that matters in the biological world; all else -- including truth per se -- is secondary.



This is not invariably true because neither one is being put to the "survival" challenge within their environment, as would be necessary to determine who is fit to survive. In other words, in a putrid setting where one would be forced to devise a chemically sound water purification system (that would ensure survival); clearly the chemist who is 'veracious' in his discipline would be the one to survive even though his lineage would end.


Not invariably true?

My formulation was meant to make salient the contrast between truth and genetic fitness. Survival is irrelevant if an organism's inclusive fitness is zero.

No replication equals evolutionary dead-end, even if that organism were the most finely-honed survival machine on the planet.

The chemist has a more truthful depiction of reality than the alchemist; though in my example, the chemist goes childless (controlling for inclusive fitness), whereas the alchemist doesn't; therefore the alchemist, despite having false beliefs, does better in selection's eyes, the only eyes that ultimately matter in the evolutionary game.

Hope this sober point is clear.



Perhaps unbeknownst to you; you now are vaguely hinting at the possibility that the "master tinkerer" could be perhaps prompted(or endowed) by some intelligent underpinning (sort of like what Flew came to accept!). Why else or how else could nature utilize such irrational means by which it undertakes its capabilities in "ways that befuddle"!


This is just creationist/intelligent design thinking, and we know why such thinking is false. Nice segue!



To be able to do this is reasonable and rational(under the circumstances); but this doesn't mean that the impetus that has forced us to do it isn't an irrational one!


Unfortunately you're running together things that should not be run together. I think you need to re-read the portion of my last post where I drew up those two syllogisms in order to highlight the contradiction you were making in your last post. This way you'll be able to recall the context of what I was saying.



If you accept (1), then the conclusion can't be rendered false.


The whole point of the second, matching syllogism was to make clear why the first syllogism's conclusion was false (premise 2 is false).

Just because theists are blindly trusting their intuitions about minds does not mean that all people do. Their problem is that they do not subject their intuitions for vetting by scientific knowledge on this matter.

The science says they're wrong, flatly wrong.

Here's another example: Ask a physicist if her 'gut'/innate physical intuitions map on to the standard Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Richard Feynman famously harped on this chasm.

To wit: Taking your intuitions about mentality at face value is tantamount to declaring quantum mechanics wrong for no other reason than because if runs afoul of your intuitions about physics.

Both faculties (folk physics and theory of mind) are naturally-selected cognitive adaptations; yet both are wrong in crucial respects when it comes to depicting reality as it is in the fullest sense.



It doesn't matter; you cannot divorce one component of nature from another and expect its properties to be any different from the "whole". It would be irrational to think of it as such. In nature, the whole is equal the sum of its parts!


With due respect, this is sheer poppycock.

If biological components weren't at least to some extent separable, you and I would not be here having this conversation. Natural selection operates on semi-decomposable modular structures and processes, at virtually every level of the biological hierarchy. I'd recommend reviewing a textbook on biology, for an introduction. More abstract and technical forays can wait until we get that far. Yikes.
 mccullough64
Joined: 11/11/2006
Msg: 322
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/20/2012 8:09:40 PM
i belive now that god consists of particles and these form a binding force that holds the other three together in operation and the the three basic force's the so called nuclear forces consist of 7 basic particles and gravity consist of 1 atracctive particle and t3repulsive particle acounting for it's weakness and these alternate in reversal and the electromagnetic force consisting of 5 basic particles.

these basic particles were created by God by using some of his own particle and bubbling them up to form composite particles .

his own particle continue to bombard the Created particle from almost all direction in an almost uniform manner but not quite and his presense could be detected and may have already been in the large masses of data that has be aquired about the Omniverse.

that the limit of the big bang are white and thus show heat may be due to other Small Bangs that came from the big chunks at least thousand time larger than them at least that were released when God spoke the Two OM's that created life

and that effect of which will spread will spread in ever widening concentric spheres that impinge on each other for eternity from the moment of there speaking so they can be traced

also because light slows down to less than a yard a minute in sodium (see 101 quantum questions) and travels a different speed in water its speed is not a constant space has a lot of gases and is not pure vacuum and light speed varies in it passage through it.

the bang is a different age than we have thought. much different and Einstein is wrong again.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 323
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/20/2012 9:36:59 PM
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe, yeah, and after all, he knows.

something to do with things is just the way they is, because.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 324
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/20/2012 10:13:36 PM

Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe, yeah, and after all, he knows.
something to do with things is just the way they is, because.

You don't appear to realise that physics (and science generally) is built on a structure of, amongst other things, observation and evidence.

Perhaps this is why you omitted the crucial part in your summary - "something to do with things is just the way they is, because." of these reasons, this evidence supported by these repeatable observations, and these constants, etc etc.

As opposed to the ID/creationist version - "something to do with things is just the way they is, because." an invisible magic god did it.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 325
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 4/20/2012 10:17:51 PM
so, now science has a way to show there is no god?

I don't think it's been published yet.

and

why would god be visible?
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe