Stephen Hawking Changes View On God

Users who are viewing this thread

Perhaps it's the desire of theists and atheists across the land to create a prison of a word that leads to the usual discussions of whether some robed, bearded guy exists in the clouds and why he allows evil to happen or cares about us
 
Iron Count said:
In this context rejecting or accepting the null hypothesis is impossible without making an a priori presumption of a probability (for atheists, p=0 for both prior and observed probability, for theists, p=1).  In essence it's tantamount to deciding the probability of rolling 2 on an 'n' sided dice without actually knowing what n is.
The part that all falls down is when you realise you're already assuming God is a valid hypothesis. Would you care to explain what grounds you have for making that assumption?
It's like claiming you must either believe or disbelieve in an invisible pigeon called Pete I just made up, on the assumption that since I can envisage an invisible pigeon called Pete, there must be a possibility of him existing. The universe does not work that way, unfortunately.

 
But clearly, Archonsod, the only logical solution is to assume that because nothing can be proven either way, you must maintain a respect for either possibility for everything that has been or can be imagined. There's an equation for it and everything!

Perhaps I should go find my good post from the atheism vs theism thread.
 
Archonsod said:
The part that all falls down is when you realise you're already assuming God is a valid hypothesis. Would you care to explain what grounds you have for making that assumption?

What do you mean?

i.e. what do you mean by 'assuming God is a valid hypothesis'?  Do you mean that I assume p=1 and that the null hypothesis "Reject God's existence" is false?  Or do you mean an a priori assumption of a definition either my own or yours?

It's like claiming you must either believe or disbelieve in an invisible pigeon called Pete I just made up, on the assumption that since I can envisage an invisible pigeon called Pete, there must be a possibility of him existing.

Precisely how I view the whole God debate.  In fact that's basically a plain English version of what I wrote.

To quantify, I missed out a section at the end which says that agnosticism doesn't confirm or deny the null hypothesis but is merely the error feedback in said bayesian equation saying "more information is needed".

...there must be a possibility of him existing.

The possibility might indeed occur.  But it's verging towards absolute 0.  Subjectively this probability is larger.  For instance if in the throes of dementia you were struck by an obsessive delusion about the existence of said invisible pigeon named Phil.  An interesting thought experiment* - what would be the results of subjectivity when combined with the phenomenon of a particle which exists only on observation (can't remember the name of it unfortunately)?

* I'm not going to bother dealing with people who read "thought experiment" as "he actually believes this..."

The universe does not work that way, unfortunately.

Some veins of quantum mechanics suggest otherwise.  But the 'way the universe works' is yet another area, like 'God' where "more information is needed".
 
Iron Count said:
i.e. what do you mean by 'assuming God is a valid hypothesis'?
The only evidence put forth for God is subjective - it comes only from us (like invisible Pete). There is no objective evidence - i.e. anything indicative outside of our brains - that God exists or that he is possible in this universe. The question of whether God exists or not is irrelevant without first answering fundamental questions like what 'gap' in the universe God fills, or even what precisely God is. Or in short, you can't ask a valid question as to the existence of a supernatural entity until you've established the supernatural exists.
The possibility might indeed occur.  But it's verging towards absolute 0. 
Nope. There are definite limits to what is possible within the universe. There is no possibility of gravity failing for example, because without gravity we no longer have a universe. Simply because I can conceive of something does not lend it a possibility of existing - an invisible pigeon would be impossible under the known laws of the universe, since pigeons as an organism are rather dependent on light to survive.
Some veins of quantum mechanics suggest otherwise. 
They don't. They demonstrate there's some interesting things which go on with quanta when it comes to probability, but they've yet to show anything doing something which breaks possibility.
 
Archonsod said:
The only evidence put forth for God is subjective - it comes only from us (like invisible Pete). There is no objective evidence - i.e. anything indicative outside of our brains - that God exists or that he is possible in this universe. The question of whether God exists or not is irrelevant without first answering fundamental questions like what 'gap' in the universe God fills, or even what precisely God is. Or in short, you can't ask a valid question as to the existence of a supernatural entity until you've established the supernatural exists.

But that's assuming that "God" is an "entity" (see the above quotation of Erigena).  Going back to the central point that a lot of assumptions are being made about the probabilities.  Atheists maintain that both prior and observed probabilities are 0, Theists maintain that it's 1.  One or both may be correct, we don't (can't?) know with certainty.  How can you presume to know the possibility when you don't even know the nature of what you're betting on?

With regards to that reasoning, it's tantamount to saying that "this drug hasn't killed anyone so it's safe" (pharmaceutical companies actually do this which is scary)

Nope. There are definite limits to what is possible within the universe. There is no possibility of gravity failing for example, because without gravity we no longer have a universe.

Bear in mind they haven't fully figured out gravity yet.  Last I heard, there's a ruckus between String and Loop gravity theorists.

Simply because I can conceive of something does not lend it a possibility of existing

Then what about said particle which only exists when the experimenter looks for it?  (I still can't find its name).

Also, if the idea/theory that "consciousness causes collapse" (can't really call it a true Theory per se as it, along with Multi Worlds Theory and Quantum suicide is nigh impossible to demonstrate) is true there might be some... interesting implications for this sentence.

- an invisible pigeon would be impossible under the known laws of the universe, since pigeons as an organism are rather dependent on light to survive.

Well it is supposed to be invisible after all.  Wouldn't be an invisible pigeon if you could see it.  :lol:

They don't. They demonstrate there's some interesting things which go on with quanta when it comes to probability, but they've yet to show anything doing something which breaks possibility.

Light being both a wave and particle, prior to its discovery, 'broke possibility'.
 
Alright here we go, the weekly QQ thread about God/creationism. Has the flying spaghetti monster, epicurus, and the dinosaurs been mentioned yet?

Probably best to get those out of the way up front.

Also per usual, this comment should be followed up with the "Well actually its creationists that tend to start these threads"

Just sayin'
 
And now ealabor has posted, this thread is complete.

By the way, we haven't had the weekly dose of complaining about dirty communist Muslim vegetarian atheist macchiato-sipping guilty hippie liberals from you for a while now. You accumulating enough for a massive rant or something?
 
ealabor said:
Alright here we go, the weekly QQ thread about God/creationism. Has the flying spaghetti monster, epicurus, and the dinosaurs been mentioned yet?

Probably best to get those out of the way up front.

Also per usual, this comment should be followed up with the "Well actually its creationists that tend to start these threads"

Just sayin'

Dont be so cynical!  we all know that if anyone is going to finaly crack this question of all questions, it is going to be Taleworlds forum members ranting in this thread!
 
Iron Count said:
But that's assuming that "God" is an "entity"
It is. Unless you define God as the universe itself, in which case you may as well simply call it the universe and stop being so silly.
  How can you presume to know the possibility when you don't even know the nature of what you're betting on?
We do. God seems pretty well defined in the Bible, irrespective of what modern Christians might say.
Bear in mind they haven't fully figured out gravity yet. 
They don't have to. Without gravity there's nothing holding atoms together. Goodbye universe :lol:
Light being both a wave and particle, prior to its discovery, 'broke possibility'.
It didn't. Wave or particle describe behaviour, not what it is that's actually exhibiting it.
 
gamerwiz09 said:
Calodine said:
Uhh...What? I never said anything like that.  I said the crazies who froth at the mouth at atheists like evilknightz did about agnostics generally at least think they're doing something good. Saving people etc.

Who the hell did you get, from that, that all religious people mean well and that no harm has ever come about because of it? Stop putting words in my mouth. It's annoying and they taste like arrogance.
Think they're doing something good = mean well. Don't be retarded now. You're basically saying that it's okay for them to spread their bull**** and ruin the world because they think they're being helpful. And you know just how precisely retarded and illogical that is. Just because someone thinks they're helping it doesn't justify what they're doing. That's exactly the mentality they had hundreds of years ago when they launched the crusades and killed thousands of non Christians. That's the mentality they have now when they're protesting gay marriage.

And then you say we can't try and put a stop to and reverse the destruction they've caused because we're right and possibly slightly arrogant about it? I didn't realise you had to remain bound to the sensitivities of people when trying to keep those very people from destroying our ****ing planet.

Aaand yeah this is pointless since you seem to be reading every other word then frothing at the mouth over what it says. Either that, or you're an idiot or trolling. Possibly a mixture of the three.

So let's take it from the top. Let the Gamerwiz bull**** deciphering game begin!

Think they're doing something good = mean well.

Yes, no ****. Now point out where I said all, and didn't use a single minority extreme group as an example.

You're basically saying that it's okay for them to spread their bull**** and ruin the world because they think they're being helpful.

Uhh...No I didn't. I'm saying it's not as bad as the people who spread their bull**** because they think they're better. Not as bad = okay, now? Whew, words sure do change fast!

And you know just how precisely retarded and illogical that is.

Assuming this is referring to what you've been saying, then yes, completely!

Just because someone thinks they're helping it doesn't justify what they're doing.

Hmm. I believe this qualifies for an OH **** REALLY!? image, but my internet is slow right now. Go google one for me, look at it, then slap yourself. If you have time, I'd appreciate you pointing out where I said that too. Optional though. Think of it as an endgame challenge, like getting to the orange islands in the original pokemon games.

That's exactly the mentality they had hundreds of years ago when they launched the crusades and killed thousands of non Christians. That's the mentality they have now when they're protesting gay marriage.

I was half expecting you to call me hitler by the end. Though seeing as you pulled this entire mentality from your ass, might want to go get that checked out. Nazi haemorrhoids sounds nasty.

And then you say we can't try and put a stop to and reverse the destruction they've caused because we're right and possibly slightly arrogant about it?

Here's where it gets really creepy. Now you're arguing with yourself, apparently. Either that, or I'm one hell of a ventriloquist. See, I can see this stuff getting mentioned in YOUR post, but I can't seem to find the slightest trace of it mentioned in mine. Funny, that.

I didn't realise you had to remain bound to the sensitivities of people when trying to keep those very people from destroying our ****ing planet.

Wait, when did this turn to talking about humanity as a whole? More importantly, who are you arguing with? Do you have some cool decoder language that turns english into crazy or something? I want a pair.
 
Okay, this might be a stupid question, but...
who the **** made the ****ing laws of physics?
Did they just happend to be there?

I think the discussion about if god exist or not is really meaningless because there is no way to prove anything.
If your a nonbeliever you explain everything with physics and if you are a smart believer you would just argue
that god made physics.
So, yeah...
Anyway, i love the books of Steven Hakwins, even if i believe in some kind of higher entity.
 
By the same light, a cynical person might ask, where the hell did god came from? Did he just materialize out of nowhere? Who created god?

but yeah arguing about god is pointless.
 
Archonsod said:
We do. God seems pretty well defined in the Bible, irrespective of what modern Christians might say.

What if the creator isn't the Judeo-Christian God? Or that is one interpretation of an inherently unknowable creator. You can easily disprove the Bible sure enough (which is tantamount to disproving the Judeo-Christian God) but you can't wholly disprove the possibility of a creator figure. Of course, you don't have to disprove that possibility because science doesn't have to try to disprove anything unless there was already some kind of scientific hypothesis about it.

Basically what I'm trying to say is the statement "God doesn't exist" is as unfounded as "God does exist." There is zero evidence either way for the existence of a creator. The only real scientific stance on a creator figure is "Not so far as we can tell." To say it is impossible for a creator to exist, or that it is certain a creator doesn't exist, is foolish, and Hawkings is as much a fool as anyone for saying it.

Science doesn't have to comment on religion at all, because religion isn't science. The problem is many atheists treat science as a religion, and many of the religious treat their religion as science. If both were treated only as what they are, we wouldn't have any problems to begin with.

Edit: Also, it's entirely possible gravity doesn't work all of the time everywhere. Because we can't see and measure every part of the universe and know everything about everything, you can't make such a definitive statement. Gravity has only worked in every scenario we've observed, which is a tiny, tiny fraction of time and the universe. We know nothing about everything, pretty much.
 
Archonsod said:
Iron Count said:
But that's assuming that "God" is an "entity"
It is. Unless you define God as the universe itself, in which case you may as well simply call it the universe and stop being so silly.
  How can you presume to know the possibility when you don't even know the nature of what you're betting on?
We do. God seems pretty well defined in the Bible, irrespective of what modern Christians might say.
Bear in mind they haven't fully figured out gravity yet. 
They don't have to. Without gravity there's nothing holding atoms together. Goodbye universe :lol:
Light being both a wave and particle, prior to its discovery, 'broke possibility'.
It didn't. Wave or particle describe behaviour, not what it is that's actually exhibiting it.

Gravity is not the force that hold atoms together, Its the strong/weak nuclear force.
 
Pillock said:
Well, better an atheist than agnostic. Those bastards are the libertarians of religion.

:E

Menjoo said:
Okay, this might be a stupid question, but...
who the **** made the ****ing laws of physics?
Did they just happend to be there?

I think the discussion about if god exist or not is really meaningless because there is no way to prove anything.
If your a nonbeliever you explain everything with physics and if you are a smart believer you would just argue
that god made physics.
So, yeah...
Anyway, i love the books of Steven Hakwins, even if i believe in some kind of higher entity.

They're theories. People test ****. The laws of physics are our current best theories on how that **** works. Stuff falls towards heavy stuff = gravity. Could be called the law of KAPOW, it's still the same.

They could all be wrong and the universe is actually held together by trillions of invisible midgets. It's just our best guess :3
 
Are you agnostic if your line of thinking is "I personally don't give a ****"?

Anyway. I'm always surprised by how ugly Hawking is. But s'cool. He smart.
I wonder what ****storm this will stirrrr...
 
If we evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?

LET'S SEE YOUR SCYENCEZ| EXPLAIN THAT!
 
Back
Top Bottom