# Hawking says God's not needed. So?



## Federer (Sep 2, 2010)

> Alan Boyle writes: British physicist Stephen Hawking's latest book is already making waves with his observation that science can explain the universe's origin without invoking God.
> 
> "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," Hawking and his co-author, Caltech physicist Leonard Mlodinow, write in "The Grand Design," which is due to be issued next week. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
> 
> ...





Where is your God now?


----------



## Jin-E (Sep 2, 2010)

Somewhere, Dawkins is fapping hard.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Sep 2, 2010)

Well, I agree with him...


----------



## Mael (Sep 2, 2010)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Well, I agree with him...



I remember a religious ad asking how people would treat you if "life didn't matter" as a kid walks up and pulls a gun.

See...as much as I'd be inclined to think a sweeping change of mind for people to shed dogma and pursue more humanistic goals would be nice.  However, we have very stupid people.  These people need an almost primitive fear of divine retribution to keep their urges in check.  Not everyone is as bright as Mr. Hawkins or as rationale as you and I.  It's a sad notion I'm starting to feel.  To keep the dumb in check, give them a hell.


----------



## Juno (Sep 2, 2010)

I don't see anything new here.


----------



## Petenshi (Sep 2, 2010)

Mael said:


> I remember a religious ad asking how people would treat you if "life didn't matter" as a kid walks up and pulls a gun.
> 
> See...as much as I'd be inclined to think a sweeping change of mind for people to shed dogma and pursue more humanistic goals would be nice.  However, we have very stupid people.  These people need an almost primitive fear of divine retribution to keep their urges in check.  Not everyone is as bright as Mr. Hawkins or as rationale as you and I.  It's a sad notion I'm starting to feel.  To keep the dumb in check, give them a hell.



Adressing the problem, rather than solving it.

There is no such thing as a dumb person, only ignorant people. All people can be taught.


----------



## Mael (Sep 2, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> Adressing the problem, rather than solving it.
> 
> *There is no such thing as a dumb person, only ignorant people*. All people can be taught.



Yeah this is where you and I wholly disagree.


----------



## Evil Ghost Ninja (Sep 2, 2010)

You are only dumb if you actively choose to be ignorant. Most people are happy with ignorance.


----------



## Grrblt (Sep 2, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> Adressing the problem, rather than solving it.
> 
> There is no such thing as a dumb person, only ignorant people. All people can be taught.



Many people reject teaching though. I know several on this forum.


----------



## sadated_peon (Sep 2, 2010)

I want to read the book, 

A short line that his publisher thinks will be good for book sales doesn't really convince me of complex physics principle that took him years to grasp.


----------



## Mael (Sep 2, 2010)

People can also refuse to be "taught."

I'm just saying...you can take some regular schmucks who are truly religious and feel they have purpose.  Take that away and give them a more foreign sense of purpose and they'll either reject and become depressed or lose their moral inhibitions.  Yes...people can be that dumb.  I don't believe it's just ignorance, there is flat-out stupidity.


----------



## Petenshi (Sep 2, 2010)

Mael said:


> Yeah this is where you and I wholly disagree.



So people are born with bigotry, hate, fear? No. All of that is taught.



Grrblt said:


> Many people reject teaching though. I know several on this forum.



What I mean is that we need to start way earlier. It is to late for this generation and older ones to make any significant changes in something like that.


----------



## Mael (Sep 2, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> So people are born with bigotry, hate, fear? No. All of that is taught.



No...that's not at all what I meant.

I meant some people, due to upbringing or their own mental acumen, are so dumb that they will outright reject what's out of their comfort zone.  As loath as I am to say it, some people find purpose with God.  Take it away, and what do they have that they'll embrace *willingly*?


----------



## Petenshi (Sep 2, 2010)

Mael said:


> No...that's not at all what I meant.
> 
> *I meant some people, due to upbringing or their own mental acumen, are so dumb that they will outright reject what's out of their comfort zone.*  As loath as I am to say it, some people find purpose with God.  Take it away, and what do they have that they'll embrace *willingly*?



Right, and we need to make sure that they aren't able to spread that to younger generations. 

But it isn't really about God mael, as much as I would belief wise agree with you, there are perfectly rational people who believe in a higher power and aren't bigots. And there are bigots who don't believe in a higher power for that matter. We just need to be able to make sure our children are open and accepting rather than fear ridden bigots.


*Spoiler*: __ 



Men are in a constant battle with the understanding of being a God, and the temptation to be Demons. The cosmic waters where our futures lie aren't behind impenetrable walls, nor do they rest within an ethereal plane. There is no supernatural, only what is. Why do we act as if we are powerless in a static reality? People are scared of being leaders, and that fact must change because we are all leaders of our reality.


----------



## John Carter of Mars (Sep 2, 2010)

His personal opinion and views. Guess some people will find the fact and evidences he provide are valid. I believe it differs by the individual and his / her life.
If a human being is inclined to believing there is God, let it remain as it always will be - their faith alone and the 'truth' the ultimately believe in, which determines and changes the outlook of the particular individual. No one can defeat or rob that man of that 'truth', 'idea', 'concept' because it becomes conviction of his own 'heart' which produce in that individual a guided 'lifestyle' or 'moral code', not just mere theoretical knowledge that one settles in for. 
Same goes for Hawking and other men who live this earth seeking out ways in explaining the enigmatic nature of our being and design. 
But one thing I know is I need a God. One that is tangible, approachable, and determined to show me a alternative to the way I live and think, and find the original purpose he had once prearranged for me and now need to in 'faith' be revealed as time goes by.
Don't get me wrong. I do have moments of questioning and doubting my faith. The existence of God. The theology, and dogma of it all. But all  I know is we're never meant to become mere decaying organic matters that fed on others to get higher, encounter and be challenged with pain, sorrow, and suffering. I believe these are all byproduct of being separated from our original value which was once close to the embodiment of God who is quite literally in my steady belief: truth, love, and peace.


----------



## Petenshi (Sep 2, 2010)

John Carter of Mars said:


> His personal opinion and views. Guess some people will find the fact and evidences he provide are valid. I believe it differs by the individual and his / her life.
> *If a human being is inclined to believing there is God, let it remain as it always will be - their faith alone and the 'truth' the ultimately believe in, which determines and changes the outlook of the particular individual. No one can defeat or rob that man of that 'truth', 'idea', 'concept' because it becomes conviction of his own 'heart' which produce in that individual a guided 'lifestyle' or 'moral code', not just mere theoretical knowledge that one settles in for. *
> Same goes for Hawking and other men who live this earth seeking out ways in explaining the enigmatic nature of our being and design.
> But one thing I know is I need a God. One that is tangible, approachable, and determined to show me a alternative to the way I live and think, and find the original purpose he had once prearranged for me and now need to in 'faith' be revealed as time goes by.
> Don't get me wrong. I do have moments of questioning and doubting my faith. The existence of God. The theology, and dogma of it all. But all  I know is we're never meant to become mere decaying organic matters that fed on others to get higher, encounter and be challenged with pain, sorrow, and suffering. I believe these are all byproduct of being separated from our original value which was once close to the embodiment of truth, love, and peace.



That sounds great in theory, but of course many don't think it works the other way around.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Sep 2, 2010)

Mael said:


> People can also refuse to be "taught."



That's when you invoke the 2nd amendment


----------



## Mael (Sep 2, 2010)

Elim Rawne said:


> That's when you invoke the 2nd amendment



But oooooh Lordy...that makes it fascism.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Sep 2, 2010)

Mael said:


> But oooooh Lordy...that makes it fascism.



What's wrong with that ? Stupid people should die, or be forced to do menial labor.


----------



## GrimaH (Sep 2, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> Adressing the problem, rather than solving it.
> 
> There is no such thing as a dumb person, only ignorant people. All people can be taught.



Even if it comes at the expense of the teacher's time that could be better spent on people who can learn faster and are more receptive?


----------



## Petenshi (Sep 2, 2010)

GrimaH said:


> Even if it comes at the expense of the teacher's time that could be better spent on people who can learn faster and are more receptive?



People are receptive at a young age, and that is where we need to start. If you let a kid learn hate, bigotry, and fear he will pass it onto his kids and so on and so on. 

If there is a kid who is not in danger of that, then he is far more equipped to find the answers on his own without the fear of his youth and intellectual potential be reduced to ash.


----------



## Captain America (Sep 2, 2010)

Nothing too new, but an interesting viewpoint from Hawking.


----------



## Hinako (Sep 2, 2010)

Is Stephen Hawking still crying about his crippled state that he has to whine in a book that there is no god? How pathetic.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Sep 2, 2010)

Hinako said:


> Is Stephen Hawking still crying about his crippled state that he has to whine in a book that there is no god? How pathetic.



You remind me of my uncle


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 2, 2010)

Well, you rarely heard Hawking talk about his ontological beliefs, so it's good he "came out of the closet" 



Elim Rawne said:


> You remind me of my uncle



The one who cuddled with you at night?


----------



## Elim Rawne (Sep 2, 2010)

Saufsoldat said:


> W
> 
> 
> The one who cuddled with you at night?



No, the other one


----------



## Gordon Ramsay (Sep 2, 2010)

But it always depends on your actual definition of what/who God is.

atheist here btw


----------



## Banhammer (Sep 2, 2010)

Yes, this is not news, the logical assumption of the mathematically proven concept of M-Theory and gravity as the entropic force that is is has long prooven God not only does not exist, He could not.

But might as well give them red neck retards something to be scared about, and appreciate the world wide self trolling they give.


----------



## Vanthebaron (Sep 2, 2010)

I agree we don't need god


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Sep 2, 2010)

Sounds like mumbo jumbo to me. :33


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Sep 2, 2010)

And Hawking saying this is news because?


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Sep 2, 2010)

It's in a book!


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Sep 2, 2010)

The Space Cowboy said:


> And Hawking saying this is news because?


 Because he's Hawking, duh. Anything he says has to be right.


----------



## Federer (Sep 2, 2010)

The Space Cowboy said:


> And Hawking saying this is news because?



Promo for his upcoming book.


----------



## Chibibaki (Sep 2, 2010)

Within the physics community Hawking carries little respect. In fact, each time they do a survey of the most respected physicists he can not even manage to break into the top 100.

His reputation is that of a self-promoting celebrity who uses the media as opposed to actual proof to back up his theories. (Because nobody within the media has the capacity to challenge or critique his work)

In truth he is seen by many as a huckster whose most promoted theories end up being trashed after being promoted by journalists. The fact that he has doubled down on his absurd "solution" to the black hole paradox has only underscored his lack of any real scientific merit (His solution has been widely panned as containing little factual proof, just wild supposition and media promotion)

True physicists take umbrage at his lack of real world work to support his theories. The layman has no idea what a joke he is. Instead, they see him as some genius

The only reason he is so well known is not because of his intellect, but because so many reporters have hyped him up. 

This is the kind of dichotomy that develops when people who know nothing about the subject in question report on it. A man who carries little respect within the physics community carries massive respect in the real world.


----------



## The Weeknd (Sep 2, 2010)

Isn't he the one who said we don't wanna meet aliens and the world will end in 2012?


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Sep 2, 2010)

Chibibaki said:


> Within the physics community Hawking carries little respect. In fact, each time they do a survey of the most respected physicists he can not even manage to break into the top 100.



citation needed


----------



## Mintaka (Sep 2, 2010)

Chibibaki said:


> Within the physics community Hawking carries little respect. In fact, each time they do a survey of the most respected physicists he can not even manage to break into the top 100.
> 
> His reputation is that of a self-promoting celebrity who uses the media as opposed to actual proof to back up his theories. (Because nobody within the media has the capacity to challenge or critique his work)
> 
> ...


Quoted for truth.

This is the reality of the situation.


----------



## Rain00 (Sep 2, 2010)

Tokoyami said:


> Quoted for truth.
> 
> This is the reality of the situation.


Going against popular opinion doesn't make it "reality", and I've yet to see any evidence that highly-regarded scientists have little respect for Hawkings.

Not a huge science-buff, but it sounds as if some of you are being armchair physicists.


----------



## RAGING BONER (Sep 2, 2010)

because there is a law of gravity the universe can spawn from nothing...

wow


----------



## Sanity Check (Sep 2, 2010)

Heh.  If Hawking were religious he would say the complete opposite.

The only thing Hawking proves is scientists and academics are biased and irrational and warp facts and statistics to support pre-conceived beliefs.

Puny mortals.


----------



## sadated_peon (Sep 2, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Heh.  If Hawking were religious he would say the complete opposite.
> 
> The only thing Hawking proves is scientists and academics are biased and irrational and warp facts and statistics to support pre-conceived beliefs.
> 
> Puny mortals.



Then how do you explain that 5 year ago he never made such a claim, and it wasn't until recently with new scientific discoveries that he made the claim?

Sound to me like you trying to find an excuse to justify your own beliefs, 

its called projection.


----------



## RAGING BONER (Sep 2, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> Then how do you explain that 5 year ago he never made such a claim, and it wasn't until recently with new scientific discoveries that he made the claim?
> 
> Sound to me like you trying to find an excuse to justify your own beliefs,
> 
> its called projection.



Hawking also says that aliens are likely to destroy us all 

this cat is obviously suffering the initial stages of senility


----------



## Sanity Check (Sep 2, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> Then how do you explain that 5 year ago he never made such a claim, and it wasn't until recently with new scientific discoveries that he made the claim?
> 
> Sound to me like you trying to find an excuse to justify your own beliefs,
> 
> its called projection.




Its a long story.

Einstein said:  "I don't think God would play dice with the universe."

Later, Hawking said:  "Not only does God play dice with the universe, he tosses them in the corner where you can't see them."

Now, Hawking says:  "Nevermind, let's revise history and God to suit my own personal bias and beliefs."

Einstein was not a religious person.  His use of the term God was metaphorical rather than an endorsement, as was Hawking's.  

Its like the complete opposite of Nietzsche saying: "God is dead".

It wasn't implied _literally_, yet every context challenged fundamentalist interprets it that way.


----------



## Rain00 (Sep 2, 2010)

RAGING BONER said:


> Hawking also says that aliens are likely to destroy us all
> 
> this cat is obviously suffering the initial stages of senility


Wrong.

He stated that if sentient life exists beyond our planet, the species could very well could have violent tendencies. Which, considering how humans act, is not that much of a stretch in logic.

However, he never stated the likelihood of such an event occurring. He simply projected what type of repercussions would come from human contact with the hypothesized sentient species.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 2, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Its a long story.
> 
> Einstein said:  "I don't think God would play dice with the universe."
> 
> ...



wat.

So when I say "god does stuff" I'm making a metaphorical statement, but when I say "god isn't needed for stuff" I'm making a biased statement to suit my own agenda? For fuck's sake, stop being butthurt about a popular scientist not sharing your beliefs.


----------



## Sanity Check (Sep 2, 2010)

Saufsoldat said:


> wat.
> 
> So when I say "god does stuff" I'm making a metaphorical statement, but when I say "god isn't needed for stuff" I'm making a biased statement to suit my own agenda? For fuck's sake, stop being butthurt about a popular scientist not sharing your beliefs.




I'll stop being "butthurt" if you cease and desist with your treating science as if it were above criticism.

Deal?  




Rain said:


> Wrong.
> 
> He stated that if sentient life exists beyond our planet, the species could very well could have violent tendencies. Which, considering how humans act, is not that much of a stretch in logic.
> 
> However, he never stated the likelihood of such an event occurring. He simply projected what type of repercussions would come from human contact with the hypothesized sentient species.



He reacted with the xenophobia and isolationism characteristic of someone who has seen _Aliens_ for the first time.

Go Hawking?


----------



## House (Sep 2, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> He reacted with the xenophobia and isolationism characteristic of someone who has seen _Aliens_ for the first time.
> 
> Go Hawking?



Wrong. He made an assumption about possible extraterrestrial life based on experiences with terrestrial life and formulated a vague hypothesis about it.


----------



## Rain00 (Sep 2, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> He reacted with the xenophobia and isolationism characteristic of someone who has seen _Aliens_ for the first time.


I'm not sure making a reasonable assumption based on experiences with the only known sentient beings in existence qualifies him as being xenophobic. He wasn't parading down the streets warning citizens about the lizard people, he was simply stating his opinion.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 2, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> I'll stop being "butthurt" if you cease and desist with your treating science as if it were above criticism.
> 
> Deal?



You're trying really, really hard not to make any sense here. What the fuck does anything of what you just said have to do with the points I brought up against your argument?



> He reacted with the xenophobia and isolationism characteristic of someone who has seen _Aliens_ for the first time.
> 
> Go Hawking?



It's not xenophobic to fear a species that you know nothing about, that is millenia ahead of you in technology and could probably wipe you out in a heartbeat.


----------



## Sanity Check (Sep 2, 2010)

House said:


> Wrong. He made an assumption about possible extraterrestrial life based on experiences with terrestrial life and formulated a vague hypothesis about it.




Well, people at one point in time believed religion was above criticism & where did that get them?

Why compound the error by elevating science to a status above criticism?

Why do we always need these overlords to tell us what to think and believe?

Why can't we decide for ourselves?


----------



## Chibibaki (Sep 2, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> He reacted with the xenophobia and isolationism characteristic of someone who has seen _Aliens_ for the first time.
> 
> Go Hawking?



If alien life existed it would more than likely be unintelligible and unfathomable to us. Humans emotional and mental processes are a product of up of millions of smaller components. To say that any other life could evolve a comparable sentience and emotional range that we could comprehend, would be statistically unfathomable to the point of impossibility (Unless you believe in intelligent design)

It would essentially be improbable that we could never understand aliens and vice versa. Oddly enough, that very concept helps explain why all aliens seem interested in is cow mutilations and anal probes.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 2, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Well, people at one point in time believed religion was above criticism & where did that get them?
> 
> Why compound the error by elevating science to a status above criticism?
> 
> ...



What the flying fuck? Are you even reading the posts you're replying to or do you just substitute them with what you'd want them to look like in your mind? At what point did anyone here even begin to mention the fallibility of science? So far you're the only one who seems to be arguing about that and just pretend that anyone who posts here disagrees with you.


----------



## sadated_peon (Sep 2, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Its a long story.
> 
> Einstein said:  "I don't think God would play dice with the universe."


The line from Einstein is, 
"Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the 'old one'. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice."

Basically, this is a metaphor to the fact that universal laws are not random. 



1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Later, Hawking said:  "Not only does God play dice with the universe, he tosses them in the corner where you can't see them."



Hawking is once again talking about the predictable nature of Quantum Mechanics and the nature of predictability. 

"But there's no combination of the position and speed of just one particle that we can definitely predict, because the speed and position will depend on the other particle, which we don't observe. Thus it seems Einstein was doubly wrong when he said, God does not play dice. Not only does God definitely play dice, but He sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can't be seen. "

Once again, a comment on the unpredictable nature where both god and dice are used as metaphors for the seemingly unpredictable(random) randomness in quantum mechanics. 



1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Now, Hawking says:  "Nevermind, let's revise history and God to suit my own personal bias and beliefs."
> 
> Einstein was not a religious person.  His use of the term God was metaphorical rather than an endorsement, as was Hawking's.
> 
> ...


The current comment from Hawking has nothing to do with the random nature of particles as it relates to Quantum mechanics, and is no a reversal of his belief in the subject. 

The fact that you try and establish this as a reversal of history, is ludicrous. I have no idea how you think this, the change that has come recently was from Hawking saying before that there was a possibility that it was god, to now where he believes that the nature of physics leads the creation of the universe to be an inevitability and therefore there is no room for god in the equation. 

Finally, if this was based on personal belief, then my original point still holds, WHY DIDN'T HE REJECT GOD IN THE EQUATION BEFORE!


----------



## Sanity Check (Sep 2, 2010)

Chibibaki said:


> If alien life existed it would more than likely be unintelligible and unfathomable to us. Humans emotional and mental processes are a product of up of millions of smaller components. To say that any other life could evolve a comparable sentience and emotional range that we could comprehend, would be statistically unfathomable to the point of impossibility (Unless you believe in intelligent design)
> 
> It would essentially be improbable that we could never understand aliens and vice versa. Oddly enough, that very concept helps explain why all aliens seem interested in is cow mutilations and anal probes.







Rain said:


> I'm not sure making a reasonable assumption based on experiences with the only known sentient beings in existence qualifies him as being xenophobic. He wasn't parading down the streets warning citizens about the lizard people, he was simply stating his opinion.



EXACTA.  Keyword: opinion.



Saufsoldat said:


> You're trying really, really hard not to make any sense here. What the fuck does anything of what you just said have to do with the points I brought up against your argument?
> 
> It's not xenophobic to fear a species that you know nothing about, that is millenia ahead of you in technology and could probably wipe you out in a heartbeat.



Assuming all gays are hedonistic, promiscuous, barbarians = homophobia.

Assuming all aliens are violent, war-like, creatures = xenophobia.

How did Hawking utilize bayesian probability -- or any other science to calculate the odds of aliens being benevolent versus being violent, mass murderers?  Oh, that's right, he didn't.

He substituted his own emotional and personal bias for a logical and scientific conclusion.  And, everyone basically went along with it, simply because they consider science and hence scientists like Hawking to be above criticism.

I hope you can forgive me for not being overly impressed.



Saufsoldat said:


> What the flying fuck? Are you even reading the posts you're replying to or do you just substitute them with what you'd want them to look like in your mind? At what point did anyone here even begin to mention the fallibility of science? So far you're the only one who seems to be arguing about that and just pretend that anyone who posts here disagrees with you.



Uh...  That does seem to be the main issue.

None of the dissenters are able to be skeptical of the things people like Hawking say.  Is it possible for you to question Hawking?  If you consider him to be above criticism -- probably not!


----------



## Rain00 (Sep 2, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> EXACTA.  Keyword: opinion.


Cool, mind showing me a statement made by Hawkings that suggests he thought it was a fact?


----------



## zuul (Sep 2, 2010)

he doesn't believe in the exitence of God. why should we make a fuss about it ?


----------



## Sanity Check (Sep 2, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> The line from Einstein is,
> "Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the 'old one'. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice."
> 
> Basically, this is a metaphor to the fact that universal laws are not random.



Yes, thus 'God' is a useful metaphor for explaining certain things.



sadated_peon said:


> Hawking is once again talking about the predictable nature of Quantum Mechanics and the nature of predictability.
> 
> "But there's no combination of the position and speed of just one particle that we can definitely predict, because the speed and position will depend on the other particle, which we don't observe. Thus it seems Einstein was doubly wrong when he said, God does not play dice. Not only does God definitely play dice, but He sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can't be seen. "
> 
> Once again, a comment on the unpredictable nature where both god and dice are used as metaphors for the seemingly unpredictable(random) randomness in quantum mechanics.



Yes, I know this.  Like I said, it was a metaphor not an endorsement.  



sadated_peon said:


> The current comment from Hawking has nothing to do with the random nature of particles as it relates to Quantum mechanics, and is no a reversal of his belief in the subject.
> 
> The fact that you try and establish this as a reversal of history, is ludicrous. I have no idea how you think this, the change that has come recently was from Hawking saying before that there was a possibility that it was god, to now where he believes that the nature of physics leads the creation of the universe to be an inevitability and therefore there is no room for god in the equation.
> 
> Finally, if this was based on personal belief, then my original point still holds, WHY DIDN'T HE REJECT GOD IN THE EQUATION BEFORE!



It is a reversal one I attribute to personal bias.  

If someone says one thing for years, then decides to censor certain terminology they used the 'its obsolete' explanation doesn't fly without a superior alternative.



Rain said:


> Cool, mind showing me a statement made by Hawkings that suggests he thought it was a fact?



I'll show it to you when you show me a statement made by Hawkings that suggests he thought it wasn't a fact.  



zuul said:


> he doesn't believe in the exitence of God. why should we make a fuss about it ?



A change of pace from our busy schedule of comparing penis length, or converting inches to centimeters to make it look bigger.


----------



## Bender (Sep 2, 2010)

THANK YOU!

This is what I have been saying like for fucking ever. Only weak-minded retarded motherfuckers believe in god.


----------



## Punpun (Sep 2, 2010)

Hey guys, why fight over sth like this ? 

Even if a superior entity created the universe, there is no fucking reason to give him a cult. It's not as if he would be interested by the action of ape.


----------



## Lionheart (Sep 2, 2010)

tl;dr No matter how fancy you're explaining it, it still sounds like; we came from nothing.


----------



## Sanity Check (Sep 2, 2010)

Bender said:


> THANK YOU!
> 
> This is what I have been saying like for fucking ever. Only weak-minded retarded motherfuckers believe in god.



wat

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk6iB30L4tQ[/YOUTUBE]



Mandom said:


> Hey guys, why fight over sth like this ?
> 
> Even if a superior entity created the universe, there is no fucking reason to give him a cult. It's not as if he would be interested by the action of ape.



Totally.  Totally.



Killartist said:


> tl;dr No matter how fancy you're explaining it, it still sounds like; we came from nothing.



Agree, totally.


----------



## Rain00 (Sep 2, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> I'll show it to you when you show me a statement made by Hawkings that suggests he thought it wasn't a fact.





			
				Stephen Hawking said:
			
		

> ?If aliens ever visit us, *I think* the outcome would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn?t turn out very well for the Native Americans."





			
				Stephen Hawking said:
			
		

> ?We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn?t want to meet. *I imagine* they might exist in massive ships, having used up all the resources from their home planet. Such advanced aliens *would perhaps* become nomads, looking to conquer and colonize whatever planets they can reach.?



Your turn.


----------



## sadated_peon (Sep 2, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:
			
		

> It is a reversal one I attribute to personal bias.
> 
> If someone says one thing for years, then decides to censor certain terminology they used the 'its obsolete' explanation doesn't fly without a superior alternative.


What are you talking about, the first quote from him you use, has god being used as a metaphor (you agree to this) about a different topic than the one talked about now. 

How is this reversal!
You go from a metaphor about one subject, to literal reading of another subject. 

The change today was going from god could be an explanation of singularity to god is not needed based on new discoveries, is not censor based on a personal bias, it science at work. 

Your mental, you quote two different topics, one quote being a metaphor and and no now not and attribute this to personal bias. 

It’s insane!


----------



## Punpun (Sep 2, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Totally.  Totally.



This mean you agree with me ?


----------



## Sillay (Sep 2, 2010)

Evil_ghost_ninja said:


> You are only dumb if you actively choose to be ignorant. Most people are happy with ignorance.



So people who are born with low IQ's are a myth?


----------



## Havoc (Sep 2, 2010)

Hawking can't even ride a bike.

Monkeys > him.


----------



## Bender (Sep 2, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> wat
> 
> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk6iB30L4tQ[/YOUTUBE]



What..THE...fuck was the purpose of that? 

Do you really think I'm going to start liking god because Obama does? It's already been proven scientifically and logically that religion/god is not needed. Although, religion indeed did guide us in the beginning now that we have the answers based around the creation of life around us it's pointless to rely on it now. Saying religion is needed today is like saying writing is more efficient than typing on a computer. 

The age has begun to progress and a sadistic nerdy fuck like god that watches our lives like we're characters from "The Sims" has 100% of my enmity. I could less then a fuck about him. His messages are contradicting sonofabitch and he's one of the worst things that happened to the human race.


----------



## g_core18 (Sep 2, 2010)

Killartist said:


> tl;dr No matter how fancy you're explaining it, it still sounds like; we came from nothing.



And the bible's any different? God snapped his fingers and everything appeared.


----------



## Punpun (Sep 2, 2010)

Read the Bible you peasant. He took 6 whole days to do so.


----------



## DremolitoX (Sep 2, 2010)

Bender said:


> THANK YOU!
> 
> This is what I have been saying like for fucking ever. Only weak-minded retarded motherfuckers believe in god.



LOL someone is BUTTHURT.



> The age has begun to progress and a sadistic nerdy fuck like god that watches our lives like we're characters from "The Sims" has 100% of my enmity. I could less then a fuck about him. His messages are contradicting sonofabitch and he's one of the worst things that happened to the human race.


So much rage over an imaginary being. That's not retarded or anything. Keep it up.


----------



## g_core18 (Sep 2, 2010)

Mandom said:


> Read the Bible you peasant. He took 6 whole days to do so.



Fine, he snapped his fingers six times.


----------



## Punpun (Sep 2, 2010)

That's better. 

From now don't badmouth religion. :33


----------



## Havoc (Sep 2, 2010)

Bender said:


> What..THE...fuck was the purpose of that?
> 
> Do you really think I'm going to start liking god because Obama does?  It's already been proven scientifically and logically that religion/god  is not needed. Although, religion indeed did guide us in the beginning  now that we have the answers based around the creation of life around us  it's pointless to rely on it now. Saying religion is needed today is  like saying writing is more efficient than typing on a computer.
> 
> The age has begun to progress and a sadistic nerdy fuck like god that  watches our lives like we're characters from "The Sims" has 100% of my  enmity. I could less then a fuck about him. His messages are  contradicting sonofabitch and he's one of the worst things that happened  to the human race.


You sound like someone who can't ride a bike.


----------



## Bender (Sep 2, 2010)

It's not god that I hate the most.

I hate religious followers more than anything.



Havoc said:


> You sound like someone who can't ride a bike.



You sound like someone who has a pea for a brain. 

Unlike god dickriders like yourself I don't beg him to help me nut up and decide to fight that bully at school (like you do). I don't ask him for help at school(like you do). People that do rely on him for such tedious things throughout your entire silly lives are immeasurably RETARDED.

Seriously, all you religious freaks make me sick.


----------



## Havoc (Sep 2, 2010)

Bender said:


> It's not god that I hate the most.
> 
> I hate religious followers more than anything.
> 
> ...


Exactly what someone who couldn't ride a bike would say.

Monkeys > you


----------



## Bender (Sep 2, 2010)

Havoc said:


> Exactly what someone who couldn't ride a bike would say.



Last, I checked talking, walking, reading came before biking.  That's an accomplishment in itself my dear _twit_. 



> Monkeys > you



People evolved from monkeys so that statement just made you lose another  point off your intelligence bar. 

P.S.

Look on the bright side at least it didn't take a nose dive like your credibility did. It's in the red zone now bubba.


----------



## Xyfar (Sep 2, 2010)

Havoc said:


> Exactly what someone who couldn't ride a bike would say.
> 
> Monkeys > you



Sounds like something a 4th grader would say.

Then again, riding a bike has a lot to do with god being needed, right?


----------



## RAGING BONER (Sep 2, 2010)

tch, mention aliens in a thread and it all goes to shit


----------



## Havoc (Sep 2, 2010)

Bender said:


> Last, I checked talking, walking, reading came before biking.  That's an accomplishment in itself my dear _twit_.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Exactly, so riding a bike is superior to those things.

People evolved from monkeys and you are less than a monkey...do you see where I'm going with this?

I doubt it since you can't even ride a bike.




Xyfar said:


> Sounds like something a 4th grader would say.
> 
> Then again, riding a bike has a lot to do with god being needed, right?


I don't know what's worse, you thinking I'm serious, or you replying seriously...


----------



## DremolitoX (Sep 2, 2010)

Bender said:


> It's not god that I hate the most.
> 
> I hate religious followers more than anything.
> 
> ...


You've got problems then. Those aren't valid reasons to hate on somebody.

Valid reasons would be like...me hating you... for being so critical of religious people that you hate them for the stupidest things. Grow the fuck up.


----------



## RAGING BONER (Sep 2, 2010)

Bender said:


> It's not god that I hate the most.
> 
> I hate religious followers more than anything.
> 
> ...



by "HIM", do you mean Lord Xenu?


----------



## Havoc (Sep 2, 2010)

Lord Xenu, now that guy can handle himself on a bike like a pro.


----------



## Bender (Sep 2, 2010)

DremolitoX said:


> You've got problems then. Those aren't valid reasons to hate on somebody.



It's wrong of me to hate crackpots that use religion to justify their entire life?



> Valid reasons would be like...me







> hating you...







> for being so *critical* of religious people







> that you hate them for the stupidest things.



That's an interesting statement seeing as how atheist are more ostracized and hated then the former. 



			
				Havoc said:
			
		

> Lord Xenu, now that guy can handle himself on a bike like a pro.



This be you sir? Yes?

Not now but maybe later. 






			
				DremolitoX said:
			
		

> Grow the fuck up.



Once again it won't happen till this time


----------



## Havoc (Sep 2, 2010)

Yes, I will become a famous well known actor.


----------



## Bender (Sep 2, 2010)

It's funny that Havoc brings up "biking" 

If god is so omnipotent and so vastly intelligent then he could've told Jesus to give instructions to mortals on how to build it. Oh wait that's right. That incompetent derp and his son can't do anything. Here's what Jesus can do:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik0yz5Jo4Os[/YOUTUBE]

EDIT:

I hated your(Carell's recent film)

The office will be canceled and you'll be a hasbeen.


----------



## Juno (Sep 2, 2010)

Chibibaki said:


> Within the physics community Hawking carries little respect. In fact, each time they do a survey of the most respected physicists he can not even manage to break into the top 100.



Oh, go on. Name these surveys.



> His reputation is that of a self-promoting celebrity who uses the media as opposed to actual proof to back up his theories. (Because nobody within the media has the capacity to challenge or critique his work)
> 
> In truth he is seen by many as a huckster whose most promoted theories end up being trashed after being promoted by journalists. The fact that he has doubled down on his absurd "solution" to the black hole paradox has only underscored his lack of any real scientific merit (His solution has been widely panned as containing little factual proof, just wild supposition and media promotion)
> 
> ...



Actually, considering your history on this forum, I wouldn't be surprised if you'd have no problem with Hawking if he had not dismissed your god. You've perhaps heard some hack slamming him with the same vague and baseless accusations you've recited here and have decided to repeat them to give the impression you alone are smart enough to penetrate the smoke and mirrors and see that the popular physicist is actually an idiot. You haven't levelled anything substantial here. You've just called him an overrated phoney and offered no evidence for why anyone should believe you.

The only suggestion that he's viewed negatively only ever comes from the mouths of the religiously fervent when Hawking dismisses religion. There could be an argument that he's overrated, especially when you have some people referring to him as the most intelligent man in the world, or that he's falling out of relevance due to his lack of recent contributions (age and serious ill health does that), but you think the man is a joke? You think he's scorned by 'true physicists'? The guy held the Lucasian chair before he officially retired, which was previously Newton's position. But I guess you'd have everyone believe they just give one of the most prestigious academic positions in the world to any old 'huckster'. 

In fact, it seems the only real criticism of Hawking from his peers is that he drives his wheelchair like a maniac. 

So who's really taking umbrage with Hawking here? The physicists who frankly wet themselves at the thought of working with him? Or people like you who are prone to be bitter about those who claim there's no god?


----------



## RAGING BONER (Sep 2, 2010)

the more you fervently resist an a idea, the more ingrained it becomes in your heart


----------



## DremolitoX (Sep 2, 2010)

Bender said:


> It's wrong of me to hate crackpots that use religion to justify their entire life?


Yes.



> That's an interesting statement seeing as how atheist are more ostracized and hated then the former.


You know what, keep on hating then. ur hate well will run dry eventually, as will theirs. Nobody stays a child forever.


----------



## Bender (Sep 2, 2010)

DremolitoX said:


> Yes.



That makes no sense whatsoever 



> You know what, keep on hating then. ur hate well will run dry eventually, as will theirs. Nobody stays a child forever.



We'll see who's dries up first. If theirs do. Then so will mine.


----------



## Havoc (Sep 2, 2010)

Bender said:


> It's funny that Havoc brings up "biking"
> 
> If god is so omnipotent and so vastly intelligent then he could've told Jesus to give instructions to mortals on how to build it. Oh wait that's right. That incompetent derp and his son can't do anything. Here's what Jesus can do:
> 
> ...


Why would Jesus tell them how to make bikes?

They have to learn on their own, and they did.

SC quit his role on The Office.


----------



## Bender (Sep 2, 2010)

Havoc said:


> Why would Jesus tell them how to make bikes?



Good transportation 

Good exercise

Better than the primitive means back then.

Why would he allow the creation of swords and other materials that provide a way to harm other human beings? Jesus and god are more pissed off at the fact the church is vandalized then they are of mankind being so dumb. Just look in the book. It's ridiculous.




> They have to learn on their own



And learn how to be tolerant as well.  Even though he states otherwise in his book. He's a contradicting idiot. 




> and they did.



We did a a lot more than god or his son Jesus ever did.

List 10 things that god has done in the present day and 10 things teachings have done to help people.




> SC quit his role on The Office.



No shit

and what a dumb decision that was.


You have to be some sort of psychopathic manchild to believe in the things that Jesus Christ has done.


----------



## Sanity Check (Sep 2, 2010)

Rain said:


> Your turn.



1.  Hawking holds a press conference.
2.  Hawking says: aliens are bad and want to jack our shit.  Hawking says stuff about God, too.
3.  Everyone assumes Hawking's opinion represents an unassailable vestige of empirical science, because: Hawking is a scientist.  No one bothers to consider context of whether he's speaking from a personal perspective or a scientifically institutional one.
4.  Hawking doesn't use forward language.  No one does in this politically correct age rife with lawsuits.  Lack of forward language proves nothing.
5.  If Hawking suggesting aliens were evil is an opinion, why should Hawking's suggestion God metaphors are obsolete be any different?



sadated_peon said:


> What are you talking about, the first quote from him you use, has god being used as a metaphor (you agree to this) about a different topic than the one talked about now.
> 
> How is this reversal!
> You go from a metaphor about one subject, to literal reading of another subject.
> ...



Its not insanity, you're missing the context.

Hawking had no issue using the God metaphor in the past.  What changed from then till now has more to do with politics and personal beliefs than anything else.

If Hawking suggesting "God is not needed" is science, let's see the peer reviewed research on the topic.  Of course, such doesn't exist, hence its an opinion likely based on his own personal assumptions on the issue.

No insanity required.



Bender said:


> What..THE...fuck was the purpose of that?
> 
> Do you really think I'm going to start liking god because Obama does? It's already been proven scientifically and logically that religion/god is not needed. Although, religion indeed did guide us in the beginning now that we have the answers based around the creation of life around us it's pointless to rely on it now. Saying religion is needed today is like saying writing is more efficient than typing on a computer.
> 
> The age has begun to progress and a sadistic nerdy fuck like god that watches our lives like we're characters from "The Sims" has 100% of my enmity. I could less then a fuck about him. His messages are contradicting sonofabitch and he's one of the worst things that happened to the human race.





If religion is "obsolete" why are atheists building churches and ordaining ministers?  

Its like...

*Atheist*:  YOUR RELIGION IS OBSOLETE, FOOLS.  NOW, EXCUSE ME AS I BUILD MY CHURCH AND STUDY FOR MY PRIEST EXAM.  LOL


----------



## Eki (Sep 2, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> Adressing the problem, rather than solving it.
> 
> *There is no such thing as a dumb person, only ignorant people.* All people can be taught.



Thats kinda just fucking stupid


----------



## Bender (Sep 2, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> If religion is "obsolete" why are atheists building churches and ordaining ministers?
> 
> Its like...
> 
> *Atheist*:  YOUR RELIGION IS OBSOLETE, FOOLS.  NOW, EXCUSE ME AS I BUILD MY CHURCH AND STUDY FOR MY PRIEST EXAM.  LOL



Now, THAT shit is rare

Christian stupidity is everyday

Seriously it doesn't make any sense. Christianity/Bible is dedicated to training idiots yet it creates idiots. 


Is it just me or am I the only one who sees how illogical this bullshit is?


----------



## Ceria (Sep 2, 2010)

I'm sorry but he's full of shit. I don't care how intellectually brilliant he is, but he can't sit there and tell me that no one or nothing created or guided the life in this universe. 

He more than anyone knows the complexity of life, and the complexity of this entire universe, it's too vast to be left up to random chance.


----------



## RAGING BONER (Sep 2, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> If religion is "obsolete" why are atheists building churches and ordaining ministers?
> 
> Its like...
> 
> *Atheist*:  YOUR RELIGION IS OBSOLETE, FOOLS.  NOW, EXCUSE ME AS I BUILD MY CHURCH AND STUDY FOR MY PRIEST EXAM.  LOL


fervent Atheists tend to be just as belligerent, ignorant and closed minded as religious nuts...its just the other side of the coin.

people who say "I don't know" (and quite possibly don't even care) are the only one's who are capable of living in a world without gods, agenda's and other such foolishness.


----------



## Bender (Sep 2, 2010)

CeriaHalcyon said:


> I'm sorry but he's full of shit. I don't care how intellectually brilliant he is, but he can't sit there and tell me that no one or nothing created or guided the life in this universe.



So because life is so complex it's only possible for a higher being such as "god" to create the universe? Who's full of shit now?


----------



## Ceria (Sep 2, 2010)

Bender said:


> So because life is so complex it's only possible for a higher being such as "god" to create the universe? Who's full of shit now?



You are, you don't seem capable of grasping the complexity of the world we live in. Science does nothing but further support creationism, with the vast amount of information in our DNA code, to the fact that our cells are more complex than entire cities. 

yeah that happened on a complete whim, no rhyme or reason...


----------



## RAGING BONER (Sep 2, 2010)

CeriaHalcyon said:


> You are, you don't seem capable of grasping the complexity of the world we live in. Science does nothing but further support creationism, with the vast amount of information in our DNA code, to the fact that our cells are more complex than entire cities.
> 
> yeah that happened on a complete whim, no rhyme or reason...


yo dawg, in the beginning, shit blew up, ya heard?


----------



## Ceria (Sep 2, 2010)

RAGING BONER said:


> yo dawg, in the beginning, shit blew up, ya heard?



but who decided it should blow up, or who made it so?


----------



## Sen Katimi (Sep 2, 2010)

God decided. In case it has all slipped you guys' notice, there are holes in every theory scientists have come up with. This is why I dislike science. Once they teach it to you, you lose all the faith you had. When you were little, you knew the sky was blue, right? Even if you didn't know why, you knew it was blue. When you were little, you didn't care why the sky was blue, it just _was_. Faith works the same way. Believing is seeing wtih faith. You have to believe before you can see. This world has become full of Doubting Thomases. You have to see it to know it exists. Why not just have the faith of a child? Sheesh.


----------



## kazuri (Sep 2, 2010)

I have faith any god powerful enough to make the universe would be smart enough to tell his creations he exists.


----------



## Sen Katimi (Sep 2, 2010)

It's called a Bible. Maybe you should try reading it sometime. Might help.


----------



## Bender (Sep 2, 2010)

CeriaHalcyon said:


> you don't seem capable of grasping the complexity of the world we live in.



The only complexion here is the full depth of your stupidity and the meaning of life.


----------



## Sen Katimi (Sep 2, 2010)

The world _is_ complex though. You realize scientists have been trying for hundreds of years to explain the world, and they haven't figured out everything yet? We're not meant to understand everything, otherwise, we'd be stinking geniuses when we're born. And, guess what? We're not.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Sep 2, 2010)

Wow just when I thought this thread couldn't get any stupider.


----------



## uchia2000 (Sep 2, 2010)

Sen Katimi said:


> The world _is_ complex though. You realize scientists have been trying for hundreds of years to explain the world, and they haven't figured out everything yet? We're not meant to understand everything, otherwise, we'd be stinking geniuses when we're born. And, guess what? We're not.


Science builds upon itself and continues to improve. Just because the world seems complex now doesn't mean it will stay that way forever. Who knows maybe in 100 years our current problems will seem like childs play and the scientific community will be tackling some other problem.


----------



## Sen Katimi (Sep 2, 2010)

Eh, I'm simply standing by my point. This world wouldn't be here without God.


----------



## uchia2000 (Sep 2, 2010)

Sen Katimi said:


> Eh, I'm simply standing by my point. This world wouldn't be here without God.


The world is too complex for me to understand so therefor God must have done it.


----------



## Sen Katimi (Sep 2, 2010)

uchia2000 said:


> Science builds upon itself and continues to improve. Just because the world seems complex now doesn't mean it will stay that way forever. Who knows maybe in 100 years our current problems will seem like childs play and the scientific community will be tackling some other problem.



Scientists are still finding things that they thought were extinct. We might never know everything, but we weren't intended to. I'm not saying science can't get to that point. I'm simply saying that science wouldn't have a purpose if it weren't for God. None of us would.


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Sep 2, 2010)

*I don't know too much about any of this, but how in the world does gravity = spontaneous creation? *


----------



## Sen Katimi (Sep 2, 2010)

uchia2000 said:


> The world is too complex for me to understand so therefor God must have done it.



Thank you for twisting my words. I applaud your humor. That is not what I meant. I simply meant that there is always a higher power, some are simply too blind to see it.


----------



## uchia2000 (Sep 2, 2010)

Sen Katimi said:


> Scientists are still finding things that they thought were extinct. We might never know everything, but we weren't intended to. I'm not saying science can't get to that point. I'm simply saying that science wouldn't have a purpose if it weren't for God. None of us would.


No shit. Science continues to improve through new technology and methods. 

How would science not have a purpose if it weren't for God? It's current purpose is to explain the world through testable scientific methods. God isn't even a part of the equation.


----------



## Tekkenman11 (Sep 2, 2010)

Hawking will most likely change his mind again in the next decade, or so. Just as he has before along with a plethora of other philosophers, theologians, physicists, scientists, et cetera. It's just a part of gaining new knowledge and being a genius. 

Who knows what Hawkings will state 10 years from now. Knowledge is limitless.


----------



## Sen Katimi (Sep 2, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *I don't know too much about any of this, but how in the world does gravity = spontaneous creation? *



That's my point as well. It can't and never will. Nothing can spontaneously generate and therefore a higher power must have created it.


----------



## Xyloxi (Sep 2, 2010)

Bender said:


> THANK YOU!
> 
> This is what I have been saying like for fucking ever. Only weak-minded retarded motherfuckers believe in god.


Just like Obongo? 


Sen Katimi said:


> Thank you for twisting my words. I applaud your humor. That is not what I meant. I simply meant that there is always a higher power, some are simply too blind to see it.



Please show me the evidence of a higher power.


----------



## uchia2000 (Sep 2, 2010)

Sen Katimi said:


> Thank you for twisting my words. I applaud your humor. That is not what I meant. I simply meant that there is always a higher power, some are simply too blind to see it.


Goes both ways. There could just as easily NOT be a higher power and the people who do believe are just blinded by faith.


----------



## Tekkenman11 (Sep 2, 2010)

g_core18 said:


> And the bible's any different? God snapped his fingers and everything appeared.



What's the point of bringing in the Bible? Do you think Christianity invented the concept of god?  

It's sad that people equate the concept of a "higher force" - god (notice I did not say a fucking man with a beard) with that of the Abrahamic religions.

Anyhow, I respect Hawkings a lot and people shouldn't be so quick to negatively attack him. He's done quite a lot in the field of analytic research for Physics and science in general. The man obviously has reasons for this statement, and this doesn't mean he doesn't say God doesn't exist. Simply 'God is not needed for there to be a Universe', for all we know he could believe that God is just some product of the Universe that jacks off all day.


----------



## Sen Katimi (Sep 2, 2010)

And, that could go for Hawkings too, you know. Just because he is well respected, doesn't make him right.
I'll pose it this way.
If Hawkings told you that jumping off of a cliff, down a 200,000 foot canyon, to a rock filled river down below would make you immortal, would you do it?


----------



## Sanity Check (Sep 2, 2010)

Xyloxi said:


> Just like Obongo?
> 
> Please show me the evidence of a higher power.



EVIDENCE.

x  Scientists can't explain how the universe occurred.

y  Scientists therefore conclude there are an infinite number of parallel universes.  There are 10000000000000000000000 infinity parallel universes, and this universe just happens to be the one where astronomically unlikely event followed astronomically unlikely event until life occurred despite a 1 to 10000000000000000000000000000+ statistical unlikelihood of it occurring.

In terms of cosmology, science doesn't explain anything.  It simply substitutes the original question with fiction.

Is there evidence of multiple dimensions?  No.  Science assumes it due to lack of alternative explanation.  

In which case, that's not science, its mythology.



uchia2000 said:


> Goes both ways. There could just as easily NOT be a higher power and the people who do believe are just blinded by faith.



Yep.


----------



## Sen Katimi (Sep 2, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> EVIDENCE.
> 
> x  Scientists can't explain how the universe occurred.
> 
> ...



Note: Scientists say "How'd the universe come into being?" Answer "Big Bang Theory. _Theory_ not law. Which means they cannot prove it. Science is simply modern mythology, as previously stated by 1mmortal 1tachi.


----------



## Bender (Sep 2, 2010)

Xyloxi said:


> Just like Obongo?




When it comes to relying on someone else to get things done yes.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Sep 2, 2010)

The big bang theory is NOT used to explain how the unvierse came into being, it is used to describe how the universe went from a hyper dense hot state to a less dense cooler state. Other hypothesis's have been formulated for the origin of the universe, plenty of them being both plausible and godless.

Secondly please google the phrase "scientific theory" and "scientific law" and try to understand why what you just said was completely retarded.


----------



## Sanity Check (Sep 2, 2010)

Sen Katimi said:


> Note: Scientists say "How'd the universe come into being?" Answer "Big Bang Theory. _Theory_ not law. Which means they cannot prove it. Science is simply modern mythology, as previously stated by 1mmortal 1tachi.




Its statistical probability.

Hawking knows that if the expansion rate of the universe were off by 0.5%(IIRC), life would not have occurred, period.

Its the difference between driving down a highway at 200 mph as opposed to 201 mph.  If the expansion rate of the universe were off by that much, life would not have occurred.

That only represents one aspect of it.  Basically, what you have is a number of similar statistics stacked on top of each other making the universe we see and observe on a daily basis virtually impossible in terms of statistical likelihood.

Scientists are at a loss to explain how the expansion rate is able to fall within such a narrow tolerance for failure, as they are with a large number of similar circumstances.

Thus, to get around explaining it, they simply say -- yo, there are an infinite number of universes, and this one simply happens to be the one where all the statistically impossible stuff happened.

Old news, yeah!


----------



## Munak (Sep 2, 2010)

The "Big Bang" V.S. Steady-State Theory is more entertaining for me.

Besides, the very concept of a mighty creator in the distance somewhat scares me now.


----------



## Sen Katimi (Sep 2, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Its statistical probability.
> 
> Hawking knows that if the expansion rate of the universe were off by 0.5%(IIRC), life would not have occurred, period.
> 
> ...



Simply coming up with something to cover their own incompotence, no?


----------



## Ceria (Sep 2, 2010)

Bender said:


> The only complexion here is the full depth of your stupidity and the meaning of life.



 cool story bro.


----------



## Sen Katimi (Sep 2, 2010)

Wow, you guys really are jerks.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Sep 2, 2010)

Sen Katimi said:


> Wow, you guys really are jerks.



.........................................................


----------



## Adonis (Sep 2, 2010)

The likelihood of my birth is so unlikely that I can only reasonably conclude God Almighty led *every single one* of my ancestors into each others' arms and punched a hole in each and every individual condom himself.

That's about how convincing the "If things had been just a bit different..." argument it. They weren't, and people would be arguing against whatever happened regardless of what happened. I'm born and I wonder, "Why me?" If my ne'er-born, successful brother Carl had been born, he'd be in the same position.

At some point, you just have to accept shit happened one way even though they could have happened other ways. In hindsight, taken as a whole, it's incredible; but when you remember it's a long succession of much smaller coincidences rather than one HUGE coincidence it becomes much easier to swallow.


----------



## shiki-fuujin (Sep 2, 2010)

Sen Katimi said:


> That's my point as well. It can't and never will. Nothing can spontaneously generate and therefore a higher power must have created it.



I've decided I need to say something; first have you taken a physics class at all?...THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NOTHING!..Your constant strawmaning of people's arguments is pathetic and annoying. You bash science as if it was the devil's work. Science is a evolving process that is never the same. When a scientist become a scientist they do so with the knowledge that tomorrow something can completely revolutionize their beliefs and it would be out with the old and in with he new. Scientist is build upon a continuing foundation. Ask any scientist and they will tell you science doesn't have all the answer and it doesn't claim to -Only those who have something to fear brand it with he such a title.
  Some one a couple pages ago said that hawking had a low rep within the Community and that is true-However it doesn't make what the man says anymore non true. though His previous statements have been wrapped in emotional baggage..its still worth listening too.
  The forum always erupt into this constant God V Scientist debate why? this shouldn't be even a issue. if one want to devout their life to a being whose existence is a book then let then be and vice versa to those who cant believe...You guys need to learn not to take troll batting from either side or at least try to reasonably debate the matter without enveloping into a mud sling...sheshhh


----------



## Sanity Check (Sep 2, 2010)

Sen Katimi said:


> Simply coming up with something to cover their own incompotence, no?



This is a decent summary.


----------



## Adonis (Sep 2, 2010)

That's another good point: What, exactly, is *nothing*? What is a complete absence of space/time and everything?


----------



## Bender (Sep 2, 2010)

Sen Katimi said:


> Wow, you guys really are jerks.



That insult is like a kiss on the cheek/compliment to me.


----------



## Sen Katimi (Sep 2, 2010)

shiki-fuujin said:


> I've decided I need to say something; first have you taken a physics class at all?...THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NOTHING!..Your constant strawmaning of people's arguments is pathetic and annoying. You bash science as if it was the devil's work. Science is a evolving process that is never the same. When a scientist become a scientist they do so with the knowledge that tomorrow something can completely revolutionize their beliefs and it would be out with the old and in with he new. Scientist is build upon a continuing foundation. Ask any scientist and they will tell you science doesn't have all the answer and it doesn't claim to -Only those who have something to fear brand it with he such a title.
> Some one a couple pages ago said that hawking had a low rep within the Community and that is true-However it doesn't make what the man says anymore non true. though His previous statements have been wrapped in emotional baggage..its still worth listening too.
> The forum always erupt into this constant God V Scientist debate why? this shouldn't be even a issue. if one want to devout their life to a being whose existence is a book then let then be and vice versa to those who cant believe...You guys need to learn not to take troll batting from either side or at least try to reasonably debate the matter without enveloping into a mud sling...sheshhh



See, here's the thing, I never said there was such a thing as "nothing". I simply said that not a single thing that exists can spontaneously generate. It's not physically possible. Perhaps you should thouroughly read someone's post before you try to disprove it.


----------



## Adonis (Sep 2, 2010)

Sen Katimi said:


> See, here's the thing, I never said there was such a thing as "nothing". I simply said that not a single thing that exists can spontaneously generate. It's not physically possible. Perhaps you should thouroughly read someone's post before you try to disprove it.



His point is, if there's no such thing as nothing then there was always _something_ which negates claims of spontaneous generation.


----------



## Sen Katimi (Sep 2, 2010)

Bender said:


> That insult is like a kiss on the cheek/compliment to me.



So, you spend your time being a total assinine jerk to every user that makes a post? Yeah, that's real smart, you know.


----------



## Miss Fortune (Sep 2, 2010)

Hawing says God's not needed. Common Knowledge?


----------



## Sen Katimi (Sep 2, 2010)

Adonis said:


> His point is, if there's no such thing as nothing then there was always _something_ which negates claims of spontaneous generation.



Which, in turn, disproves the Primordial Soup theory. Obviously.


----------



## Bender (Sep 2, 2010)

Sen Katimi said:


> So, you spend your time being a total assinine jerk to every user that makes a post?



I'm always a jerk. It' my day-time default emotion. 



> Yeah, that's real smart, you know.



As are arguments for why Christians/other religious folks are perfectly sane.


----------



## shiki-fuujin (Sep 2, 2010)

Sen Katimi said:


> Which, in turn, disproves the Primordial Soup theory. Obviously.



Do you even listen to your self when you talk?-in this case type?


----------



## Sen Katimi (Sep 2, 2010)

Bender said:


> I'm always a jerk. It' my day-time default emotion.
> 
> 
> 
> As are arguments for why Christians/other religious folks are perfectly sane.



That's nice. That's really nice, you know?

Oh, ye of little faith...Ah, screw it. I'm not even going to try.



shiki-fuujin said:


> Do you even listen to your self when you talk?-in this case type?



Yes, I actually do. Do you have a problem with what I've said? I'd love to hear it.


----------



## kazuri (Sep 2, 2010)

> Sen Katimi said:
> 
> 
> > It's called a Bible. Maybe you should try reading it sometime. Might help.
> ...


----------



## Sen Katimi (Sep 2, 2010)

kazuri said:


> > God didnt write the bible. Humans did. If I write a bible and say god told me to do it, would you believe me too? At least I am here and talking to you. Ever met the people who lived how long ago, and wrote the bible?
> >
> >
> >
> ...


----------



## Botzu (Sep 2, 2010)

Sen Katimi said:


> Yes, I actually do. Do you have a problem with what I've said? I'd love to hear it.


I think the problem is that you don't understand the concepts that are being argued and thus don't understand the objections to the points you are making.


----------



## kazuri (Sep 2, 2010)

Sen Katimi said:


> Yet again. You _have_ to have faith. Without faith, you won't understand. It's useless to try to explain this to you. Maybe one day, you'll have the faith to just believe, maybe not. But, for me to continue explaining would be like reading Humpty Dumpty in Japanese to a five-year old born and raised in America that has never even learned that language.



Have faith in what? Believe in what? You are randomly picking 1 religion just because it offers what you want, or you were raised to believe in it. You have absolutely NO reason to have faith, other than 'well this book is really old, and it says i could get to live forever, and i should have faith!' There are many gods who offer exactly what the christian god does, why dont you have faith in them? Your faith is completely arbitrary. Your faith is a defense mechanism in lifeforms, wanting desperately to exist forever.

to have faith, you *have* to want whatever you think having faith in will be granted to you, so bad, that you will believe it no matter what. It has absolutely nothing to do with a RANDOM god, who doesn't even like you enough to take 3 seconds out of his busy eternal omnipotence to say 'I exist, have faith in me, and I will reward you.' yada yada yada.


----------



## shiki-fuujin (Sep 2, 2010)

Botzu said:


> I think the problem is that you don't understand the concepts that are being argued and thus don't understand the objections to the points you are making.



Thank you ...One doesn't know statistics and the other is arguing about something he has no grasp over


----------



## Fuzzly (Sep 2, 2010)

CeriaHalcyon said:


> I'm sorry but he's full of shit. I don't care how intellectually brilliant he is, but he can't sit there and tell me that no one or nothing created or guided the life in this universe.
> 
> He more than anyone knows the complexity of life, and the complexity of this entire universe, it's too vast to be left up to random chance.



Actually it's this kind of willfull ignorance that keeps religion strong in the US.

God doesn't exist. If he does exist, he has no discernable effect on the universe as we can measure it. 

If you want to believe in some sort of being that doesn't effect the universe in any discernable way and the only proof you can provide is your own ignorance of how the universe works (learn some science please) then don't expect people to take you seriously.

I don't care if people believe in God. Go for it. God's a pretty cool guy, eh creates human suffering and doesn't afraid of anything. But once you attribute anything happening to God you sound ignorant. God did not have anything to do with the creation of the universe, the origin or evolution of life.

Of course, as someone who loves science, I am willing to entertain the idea of a God. All you have to do is create an experiment where you can prove/disprove His existence. Then once you've completed said experiment I would love to go over its merits with you.

Good luck with that.


----------



## kazuri (Sep 2, 2010)

> He more than anyone knows the complexity of life, and the complexity of this entire universe, it's too vast to be left up to random chance.



A god that can create life so complex cannot possibly have come into existence with random chance.


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Sep 2, 2010)

kazuri said:


> A god that can create life so complex cannot possibly have come into existence with random chance.



*Unless He always was. Or something along those lines. *


----------



## Sanity Check (Sep 2, 2010)

Adonis said:


> That's another good point: What, exactly, is *nothing*? What is a complete absence of space/time and everything?



The area outside the universe.  It generates large amounts of 'noise' as it interacts with our currently expanding universe.



kazuri said:


> Besides the fact you are making these numbers up, if there were an infinity of universes, you really think the statistical unlikelihood would be that low? Obviously you have no comprehension of infinity.



Have no comprehension of infinity, how?



kazuri said:


> Yes, try reading up on the double slit experiment. Particles in 2 places at the same time.



That's not evidence for multiple anythings.  



kazuri said:


> I am at a loss at how you cherrypick which scientific explanations are true and which are fiction. If you think most are fiction, why do you believe that we could only live in such a 'narrow tolerance'?
> 
> The fact is we have no idea what all the possible situations life can form in.



Pointing out potential flaws in a scientific "explanation" and accepting another that is considered valid is not cherry picking.

We don't need to know all possible scenarios for life to know that the known precedent falls within a narrow range tolerance.


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Sep 2, 2010)

If there is a "supernatural"-- in definition (being transcendent of natural)-- how could you possibly distinguish it from the fuzzy concept of "nothing"?  What is a law? And where is the proof that it was the same before the onset of the universe? No one ever asks the right questions. It's easy to speak of the bicycle when you don't know its history. 

Anyway, no one ever says anything new, and neither is Hawking.


----------



## Plague (Sep 2, 2010)

There are too many Life after death stories to say God isn't real.


----------



## shiki-fuujin (Sep 2, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> The area outside the universe.  It generates large amounts of 'noise' as it interacts with our currently expanding universe.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I do this and leave the rest to him...If something has an infinity of chance 1 out of infinity ..it's still infinity.....hence by make in the number larger you're in theory increasing the chances.....or  the law of large numbers


@Meshi Life after death stories..I don't believe in the life after death stories because of the human imagination in desiring something to be so. How many stories did they hear before that happen?


----------



## kazuri (Sep 2, 2010)

> We don't need to know all possible scenarios for life to know that the known precedent falls within a narrow range tolerance.



Yes, we do. Only fools make assumptions.



> Pointing out potential flaws in a scientific "explanation" and accepting another that is considered valid is not cherry picking.



Yes, it is. You are biased. You consider something valid because it 'helps' you disprove something else. We do not know all the possible types of life, and where life can live, hence we do not know anything about what ranges life can form in. For all we know, given enough time, suns themselves can come together in such a way as to be self replicating, etc etc, since what is considered life is a man made opinion.



> That's not evidence for multiple anythings.



You are a quick read, to do so much research on this in the few minutes since I posted it.



> Have no comprehension of infinity, how?



We do not know why the forces in the universe act the way they do. Hence you cannot spout any statistics about something happening in an INFINITE AMOUNT OF TRIES.



> There are too many Life after death stories to say God isn't real.



There are too many people who have had acid trips to say god is real.


----------



## Botzu (Sep 2, 2010)

Rosuto_and_Meshi said:


> There are too many Life after death stories to say God isn't real.


Not really when you consider that nearly every religion has life after death stories. They can't all be right and every afterlife exists... but they can all be wrong.


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Sep 2, 2010)

kazuri said:


> Yes, we do. Only fools make assumptions.



*Do you even know what it means to try and figure out all possible scenarios for life? *


----------



## Plague (Sep 2, 2010)

kazuri said:


> There are too many people who have had acid trips to say god is real.




That has nothing to do with life after death. 

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," 

Who created Gravity? I'll go as far to say nothing existed before god. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Yet It's impossible to create something from nothing. Unless you had a higher power.


----------



## Mider T (Sep 2, 2010)

He's just mad because God has given him a shitty body without killing him outright.


----------



## kazuri (Sep 2, 2010)

Rosuto_and_Meshi said:


> That has nothing to do with life after death.
> 
> "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing,"
> 
> Who created Gravity? I'll go as far to say nothing existed before god. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Yet It's impossible to create something from nothing. Unless you had a higher power.



People have had hallucinations EXACTLY like, and in a lot of cases EVEN MORE VIVID than near death experiences. FAR more people have had 'religious experiences' on drugs than people who came near to death but barely lived. Guess what also happens when you are in extreme situations? Your brain flips out and gives you drugs. Ever had a dream before? Dreams happen because of a chemical reaction. Chemicals are drugs. Sounds all the same to me. Why would you have a near death experience anyway? The people never gain anything, or can tell anything useful. Yes, people cherish life more, but that can be said for MANY who nearly lost it all. Or is a near death experience just a glitch in gods coding?

Why does a higher power have to be sentient? Why can a higher power exist from nothing? Why would there only be one higher power? Why would he refuse to show himself? Why would he be so arbitrary? Why is it ok for him to use us like toys, or some tv show?


----------



## dark messiah verdandi (Sep 2, 2010)

Its funny how thiests can't grasp the universe making itself, but CAN grasp a super person existing forever, OR creating itself without an environment to support itself.

The thing is, to be perfect, you have to either be everything, or be nothing. that means one of two things. the creator of the universe IS the universe, or nothing at all.

Choose, because a god wouldn't allow the existence of another thing lesser than itself, simply because it couldn't. so either it is EVERYTHING, and therefore needs no worship, only reverence, or it is nothing but a thought from an animal who has the ability to remember things with a subjective memory.


----------



## shiki-fuujin (Sep 2, 2010)

kazuri said:


> People have had hallucinations EXACTLY like, and in a lot of cases EVEN MORE VIVID than near death experiences. FAR more people have had 'religious experiences' on drugs than people who came near to death but barely lived. Guess what also happens when you are in extreme situations? Your brain flips out and gives you drugs. Ever had a dream before? Dreams happen because of a chemical reaction. Chemicals are drugs. Sounds all the same to me. Why would you have a near death experience anyway? The people never gain anything, or can tell anything useful. Yes, people cherish life more, but that can be said for MANY who nearly lost it all. Or is a near death experience just a glitch in gods coding?
> 
> *Why does a higher power have to be sentient? Why can a higher power exist from nothing? Why would there only be one higher power? Why would he refuse to show himself? Why would he be so arbitrary? Why is it ok for him to use us like toys, or some tv show?*


*
*


Because he can 

But in all seriousness i do find it as someone perplexing that one cannot believe in some theories; but in a infinite deity...


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Sep 2, 2010)

dark messiah verdandi said:


> Its funny how thiests can't grasp the universe making itself, but CAN grasp a super person existing forever, OR creating itself without an environment to support itself.
> 
> The thing is, to be perfect, you have to either be everything, or be nothing. that means one of two things. the creator of the universe IS the universe, or nothing at all.
> 
> Choose, because a god wouldn't allow the existence of another thing lesser than itself, simply because it couldn't. so either it is EVERYTHING, and therefore needs no worship, only reverence, or it is nothing but a thought from an animal who has the ability to remember things with a subjective memory.



*Some theists. Some. *


----------



## Plague (Sep 2, 2010)

kazuri said:


> People have had hallucinations EXACTLY like, and in a lot of cases EVEN MORE VIVID than near death experiences. FAR more people have had 'religious experiences' on drugs than people who came near to death but barely lived. Guess what also happens when you are in extreme situations? Your brain flips out and gives you drugs. Ever had a dream before? Dreams happen because of a chemical reaction. Chemicals are drugs. Sounds all the same to me. Why would you have a near death experience anyway? The people never gain anything, or can tell anything useful. Yes, people cherish life more, but that can be said for MANY who nearly lost it all. Or is a near death experience just a glitch in gods coding?
> 
> Why does a higher power have to be sentient? Why can a higher power exist from nothing? Why would there only be one higher power? Why would he refuse to show himself? Why would he be so arbitrary? Why is it ok for him to use us like toys, or some tv show?



There are plenty of Near death experiences without drugs. So your first paragragh fails. Some people who claimed they went to hell experienced GREAT pain. 

Now to answer your questions:

Why does a higher power have to be sentient?
How could he not be? If you're creating the universe, you'd have to be. If he wasn't sentient, math wouldn't make sense, and things would exist without meaning or purpose.

Why can a higher power exist from nothing? 
That alone should show this being has abilities beyond our imaginations. Yes I do believe God created himself. It doesn't have to make sense. He can do ANYTHING remember.

Why would there only be one higher power?
Because you need one to create more. If he can do ANYTHINg he shouldn't need help. (Unless you wanna talk about Angels.) He was the first to exist, therefore the most powerful as he alone created the universe. 

Why would he refuse to show himself? 
To test humanitys faith. You clearly have failed.

Why would he be so arbitrary?
This is kinda redundant.

 Why is it ok for him to use us like toys, or some tv show?
Who told you that? God doesn't make you do anything. He gave humans free will. You are subject to your own decisions.


----------



## dark messiah verdandi (Sep 2, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *Some theists. Some. *



you right.


----------



## Momoka (Sep 2, 2010)

Same thing pulled every once in a month.


----------



## ichigeau (Sep 2, 2010)

dark messiah verdandi said:


> The thing is, to be perfect, you have to either be everything, or be nothing. that means one of two things. the creator of the universe IS the universe, or nothing at all.





i raise my hat to you


----------



## kazuri (Sep 2, 2010)

> There are plenty of Near death experiences without drugs. So your first paragragh fails.



There are no posts by me saying there are no near death experiences without drugs. So your entire post is deemed not worthy of being read.


----------



## Fuzzly (Sep 2, 2010)

Rosuto_and_Meshi said:


> *Who created Gravity? *I'll go as far to say nothing existed before god. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Yet It's impossible to create something from nothing. Unless you had a higher power.



This showss that you don't have the fundamental understanding of the science involved to participate in the discussion. If you believe gravity is a force that requires a creator you really, really need some community college courses.

I would put up a "Fucking magnets" picture but I'm too lazy, despite how well it fits here.


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Sep 2, 2010)

Fuzzly said:


> This showss that you don't have the fundamental understanding of the science involved to participate in the discussion. If you believe gravity is a force that requires a creatore you really, really need some community college courses.
> 
> I would put up a "Fucking magnets" picture but I'm too lazy, despite how well it fits here.



*Tell us why gravity is so different. *


----------



## Fuzzly (Sep 2, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *Tell us why gravity is so different. *



From what?

10char.


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Sep 2, 2010)

Fuzzly said:


> From what?
> 
> 10char.



*Explain to use why gravity is so different from everything else that it does not "require" a creator. *


----------



## dark messiah verdandi (Sep 2, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *Explain to use why gravity is so different from everything else that it does not "require" a creator. *



It does have a creator, that creator just isn't called god.
Its called mass. Does a ripple in water require a god to work, or will any force do.

Its causality. Change makes changes which make changes, which changes things


----------



## Fuzzly (Sep 2, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *Explain to use why gravity is so different from everything else that it does not "require" a creator. *



Oh, it's not different at all. Nothing in the univserse required a creator in the way Christianity would have you believe.


----------



## Kira U. Masaki (Sep 3, 2010)

Im just going to point out the obvious argument pro-religion people can make, that can never be proven false by Science no matter how long humans continue to pursue it. 

If God exists and is omnipotent, then he/she/it can do anything by definition of the term, including making paradoxes possible. God could also make a universe/existence that works perfectly, and make it appear as if God never existed. God being needed and God existing are two different things. Read the comment about God's transparency. Hence science can never prove the absolute 100 percent non existence of God. I am not trying to sound like a bible thumper, but strictly speaking no matter what is proven through science, one can always says, what if an omnipotent being, termed God, made is a such, and there really is no answer.  

Personal I am also not a fan of those who rely solely on the existence of a higher power to live there daily lives. But I also find it amusing by those hellbent on disproving that existence. Why does Hawking have to even throw the term God in there? To this I agree with Immortal Itachi, he put it in there to sell books and make news. If he just wrote a paper or book : Gravity and the Universe, or Gravity and the Origins of the Universe, I am sure sales would be much lower. 

Time to go watch the Futurama episode with Hawking in it again.


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Sep 3, 2010)

dark messiah verdandi said:


> It does have a creator, that creator just isn't called god.
> Its called mass. Does a ripple in water require a god to work, or will any force do.
> 
> Its causality. Change makes changes which make changes, which changes things



*How do you know that? Obviously whether or not a ripple in water requires God to work is a question that we cannot answer at this time, if ever. It might, it might not. Some people, like me, choose to believe that it does. Although probably more indirectly as opposed to actually requiring God to make the ripple. *



Fuzzly said:


> Oh, it's not different at all. Nothing in the univserse required a creator in the way Christianity would have you believe.



*So you admit that gravity isn't any different from anything else and that assuming there is a God, gravity would be required to be created by Him just the same as everything else? *


----------



## kazuri (Sep 3, 2010)

Kira U. Masaki said:


> Im just going to point out the obvious argument pro-religion people can make, that can never be proven false by Science no matter how long humans continue to pursue it.
> 
> If God exists and is omnipotent, then he/she/it can do anything by definition of the term, including making paradoxes possible. God could also make a universe/existence that works perfectly, and make it appear as if God never existed. God being needed and God existing are two different things. Read the comment about God's transparency. Hence science can never prove the absolute 100 percent non existence of God. I am not trying to sound like a bible thumper, but strictly speaking no matter what is proven through science, one can always says, what if an omnipotent being, termed God, made is a such, and there really is no answer.
> 
> ...



It also cannot be proven aliens in another universe programmed our universe in such a way we could never prove it wasn't real.


----------



## Bender (Sep 3, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *So you admit that gravity isn't any different from anything else and that assuming there is a God, gravity would be required to be created by Him just the same as everything else? *



The only thing god created was "ignorance" nice blissful ignorance that twirls itself uphill and downhill in society. Vexing how Christians, shit any religious kiddies think their god did everything. If he's so great tell me did he create the law? No, he didn't. Because shit of that nature was too complex for his simple mind to contemplate. No, instead people back then were presented with "The Ten commandments" which was the most primitive type of law imaginable. 

Not to mention gods logic drift somewhere between the twilight zone and incomprehensible. Adam and Eve were formed from the ground? What kind of rubbish is that?


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Sep 3, 2010)

Bender said:


> The only thing god created was "ignorance" nice blissful ignorance that twirls itself uphill and downhill in society. Vexing how Christians, shit any religious kiddies think their god did everything. If he's so great tell me did he create the law? No, he didn't. Because shit of that nature was too complex for his simple mind to contemplate. No, instead people back then were presented with "The Ten commandments" which was the most primitive type of law imaginable.
> 
> Not to mention gods logic drift somewhere between the twilight zone and incomprehensible. Adam and Eve were formed from the ground? What kind of rubbish is that?



*You're not providing any arguments. you're just rambling on and on about how you hate the notion of God. *


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Sep 3, 2010)

Why do people keep bringing up "religion" when talking about God? They're not the same thing.


----------



## dark messiah verdandi (Sep 3, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *How do you know that? Obviously whether or not a ripple in water requires God to work is a question that we cannot answer at this time, if ever. It might, it might not. Some people, like me, choose to believe that it does. Although probably more indirectly as opposed to actually requiring God to make the ripple. *
> 
> 
> 
> *So you admit that gravity isn't any different from anything else and that assuming there is a God, gravity would be required to be created by Him just the same as everything else? *



Easy... Go fill up a cup of water. dip your finger in. did you dip your finger or did god? did you see, hear, touch, or smell god move the water? then god didn't move the water.

Don't pull this how can you prove it's not bullshit. I believe you are smarter than that. resorting to such petty denial. Any deity which is explained would not have control of such a thing Unless it is an EVERYTHING god.

Brahman is the only deity I can think of that actually makes since. It doesn't even have a will, it's just another word for existence. You don't have to worship it, because it wouldn't make a difference if you did or not. Cause it isn't a mind, its just everything that exists.

The problem is anything lesser than that just becomes illogical, unlawful to the laws of the universe, and thus not perfect. Creation did not happen because of a conscious act, so the idea of a conscious god is rediculous. Then it just becomes a super powered alien.

Existance is what created and nourishes our being so that is what SHOULD be believed as god, rather than some magic human. Deist belief shouldn't even be considered because they don't even have any facts. Its more like "I believe in something that is greater than me, but everyone else is wrong"

That means two things. Either they are afraid to give up their core values after a belief system has inevitably failed them, or they can't choose because of a descentive streak.

The fact is the universe created each and every one of us alone. If you want more than that and can't prove it, then you are left wanting. If it is a magic human you want, then I should alert you that magic does not exist, and if supernormal abilities are shown, then they can ALWAYS be explained through science.

If there is something that ignorant people would call a god, whom created the universe, then I would just say, no... that is just an alien who has reached the apex of science. 

I wouldn't worship that alien, unless it asked, gave me something in return, and it was naturally a cool friend. If it was the kind of alien who destroys earth to make a point, I'd punch him in the face


----------



## Fuzzly (Sep 3, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *So you admit that gravity isn't any different from anything else and that assuming there is a God, gravity would be required to be created by Him just the same as everything else? *





Gravity is different from other things, it's very different from a shirt, for example. The quality that gravity shares with a piece of clothing is that it was not created by a bearded man in the sky.

Assuming that there is a god is a big assumption, and one I'm not willing to make until evidence presents itself.

What about the assumption that God does exist but didn't anything to create the universe? Why, if he exists, does God have to be the creator? Because your particular belief system says so?

Usually when people make assumptions about how the world works, they are expected to provide some kind of proof. If you want to make the claim that God created the universe, design an experiment that can prove/disprove your theory. If not, then you aren't even really making claims about how things /are/, you're just making fiction.

Lots of societies have interesting creation myths. I love creation myths. But a creation myth isn't a scientific theory.


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Sep 3, 2010)

^^Actually, you're wrong. Brahman is consciousness and  existence according to the Upanishads.


----------



## Bender (Sep 3, 2010)

Well here's another example of god being a total sham

Jesus says [Mark 16.18]:
they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well

If you truly have faith in the man go ahead I implore you to try this. However, don't blame me if something goes wrong.


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Sep 3, 2010)

Bender said:


> Well here's another example of god being a total sham
> 
> Jesus says [Mark 16.18]:
> they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well
> ...



Congratulations, you found something wrong the bible.


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Sep 3, 2010)

dark messiah verdandi said:


> Easy... Go fill up a cup of water. dip your finger in. did you dip your finger or did god? did you see, hear, touch, or smell god move the water? then god didn't move the water.
> 
> Don't pull this how can you prove it's not bullshit. I believe you are smarter than that. resorting to such petty denial. Any deity which is explained would not have control of such a thing Unless it is an EVERYTHING god.
> 
> ...



*Do you not realize what an omnipotent being would be capable of? That water argument of yours is not a very good on. It's no different from people claiming that the Earth is flat because if it was round they would have rolled off. 

Where did you get the idea that God requires anything? Us worshiping Him is supposed to purely for our benefit, not His. And why are you assuming Go would be a 'person' as opposed to the universe itself? *



Fuzzly said:


> Gravity is different from other things, it's very different from a shirt, for example. The quality that gravity shares with a piece of clothing is that it was not created by a bearded man in the sky.
> 
> Assuming that there is a god is a big assumption, and one I'm not willing to make until evidence presents itself.
> 
> What about the assumption that God does exist but didn't do shit to create the universe?


*
Don't play dumb, you know what I mean. And didn't you just say that gravity isn't different at all from anything else? 

Obviously I'm asking you to assume some for the sake of argument, you don't need evidence for that. 

What about that assumption? **Elaborate. *


----------



## Bender (Sep 3, 2010)

0Fear said:


> Congratulations, you found something wrong the bible.



That's not the only passage that sucks in the bible. Ya ever try reading Noah's Ark with a straight face and laughing at the illogical fallacies in it.


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Sep 3, 2010)

Bender said:


> Well here's another example of god being a total sham
> 
> Jesus says [Mark 16.18]:
> they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well
> ...



*Not a Christian so I couldn't care less, but that looks like a verse that would only make sense when the surrounding verses are put around it. *


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Sep 3, 2010)

...and Sonic the Hedgehog is Blue.


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Sep 3, 2010)

*What's wrong with one and two? *


----------



## Elim Rawne (Sep 3, 2010)

I love the cafe, where godfags and atheistfags try to force their own opinions on people


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Sep 3, 2010)

Elim Rawne said:


> I love the cafe, where godfags and atheistfags try to force their own opinions on people



*I'm not forcing anything, I'm just talking.  *


----------



## abcd (Sep 3, 2010)

I believe Hawking has not met the hypnotoad yet


----------



## Bender (Sep 3, 2010)

lol

I accidentally mistyped my point 

ANYWAYS these are the many results of religion being out of hand:


Crusades
One of the most famous examples of religious violence in the Middle Ages is of course the Crusades - attempts by European Christians to impose their vision of religion upon Jews, Orthodox Christians, heretics, Muslims, and just about anyone else who happened to get in the way. Traditionally the term "Crusades" are limited to describing massive military expeditions by Christians to the Middle East, but it is more accurate to acknowledge that there also existed "crusades" internal to Europe and directed at local minority groups.

Inquisition

Varying attempts to stamp out infidels and heretics often proved to be inadequate, so the Holy Inquisition was formed to make the efforts more organized and efficient (not to mention putting them all under more official church oversight). Pope Gregory IX established the Inquisition in 1231, and burning was quickly decided upon as the official punishment. Administrators and Inquisitors were all answerable directly to the Pope - which essentially made him directly responsible for their actions. In 1245, the Pope gave Inquisitors the right to absolve their assistants of any acts of violence which they might commit in the fulfillment of their duties. Torture of suspects was authorized by Pope Innocent IV in 1252, and thus inquisition chambers were turned into places of abject horror.

Jewish Holocaust

Throughout Christian European history, Jews were accused of "Host Nailing" - ritually nailing communion wafers to wood as a symbolic recreation of the killing of Jesus. Jews were accused of the infamous "Blood Libel" - killing young Christian children in bizarre, satanic rituals. Christians were regularly told by their church leaders that the Jews killed Christ - killed God, in fact. Christians were told that Jews were greedy and untrustworthy. Passion plays - recreations of Jesus' alleged sacrifice - depicted Jews as cruel mockers of Jesus. And yes Nazis were Christian Anyone who looks through Nazi propaganda of the time will quickly notice that religion played big part of it.

"kkk" These racists, acting in the name of God and Christianity lynching Blacks here in America using those verses from Bible to have Killed Blacks! Tell me, I dare you to try to say that I'm wrong about this. Its documented American history, justified in the name of Jesus. So please stop with your hypocrisy! And don't give me the worn out excuse that these people weren't Christians because there is film, video evidence of these lynching of Blacks and the whites Christian with a Bible in their hand!

2.Timothy McVeigh (a Christian)Killed countless women and children.

you call your religion righteous and dare point the finger at others? Truly amazing.


----------



## dark messiah verdandi (Sep 3, 2010)

0Fear said:


> ^^Actually, you're wrong. Brahman is consciousness and  existence according to the Upanishads.



My mistake. Then nothing works.
You can't be perfect and exist or affect this existence. 
It's like being a vacuum. the world would seal it up.

Now, most people try to pass off GOD as omnipotent, Omniscient, and sometimes omnipresent.

All three create existense, since they would amount to everything happening at the same time. Or, it could go the reverse route and be void. Dark matter. A substance with the property to create reactions.

Also, These qualities are seldom shown in religion anyway, and for the most part aren't canon. These were qualities added lated by philosophers like plato (the man) who wanted to give a non devotional shape to the concept.
Now,since people who generally believe in divine occurrences are either taught or ignorant, it is generally known that hawkings was not addressing deists who have NO uniformity in belief or understanding in what they are asking for, he instead goes for the people who matter. thiests. deists didn't push any rules on people that weren't dictated by man, theists do.

So when "GOD" is the arguement, we are talking about one that is actually recorded in some type of annul, not just an archetype.
Now a problem is a LARGE amount of thiests are not knowledgable on the entirety of their cannot so they get things wrong like assuming their deity of choice is those qualities.


Now if you see the darkness in genesis, chaos in greek cult, primordial water in everything else as simply being a type of substance or energy without consciousness, then Im cool. Then from it things aren't "created" just changed.

Nothing can be created or destroyed, just changed, so how can one say the universe was created. Even in abrahamic religion that is a lie. the action that YWHW performed was not creation, but splitting. Giving law and order to a chaos that was already there. Creating light to give definition to what was obscured from eyes.

Existense has always existed. Just not as the same substance we think it has. Time and distance are only important to observers. It is inconsequential to existence itself since it doesn't observe, it just exists.

Doesn't have an animal physiology to actually observe.



Pimp of Pimps said:


> *Do you not realize what an omnipotent being would be capable of? That water argument of yours is not a very good on. It's no different from people claiming that the Earth is flat because if it was round they would have rolled off.
> 
> Where did you get the idea that God requires anything? Us worshiping Him is supposed to purely for our benefit, not His. And why are you assuming Go would be a 'person' as opposed to the universe itself? *



So if god doesn't need anything, then why does it need to exist.?

Paradox which opens up my second theory of the creative essence being chaos I.e time/space + dark matter

Being perfect means you don't exist in existence, and since existence always existed, then the idea of a creator god is a flaw.
one cannot have unless one aquires through need.

A nose is developed through the need to smell something. God doesn't need a mind because it doesn't need to solve problems. If it is perfect then it wouldn't even need to be.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Sep 3, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *I'm not forcing anything, I'm just talking.  *



I'll bet, bucko


----------



## Fuzzly (Sep 3, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *
> Don't play dumb, you know what I mean. And didn't you just say that gravity isn't different at all from anything else?
> 
> Obviously I'm asking you to assume some for the sake of argument, you don't need evidence for that.
> ...



I clarified my statement. 

Making the assumption that god exists is something I've already done for years and years. Then over the course of several other years I examined that assumption. It doesn't pan out.

The assumption you asked me to make is that there is a god, and that this god created the universe, correct? I ask, why does god have to be the creator?

Also, I wouldn't try to defend the Bible. I've been there, done that. It's fucking impossible. The Christian Bible is a mishmash of ancient tribal beliefs, slightly more modern tribal beliefs, and a whole lot of personal edits made by people who really hated sex and women. 

Not that the Bible is all trash. There's some good in there. Unfortunately a long line of assholes have gotten to the text before us and put in all kinds of edits and taken out parts and such that it's probably harder to find "good" parts than bad/insane/awful.


----------



## Bender (Sep 3, 2010)

Elim Rawne said:


> I'll bet, bucko



Shouldn't you be jerking off or something Diceman?  You're ruining my fun.


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Sep 3, 2010)

*People in general are idiots. Religion is just an excuse, and there are an infinite number of excuses out there.  *


----------



## Fuzzly (Sep 3, 2010)

Elim Rawne said:


> I love the cafe, where godfags and atheistfags try to force their own opinions on people



And where people still don't understand that conversations in the cafe are voluntary, so they make retarded comments about people forcing their oppinions on others who are actually %100 free to not have anything forced anywhere. Amirite?


----------



## abcd (Sep 3, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *So you admit that gravity isn't any different from anything else and that assuming there is a God, gravity would be required to be created by Him just the same as everything else? *



yeah !! 

If there is no god , how do magnets work ???


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Sep 3, 2010)

Fuzzly said:


> I clarified my statement.
> 
> Making the assumption that god exists is something I've already done for years and years. Then over the course of several other years I examined that assumption. It doesn't pan out.
> 
> ...



*.....

I'm asking you to assume for the sake of argument. Not to assume God exists for real. *


----------



## Fuzzly (Sep 3, 2010)

abcd said:


> yeah !!
> 
> If there is no god , how do magnets work ???



That's easy, magnets work by the force known as miracles-
Oh fuck, they got to me!

Pimp, my argument is that assuming God exists for the sake of argument is not neccesary. The only reason we need to "assume" he exists is because those who possit he exists can't come up with a way to prove he does (or does not.)

You could ask me, for the sake of argument, assume that the tooth fairy is real and is going to give me a BJ, but the premise is already pretty stupid, isn't it?


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Sep 3, 2010)

dark messiah verdandi said:


> So if god doesn't need anything, then why does it need to exist.?
> 
> Paradox which opens up my second theory of the creative essence being void I.e time/space + dark matter
> 
> Being perfect means you don't exist in existence, and since existence always existed, then the idea of a creator god is a flaw.



*Who says he needs anything?*


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Sep 3, 2010)

Fuzzly said:


> That's easy, magnets work by the force known as miracles-
> Oh fuck, they got to me!
> 
> Pimp, my argument is that assuming God exists for the sake of argument is not neccesary. The only reason we need to "assume" he exists is because those who possit he exists can't come up with a way to prove he does (or does not.)
> ...



*So basically you're just trying your best to dodge my question. *


----------



## dark messiah verdandi (Sep 3, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *Who says he needs anything?*



Yup.
If there is no need, there is no existence.
Dark matter needed to change because the friction it caused by dark energy and its particles touching caused it to heat and expand. 

If god doesn't need anything, it has no place in this existence, thus, does not exist.

Need is what defines existence.

And directly answering your question, if god doesn't need anything, then obviously god isn't anything... something that isn't anything is what???

NOTHING.


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Sep 3, 2010)

dark messiah verdandi said:


> Yup.
> If there is no need, there is no existence.
> Dark matter needed to change because the friction it caused by dark energy and its particles touching caused it to heat and expand.
> 
> ...



*Why does existence require need?  How do you know existence requires need? *


----------



## Bender (Sep 3, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *People in general are idiots.*



I'd feel more satisfied if our idiocy was a result of something other then religion. Your/Christians/etc. "god" are a more direct evil then anything. We wouldn't have been so driven into perfecting ourselves had it not been for the existence of religion. I mean the whole purpose of the bible/Qu'ran is to take actions that will please god though at the cost of making yourself look like an idiot. It's contradicting especially, considering how imperfect we are as a race. So what it's like once we've done enough that makes god chuckle and go like :ho "You are worthy of my kingdom. Come into my embrace."  



So basically we're supposed to bend over and be good people because of what "he says". And basically if you don't listen then you're going to hell. Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense.


----------



## Fuzzly (Sep 3, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *So basically you're just trying your best to dodge my question. *



The premise that God exists isn't worth entertaining. I'm saying that not all questions are worth entertaining.

Although, if you had been paying attention, I'm pretty sure I have addressed your question.

It sounds to me like your being incredibly lazy in your argument. If you have a premise for me to entertain, you should be able to convince me that it's worth entertaining. What your asking me to do is assume you're right without having to do the work first, which isn't gonna slide.

If a scientist asks me to entertain a theory, they usually provide evidence that at least suggests that their theory could be true and therefor worthy of spending time considering.

What makes your argument worth entertaining more so than anyone else's? When a homeless person tells you they are Santa Clause do you sit on their lap? Do you get into a debate with them about why they are/not Santa?


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Sep 3, 2010)

Bender said:


> I'd feel more satisfied if our idiocy was a result of something other then religion. Your/Christians/etc. "god" are a more direct evil then anything. *We wouldn't have been so driven into perfecting ourselves had it not been for the existence of religion.* I mean the whole purpose of the bible/Qu'ran is to take actions that will please god though at the cost of making yourself look like an idiot. It's contradicting especially, considering how imperfect we are as a race. So what it's like once we've done enough that makes god chuckle and go like :ho "You are worthy of my kingdom. Come into my embrace."
> 
> 
> 
> So basically we're supposed to bend over and be good people because of what "he says". And basically if you don't listen then you're going to hell. Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense.


*
You know this how? Prove it. Also, we'd have created religion regardless. 

The purpose of the holy books is to tell us how we should live our lives, because living in such a way is only beneficial to us. 

So are you proposing 'bad' people going to heaven would make more sense? *


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Sep 3, 2010)

Fuzzly said:


> The premise that God exists isn't worth entertaining. I'm saying that not all questions are worth entertaining.
> 
> Although, if you had been paying attention, I'm pretty sure I have addressed your question.
> 
> ...



*You're still dodging my question. A simple yes or no would have sufficed. None of that other stuff you're posting matters. 
*


----------



## dark messiah verdandi (Sep 3, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *Why does existence require need?  How do you know existence requires need? *



Because everything needs. Needs to be, needs to interact, needs to change. It isn't an emotional need, but a physical one. Anything that doesn't need to be isn't.

In all of the universe there are 4 fundamental forces. These are the original things. strong force, weak force, gravitation, and electromagnetic force.
These are just... existence. through their interaction, they changed into matter, gained mass, and then they changed into what is now.

If you are calling the forces "GOD", then you are severely mistaken. they lack consciousness, thus are not gods. consciousness is a trait that only sentient animals have. this is a fact that cannot be disputed.

If This... god people have has consciousness, then it is an animal. If it is an animal not of this planet, then it is an alien. If it is an alien and has these traits of omnipotence and omniscience, then has simply gained the ability to control force, if it has gained the ability to control force, then there is an explination behind it. If there is an explination it can be duplicated. If it can be duplicated it is not special or unique, just extremely rare. If the qualities that qualify this alien to be "GOD" are only extremely rare, then it can be done again. If it can be done again, this creature is not singularly the creator of existence, because it's power is to wield existence, which is called psychokinesis, thus miracles are not outside of possibility, it is a scientific theory now proven by the existence of this thing, and the idea to call this animal the creator of the universe now becomes invalid because it uses a power to change it's environment, one that cannot be created or destroyed, only reshaped.

thus there is no such thing as a creator god.


----------



## abcd (Sep 3, 2010)

For those of u reading all those pages till now ... have a break 

[sp][/sp]


> Why God Never Received Tenure at the University
> 
> 1. He had only one major publication.
> 2. And it was in Hebrew.
> ...


----------



## Bender (Sep 3, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *
> You know this how? Prove it. Also, we'd have created religion regardless.
> 
> The purpose of the holy books is to tell us how we should live our lives, because living in such a way is only beneficial to us.
> *



No, that's what the law is for. 


Religion is for faith cultist.


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Sep 3, 2010)

dark messiah verdandi said:


> Because everything needs. Needs to be, needs to interact, needs to change. It isn't an emotional need, but a physical one. Anything that doesn't need to be isn't.
> 
> In all of the universe there are 4 fundamental forces. These are the original things. strong force, weak force, gravitation, and electromagnetic force.
> These are just... existence. through their interaction, they changed into matter, gained mass, and then they changed into what is now.
> ...



*You base your belief that everything needs on what exactly? Your observation of the mortal plane of existence? God would be omnipotent, he doesn't need to need if he doesn't want to need.

You can't disprove a creator God no matter how hard you try. 
*


----------



## Bender (Sep 3, 2010)

abcd said:


> For those of u reading all those pages till now ... have a break
> 
> [sp][/sp]



If there was a cosmic force behind this universe Star Wars "The force" sounds a helluva lot more interesting.


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Sep 3, 2010)

Bender said:


> No, that's what the law is for.
> 
> 
> Religion is for faith cultist.



*Except those books are supposed to be law. *


----------



## Bender (Sep 3, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *Except those books are supposed to be law. *



AHAHHAHAHAHA

"The Ten commandments" should be apart of the law of society.


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Sep 3, 2010)

Bender said:


> AHAHHAHAHAHA
> 
> "The Ten commandments" should be apart of the law of society.



*Do you think they are bad laws? *


----------



## dark messiah verdandi (Sep 3, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *You base your belief that everything needs on what exactly? Your observation of the mortal plane of existence? God would be omnipotent, he doesn't need to need if he doesn't want to need. *



God is omnipotent says who?
what god?

do you even understand the concept of omnipotence?

Existence means you have a flaw. It is not a plane, it is everything. everything has a flaw. if you are not apart of everything, then you are nothing. if you are nothing, something cannot come from you. actually I can't even say "you" are nothing, since that would imply a state of being, and to be you have to exist, and to exist means you are apart of everything, and to be apart of anything and everything means that you did not CREATE everything.

you seem to thing that omnipotence means you can create absurdities. Like making the taste of pink into cats. 
No. 

Logic is necessary. and anything outside of it is illogical, and illogical things don't exist in the physical world as it doesn't allow them. illogical things exist only in the minds of man.


----------



## -Dargor- (Sep 3, 2010)

> Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing


Reasoning is fine and all, but it doesn't answer who or what put the law of gravity there in the first place.

Not that I'm a religious person, but god can't be proven or disproven.

Basically all he says comes down to who was there first? The egg or the chicken?



dark messiah verdandi said:


> illogical things don't exist in the physical world as it doesn't allow them. illogical things exist only in the minds of man.


----------



## Bender (Sep 3, 2010)

The laws and passages of the bible do nothing but troll society and dismiss common logic.


----------



## Bender (Sep 3, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *Do you think they are bad laws? *



"You may not worship any god other than I"

"You may not cheat on your spouse"


Disobeying anyone one of those and you go to hell. 


In short: Yes they are very bad laws


I rather abide by the laws made by some "god".


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Sep 3, 2010)

dark messiah verdandi said:


> God is omnipotent says who?
> what god?
> 
> do you even understand the concept of omnipotence?
> ...


*
God as in the Abrahamic God obviously. 

How did you come to the conclusion that existing and having a flaw go hand and hand? 

An omnipotent could indeed make the taste of pink into cats. 

We do not know if logic is necessary. It may seem that way, but we do not know for sure and never will. *



Bender said:


> The laws and passages of the bible do nothing but troll society and dismiss common logic.


*
"You shall not murder"

So, according to you, that law troll society and dismiss common logic? *


----------



## Canute87 (Sep 3, 2010)

Sometimes i wonder if Hawkins is pissed because of his condition.


----------



## Bender (Sep 3, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *
> "You shall not murder"
> 
> So, according to you, that law troll society and dismiss common logic? *



Pfft, any genius in governing a society would know that that's an important law to be made. But tell me is anywhere in the ten commandments is there "you are not allowed to blackmail?" How about "Sexual harassment"? or "Disturbing the peace"? That's right. There are so many holes in gods rule book then there are in cheese.


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Sep 3, 2010)

Bender said:


> Pfft, any genius in governing a society would know that that's an important law to be made. But tell me is anywhere in the ten commandments is there "you are not allowed to blackmail?" How about "Sexual harassment"? or "Disturbing the peace"? That's right. There are so many holes in gods rule book then there are in cheese.



*According to you that law dismissed common logic. You said it, there's no getting around it. 

Also, certain laws not existing (might be mentioned elsewhere in the Bible idk) =/= holes in God's book. Unless a book covered every single detail possible some of these supposed holes are always going to exist.

I'm sorry, but you suck at this. The Bible is definitely not perfect but holy damn you sure are making it look good. 
*


----------



## abcd (Sep 3, 2010)

Bender said:


> If there was a cosmic force behind this universe Star Wars "The force" sounds a helluva lot more interesting.








and to the argument going on here ....

God and Religion are 2 different things, We know religion exists.


----------



## Bender (Sep 3, 2010)

Pimps of pimps said:
			
		

> *According to you that law dismissed common logic. You said it, there's no getting around it.*



Every law (except the basic ones such as murder,stealing) dismiss common logic. Shoot, not to mention every passage in the book have barely any of it.



			
				Pimps of pimps said:
			
		

> *Also, certain laws not existing (might be mentioned elsewhere in the Bible idk) =/= holes in God's book. Unless a book covered every single detail possible some of these supposed holes are always going to exist.*



At least in our society we're learning from our mistakes and perfecting the law each day. With gods law his word is final and there's no getting around crap within the crap book bible.



			
				Pimp of Pimps said:
			
		

> *According to you that law dismissed common logic. You said it, there's no getting around it.
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but you suck at this. The Bible is definitely not perfect but holy damn you sure are making it look good.
> *



Going to hell for all of eternity for disobeying a passage/"Ten commandment" in the bible sounds GOOD!?!??!?!


----------



## -Dargor- (Sep 3, 2010)

Bender said:


> Going to hell for all of eternity for disobeying a passage/"Ten commandment" in the bible sounds GOOD!?!??!?!



Sad thing is some people still believe in that shit


----------



## Kira U. Masaki (Sep 3, 2010)

kazuri said:


> It also cannot be proven aliens in another universe programmed our universe in such a way we could never prove it wasn't real.



nope thats another possiblity, im not saying God exist inherently because science cannot disprove its existence, just that the individuals on here saying Hawking's theory and the like proving the definite lack of existence of God is just not possible

hey its just the flip side of the argument, show me proof or its not real, both are just as valid

if you want to tell somebody i wont believe in an afterlife unless you show me proof, something that is basically impossible as with our technology or even at all, it is impossible to bring someone back to life past a certain point, which after that point it would be the only possible time when proof could be gathered; then the other side is just as entitled to say prove it doesnt exist with a 100 percent certainty, something also essentially impossible


I believe a wise man once said: "Only a Sith deals in Absolutes"


----------



## abcd (Sep 3, 2010)

-Dargor- said:


> Sad thing is some people still believe in that shit



Well its not like they have many options...

Its either die and that is the end

Sin- Die and go to being burnt in oil

well hinduism gives a good option .... Be born again and again till u cleared all ur debts to the world


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Sep 3, 2010)

Bender said:


> Every law *(except the basic ones such as murder,stealing)* dismiss common logic. Shoot, not to mention every passage in the book have barely any of it.



*Ah, but that's not that you said said not was it? *



> At least in our society we're learning from our mistakes and perfecting the law each day. With gods law his word is final and there's no getting around crap within the crap book bible.



*We are? Besides, it's not like people who follow the 10 commandments can't improve their laws. The basic laws (let's not even bring the one's involving God into this right now) can't really be improves upon. "Don't murder" The basic idea is not something we should improve on. We can improve on the punishments to give etc but that itself we really can't. *



> Going to hell for all of eternity for disobeying a passage/"Ten commandment" in the bible sounds GOOD!?!??!?!



*You're certainly making it look good. *


----------



## -Dargor- (Sep 3, 2010)

abcd said:


> Well its not like they have many options...
> 
> Its either die and that is the end
> 
> ...


I'll pick the 3rd one, pass Go and get 200$ 

I find it hard to believe that any self-respecting god would "condemn" people to spending an eternity suffering ect, its just ridiculous. Hell I'd rather believe we're just energy and go back to the planet or something when we die rather than that bullshit.


----------



## dark messiah verdandi (Sep 3, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *
> God as in the Abrahamic God obviously.*


* 
Bullshit. The abrahamic god never said it was omnipotent or omniscient.
Didn't even get close to omnipresent.

It said it was timeless. the beginning and the end. It was a word, a vibration.
And if a vibration is what caused darkness to be light, then the abrahamic god is not a person, animal, and couldn't be a conscious being, since it would just be kinetic energy, which always existed. 
Unless the "word" is an idea, then it needs something to think it because existence cannot create absurdity, only the human mind can by rejecting it in it's sick scenarios.

So the abrahamic god would just be one giant absurd paradox. something existence would end up killing since it doesn't belong in it. you can't have a talking burning bush, because you need lips, teeth, lungs, a body to hold all of this, a brain, and oxygen to talk, and being fire or IN a fire, the oxygen would deplete due to immolation.

fuck your paradoxes and all of theirs too. they don't exist, can't, and existence existing is proof. Natural laws weren't created, they are nature itself. only living things can act OUTSIDE of nature, so the word "natural law" isn't even really a true definition. It would just be nature, since laws can be broken, and natural TRUTHS cannot.






			How did you come to the conclusion that existing and having a flaw go hand and hand?
		
Click to expand...

Because existence IS a flaw. It means that which is can be changed because ALL things that exist can be changed. If God is something without flaw, and everything that exists is flawed, then it cannot exist because existence is a flaw.
God is said to be immutable, so something like that cannot exist since existence means you can be mutated. That is what it is. things that change.





			An omnipotent could indeed make the taste of pink into cats.
		
Click to expand...

No it can't. Omnipotence means you have all powers. that means you can change anything into anything else LOGICALLY. Making Non logic is not a power, but an exercise of our minds to try to create something impossible. It is literally the mind subtracting qualities and conceptualizing the outcome for it's own enjoyment. If something happens there is a scientific explination, Supernatural phenomena are all together stories of absurdity, thus are not true.

you can't beat logic outside of the mind. you just can't. its logic.

you cannot make pink with the flavor of cats, because photons don't have flavors. Give them flavors, and they are no longer photons. they are other particles. Pink doesn't even exist outside of our brains, it is just a way for our eyes to receive light patterns. Not only that, but photons exist in such a small quantity that if they conjealed into something that had enough mass to taste, the energy would destroy the tongue anyway.

You cannot do that, no way you cut it. all you can do is try to subtract logic, but physical things don't exist without logic.




			We do not know if logic is necessary. It may seem that way, but we do not know for sure and never will.
		
Click to expand...

*
Please don't reduce yourself to that idiocy.
It isn't. it is an explanation of things that exist. Humans are not neccesary to the existence of existence, and may cease to exist, and then there would be no more logic. However, existence would still be, and the order it would be in would still be.

Order IS necessary, even if logic is not. Logic is merely the human observation of order. "god" would be outside of natural order, thus couldn't exist since existence is just the opposite, and no absurd arguement can change that.


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Sep 3, 2010)

*Basically, you are trying to prove God doesn't exist using your own beliefs, which are not proven themselves. 

There is no proof existence = flawed

No proof existance = need

Omnipotent can defy logic all they want, they are omnipotent. Laws and whatnot don't apply to them. *


----------



## -Dargor- (Sep 3, 2010)

dark messiah verdandi said:


> Logic is necessary. and anything outside of it is illogical, and illogical things don't exist in the physical world as it doesn't allow them. illogical things exist only in the minds of man.





dark messiah verdandi said:


> Order IS necessary, even if logic is not. Logic is merely the human observation of order. "god" would be outside of natural order, thus couldn't exist since existence is just the opposite, and no absurd arguement can change that.



Logic and Order are two very different things.

Besides, Order isn't really relevant since its something so out of control that we fail to grasp what it truly is.

A meteor randomly smashes the earth and blows it up tomorow. You'd still say something along the lines of "Oh well, everything has to do die sometime, it is the order of things" but that's bullshit, just like when religious zealots tell you "god works in mysterious ways" when they know shit's not right and they don't have the answer.

I don't like pretending to know how the universe works, because we don't know, we just don't.

Order and Logic are just words that we put on concepts we barely understand anyway.


----------



## dark messiah verdandi (Sep 3, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *Basically, you are trying to prove God doesn't exist using your own beliefs, which are not proven themselves.
> 
> There is no proof existence = flawed
> 
> ...



Did you just read what the fuck I typed? 

Mutability is a flaw. It means that you can be changed. You cannot be the best thing if you can be changed by something else. ALL THINGS can be changed. So if god cannot be changed, it is not a thing. It is an absurdity, and absurdities do not exist physically.

They only exist in our minds. this is a natural order.

The point of there always being a need is simple. Subjects cannot exist without a predicate. Existence IS the predicate, and everything within it is the subject. Existence is the IS. it never Was not, because that is an absurdity. time is only percieved by things with brains so, while we search for a beginning, there isn't one.

Non-existence can't exist, so there is no time that didn't exist because energy and matter always existed. that is why you cannot thing of existence as being something god created, but moreso that thing that always was. existence isn't beneath god, it would be above god. since a supernormal being would only be something with the power to manipulate existence.

It would be something that can force.

Omnipotents cannot defy natural order, because power is a natural thing. It isn't outside of natural order, it IS natural order. POWER simply energy at work, so if something was omnipotent, thus having all powers, that would mean it can use energy to make what it needs to change change.

If it is doing such a thing, it is not supernatural, it is supernormal, because anything that exists and is able to make change is doing something within the natural order, and thus is using some sort of special quality that is provable by science.

So either your concept of god doesn't work, or it is misunderstood by you. A deity wouldn't be above science or law, because it couldn't exist. Nothing can break natural order.

Humans can't either. We can only break our own order. and human order is something created and changable. Natural order is change itself.

you cannot equate natural "law" and human laws. because our order is artificial and contengient on social constructs, and brains. natural order doesn't need a brain to work, it is WORK.



-Dargor- said:


> Logic and Order are two very different things.
> 
> Besides, Order isn't really relevant since its something so out of control that we fail to grasp what it truly is.
> 
> ...



You just took scientific order, which we understand quite well, and mixed it in with metaphorical order.

All things DO die. And a meteor smacking into the earth and killing people is just movement form one place to another. It is your human emotion which thinks of it as a tragedy. things move. this is a fundamental truth.
No matter how little or how slow, things move.

We know how existence works VERY well. Its called physics.
there are just things that we deny. that is the trouble.
there can't be a creator since existence wasn't created. It is our idea of time which makes us look for a beginning. things were always here, and they always moved. and that is what they will do. move.

it cannot be stopped. Change is the one constant.
trying to replace change with god is a stupid move because it is the basis for existence. change is the foundation of all things. the beginning of what people are looking for is the prime changing material.

this cannot be called god, since it didn't have a brain. it IS just matter and energy.


----------



## abcd (Sep 3, 2010)

dark messiah verdandi said:


> Did you just read what the fuck I typed?
> 
> Mutability is a flaw. It means that you can be changed. You cannot be the best thing if you can be changed by something else. ALL THINGS can be changed. So if god cannot be changed, it is not a thing. It is an absurdity, and absurdities do not exist physically.
> 
> ...


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Sep 3, 2010)

*

All you're doing is making up your own laws, saying they apply to everything without any proof and using that as "proof" God doesn't exist. 

God cannot be disproven no matter how hard you try. *


----------



## dark messiah verdandi (Sep 3, 2010)

Humans made you. you are a program, so go get typed on


----------



## Sanity Check (Sep 3, 2010)

shiki-fuujin said:


> I do this and leave the rest to him...If something has an infinity of chance 1 out of infinity ..it's still infinity.....hence by make in the number larger you're in theory increasing the chances.....or  the law of large numbers
> 
> @Meshi Life after death stories..I don't believe in the life after death stories because of the human imagination in desiring something to be so. How many stories did they hear before that happen?



It doesn't involve the law of large numbers, its:





kazuri said:


> Yes, we do. *Only fools make assumptions.*



According to you: 

Hawking is a fool for assuming aliens are hostile.
Hawking is a fool for assuming God is no longer needed.

Good job supporting your boy.



kazuri said:


> Yes, it is. You are biased. You consider something valid because it 'helps' you disprove something else. We do not know all the possible types of life, and where life can live, hence we do not know anything about what ranges life can form in. For all we know, given enough time, suns themselves can come together in such a way as to be self replicating, etc etc, since what is considered life is a man made opinion.



1.  Science deals with known data.
2.  Therefore what we don't know or cannot observe falls outside the realm of science.



kazuri said:


> You are a quick read, to do so much research on this in the few minutes since I posted it.



Its a well known fact that photons sometimes appear to exist in 2 separate places, simultaneously.  The experiment is a variant of your reflection in a mirror being evidence of multiple dimensions.  It has more to do with how we interpret appearances and our need for misleading headlines than it does actual evidence.



kazuri said:


> We do not know why the forces in the universe act the way they do. Hence you cannot spout any statistics about something happening in an INFINITE AMOUNT OF TRIES.



If we don't know enough to understand it, then we have no business claiming God did, or didn't do it.  If Hawking doesn't know why the forces in the universe act the way they do, then its personal bias for him to suggest God is un-necessary in order to describe it.



kazuri said:


> There are too many people who have had acid trips to say god is real.



There are too many people who are "scarred for life" by their parents taking them to church to say atheism is real?


----------



## abcd (Sep 3, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> 1.  Science deals with known data.
> 2.  Therefore what we don't know or cannot observe falls outside the realm of science.



Exactly!!

Thats why Fire was one of the first gods ...


----------



## dark messiah verdandi (Sep 3, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *
> 
> All you're doing is making up your own laws, saying they apply to everything without any proof and using that as "proof" God doesn't exist.
> 
> God cannot be disproven no matter how hard you try. *



I am not making up my own laws. I am stating what is logical.
If you don't understand logic, then you don't need to be arguing.
The law of conservation of mass and energy states roughly states "nothing can be created nor destroyed, mearly changed from one state to another"

That is not a theory I came up with, that is a LAW.
Also, you need to learn what absurdities are, and why they cannot be.


*Finally, prove that god cannot be disproven...*
If it is the abrahamic god you speak of, I can disprove it EASILY. And I have.
the law of conservation of mass and energy do not allow it to exist, since it is said to be immutable, and all subjects are mutable, because they are subject. Subject meaning the objected thing of a power.

It can also be dis-proven because words need a speaker, thus a word cannot start things. that is an order.

If you try and say god can do anything I will say, not true. it cannot sin. sin is doing anything bad, and bad things are things that work against order. Making absurdities would be a sin itself, so if god is good, then it cannot do anything bad.

Order is the greatest good, and is defined as good itself. you cannot be outside of natural order and be good, for that is the very definition of bad.

you are using the fallacy that because we have not seen it, we can't say it's fake. However, that uses human trust and brains to work. Would there be a concept for a god without the human mind to think it? no.
human minds make concepts to try and understand patterns. the problem is there is no pattern that says "god" that exists or can.

all of the other patterns deny it existence.

we have encountered gods though... in fiction. the only place they are possible of physically existing. in texts, emails, voices. it is a concept our minds created to explain supernatural things. there couldn't be a creator god in the universe since it's very existence would prove that it doesn't match up with the concept..

The concept is an absurdity, which people can't seem to grasp.
god is something that CAN'T happen. it is something the mind made by subtracting things mentally. weakness is the biggest subtraction, but nothing can exist without weakness.


----------



## abcd (Sep 3, 2010)

dark messiah verdandi said:


> *Finally, prove that god cannot be disproven...*
> If it is the abrahamic god you speak of, I can disprove it EASILY.



It takes infinite amount of time to disprove anything ....
The is why the burden of proof is not with the atheists


----------



## g_core18 (Sep 3, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *
> God cannot be disproven no matter how hard you try. *



Can't be proven either. You lose.


----------



## Taco (Sep 3, 2010)

dark messiah verdandi said:


> I am not making up my own laws. I am stating what is logical.
> If you don't understand logic, then you don't need to be arguing.
> The law of conservation of mass and energy states roughly states "nothing can be created nor destroyed, mearly changed from one state to another"
> 
> ...



Us trying to understand the idea of an infinite creator is just... overwhelming.

Our minds can NOT understand infinity. If you've dealt with any high school math, you'll know how useless it is to try to comprehend something that we just can't.

A God/god(s) that was always there and will always be there is something WAY beyond our limited understanding. What you learned in physics isn't going to help you out any. Trying to disprove its existence.. Well, you can try.


----------



## abcd (Sep 3, 2010)

Forbidden Truth said:


> Us trying to understand the idea of an infinite creator is just... overwhelming.
> 
> Our minds can NOT understand infinity. If you've dealt with any high school math, you'll know how useless it is to try to comprehend something that we just can't.
> 
> A God/god(s) that was always there and will always be there is something WAY beyond our limited understanding. What you learned in physics isn't going to help you out any. Trying to disprove its existence.. Well, you can try.




How did the prophets understand him then??


----------



## Jυstin (Sep 3, 2010)

I've always seen Hawking as a great scientific mind. One of the greatest.

But that's it.


----------



## dark messiah verdandi (Sep 3, 2010)

Forbidden Truth said:


> Us trying to understand the idea of an infinite creator is just... overwhelming.
> 
> Our minds can NOT understand infinity. If you've dealt with any high school math, you'll know how useless it is to try to comprehend something that we just can't.
> 
> A God/god(s) that was always there and will always be there is something WAY beyond our limited understanding. What you learned in physics isn't going to help you out any. Trying to disprove its existence.. Well, you can try.



You cannot create infinity. 
That is another absurdity.

Existence as infinity is fine because it is simply something witnessed. it is always there. The idea of a creator of existence instantly rejects itself, simply because there is no such thing as a thing that makes something out of nothing. Creator is simply something that imposes an image on a subject. it does not manifest the matter of what it imposes an image on, but works with something already there.

something cannot come from nothing. the idea of there even being something being a "god before creation" would just imply it wasn't really outside of it, but it the whole time. so either god is everything, or an idea that humans have made.

It is not a sentient persona, because it would require a brain for that. brains cannot be made from nothing, but must be grown from atoms, which are something.

I will accept an alien who can simply force things stronger and better than most humans, but plato's definition of a god (omniscient,omnipotent,omnibenevolent) is conceptually wrong and flawed.

I don't care what people believe, it is logically unsound. and unsound logic from philosophers cannot be accepted as anything but fiction without denial or insanity.


----------



## abcd (Sep 3, 2010)

dark messiah verdandi said:


> You cannot create infinity.
> That is another absurdity.
> 
> Existence as infinity is fine because it is simply something witnessed. it is always there. The idea of a creator of existence instantly rejects itself, simply because there is no such thing as a thing that makes something out of nothing. Creator is simply something that imposes an image on a subject. it does not manifest the matter of what it imposes an image on, but works with something already there.
> ...



If Hawking cant convince people... U think u can do better using science


----------



## dark messiah verdandi (Sep 3, 2010)

abcd said:


> If Hawking cant convince people... U think u can do better using science



I am not famous, and I am speaking in a semi-direct fashion to an individual, so I have an advantage.


----------



## abcd (Sep 3, 2010)

dark messiah verdandi said:


> I am not famous, and I am speaking in a semi-direct fashion to an individual, so I have an advantage.



Its not as easy as u think ....

There will always be questions in science... Science cannot exist without questions .... 

When we find out more about the big bang and other dimensions , It will lead to more questions...

As long as questions exist, God will exist in peoples minds to answer these questions using faith. When there are no more questions , then it is the end of God and the end of Science


----------



## Taco (Sep 3, 2010)

abcd said:


> How did the prophets understand him then??



God spoke to them? Save that for another topic, this is (afaik) about *A* creator. Not necessarily the Biblical one.



dark messiah verdandi said:


> You cannot create infinity.
> That is another absurdity.
> 
> Existence as infinity is fine because it is simply something witnessed. it is always there. *The idea of a creator of existence instantly rejects itself, simply because there is no such thing as a thing that makes something out of nothing.* Creator is simply something that imposes an image on a subject. it does not manifest the matter of what it imposes an image on, but works with something already there.
> ...



I didn't say infinity was created. Infinity always was and always will be, as I pointed out. 

Too lazy to break apart your post into multiple quotes, sorry. :\

The bold: This is the point that you're missing. It is outside of our understanding how any of the science behind it works. People assume that there is a creator because they find it hard to believe that the world around us and the universe beyond us came out of nowhere. Those people are just as justified to believe that there was an intelligent creator that set the creation of the universe (and its laws) into motion as a scientist is justified to believe that there is no creator behind all of this. 

The truth is that we, in our current state, can NOT come to the *real* truth, unless of course you have faith that what you believe in (whether its the idea of a god [behind the science or not] or science alone) is real. Perhaps our minds are a dumbed-down version of this "creator's" mind, which is why we just can't understand how this "creator" functions, whatever the creator may be.

Again, the idea of something that has ALWAYS been and ALWAYS will be is not something you can conclude with what we know today. 

TLDR: You can not disprove something beyond your understanding. That's just silly.

The underline: You're entitled to your beliefs, and others to theirs. Don't forget that. Logic can only do so much when we have no clue how to apply it to something we can't even grasp.

Yeah, sorry for the messy, all-over-the place post. I tried to keep it as organized as possible, but it's late and my ideas/thoughts are flowing.


----------



## abcd (Sep 3, 2010)

Forbidden Truth said:


> God spoke to them? Save that for another topic, this is (afaik) about *A* creator. Not necessarily the Biblical one.



HEy u said we cant understand him ... this is cheating


----------



## Jυstin (Sep 3, 2010)

Science is not an answer, merely an understanding. It would be an answer if we understood it completely, but we don't possess infinite knowledge, which would be required for such an understanding.

According to our laws, matter can neither be created nor destroyed. That is to the best of our understanding, but we do not have absolute knowledge. One thing I know to be true is that everything is in motion. Changing. Our "absolute" laws have undergone many changes in the past, due to our understanding of those concepts evolving.

If matter can neither be created nor destroyed, I would consider the Big Bang theory as good as nerfed, seeing how it states that all the matter and everything that exists in our universe was created from a singularity expanding. Where that singularity came from, there is no answer.

It simply could have always existed, but believing in such a concept would put the infinite existence of an intelligent being, with the _infinite_ knowledge and technology capable of things our limited minds cannot comprehend, within the realm of possibility.

In short, something would logically have to have always existed on its own, to give our universe and everything within it its jump start, otherwise there would be no solid foundation or beginning, and logically, we would not exist.

Whether one believes that perpetual existence to be a singularity, an intelligent being, or the entire universe itself, is up to them. As for me, I would like to believe that there is an intelligence behind everything. It seems most logical to me, looking at how orderly our universe is, since, according to one our own laws, everything tends towards _disorder_, unless forced towards order, say by a conscious action from a being with both intelligence and awareness.


----------



## abcd (Sep 3, 2010)

Jυstin said:


> Science is not an answer, merely an understanding. It would be an answer if we understood it completely, but we don't possess infinite knowledge, which would be required for such an understanding.
> 
> According to our laws, matter can neither be created nor destroyed. That is to the best of our understanding, but we do not have absolute knowledge. One thing I know to be true is that everything is in motion. Changing. Our "absolute" laws have undergone many changes in the past, due to our understanding of those concepts evolving.
> 
> ...



Well there was no *TIME* before the big bang so


----------



## Taco (Sep 3, 2010)

abcd said:


> HEy u said we cant understand him ... this is cheating



Life's not fair, aint it D:


----------



## abcd (Sep 3, 2010)

Forbidden Truth said:


> Life's not fair, aint it D:



Dodging the problem i see


----------



## Mist Puppet (Sep 3, 2010)

Even if my mom said God is not needed, I wouldn't care.

So I think I'll do what I do best, and not care.


----------



## Spirit (Sep 3, 2010)

Well God says Hawking's not needed.


----------



## abcd (Sep 3, 2010)

Tokyo Jihen said:


> Well God says Hawking's not needed.



But god created him and made him say that 

1) Is god testing faith ?
2) is god talking through him ?
3) IS god imaginary?


----------



## Mist Puppet (Sep 3, 2010)

abcd said:


> But god created him and made him say that
> 
> 1) Is god testing faith ?
> 2) is god talking through him ?
> 3) IS god imaginary?



God is actually Hawkings and wanted to create a paradox to pass the time.


----------



## abcd (Sep 3, 2010)

Mist Puppet said:


> God is actually Hawkings and wanted to create a paradox to pass the time.



but god lives outside of *TIME* acc to most ppl


----------



## Mist Puppet (Sep 3, 2010)

abcd said:


> but god lives outside of *TIME* acc to most ppl



God can do whatever he wants though


----------



## abcd (Sep 3, 2010)

Mist Puppet said:


> God can do whatever he wants though



no he cant ... The minute he comes inside the universe we know , It will break a lot of laws in physics and he will be found out .... He cant hide anymore


----------



## Spirit (Sep 3, 2010)

abcd said:


> no he cant ... The minute he comes inside the universe we know , It will break a lot of laws in physics and he will be found out .... He cant hide anymore



No no no no ur been irrational hear. Onmipotence exactly mean he can be found adn hidden at the saem tiem. Omnipotent = always can.


----------



## Kαrin (Sep 3, 2010)

Well that's HIS opinion, I don't care.


----------



## abcd (Sep 3, 2010)

Tokyo Jihen said:


> No no no no ur been irrational hear. Onmipotence exactly mean he can be found adn hidden at the saem tiem. Omnipotent = always can.


----------



## Robot-Overlord (Sep 3, 2010)

He should say his wheelchair is not needed, bitch we know you faking Hawking.


----------



## Botzu (Sep 3, 2010)

Kira U. Masaki said:


> nope thats another possiblity, im not saying God exist inherently because science cannot disprove its existence, just that the individuals on here saying Hawking's theory and the like proving the definite lack of existence of God is just not possible
> 
> hey its just the flip side of the argument, show me proof or its not real, both are just as valid
> 
> ...


I just wanted to add that the way proof(as 100% certainty) is being used is not the point. Belief is not a mater of proof. When assessing whether to believe or not believe something, one only needs to look at the evidence. If there is sufficient evidence to hold the position it is rational to believe. If there is not sufficient evidence to hold the position then it is not rational to believe. We don't live our lives based on this 100% certainty.


----------



## Grrblt (Sep 3, 2010)

Jυstin said:


> According to our laws, matter can neither be created nor destroyed.


Wrong. See for example


----------



## abcd (Sep 3, 2010)

Grrblt said:


> Wrong. See for example





> In physics, the word is used to denote the process that occurs when a subatomic particle collides with its respective antiparticle.[2]  Since energy and momentum must be conserved, the particles are not actually made into nothing, but rather into new particles. Antiparticles have exactly opposite additive quantum numbers  from particles, so the sums of all quantum numbers of the original pair are zero. *Hence, any set of particles may be produced whose total quantum numbers are also zero as long as conservation of energy and conservation of momentum are obeyed.*



....                    .


----------



## ~rocka (Sep 3, 2010)

Imo its funny how theists put aside Hawkings statements just because they dont grasp the quantum mechanics field. 

Hawkings statements are really simplified in the OP, so that people would understand it a little better. The funny thing is, if you simplify things people will want to argue with it. Tho what they dont understand is, that you cant argue with it unless you know the full extent to which Hawkings is talking ie. the whole world of quantum mechanics. 

So many strange things happen in the quantum mechanics, we are only just beginning to understand it. 

First read the book, if you still dont agree, then you can make your rant on how you disagree with his statements. To disagree now is just silly.


----------



## Jυstin (Sep 3, 2010)

abcd said:


> Well there was no *TIME* before the big bang so



That concept would make infinity much easier to understand. The concept of time only exists in our dimension, or at least we know there are dimensions where it doesn't. A being residing in that dimension would have always existed, since without time, there is no beginning or end.





Grrblt said:


> Wrong. See for example



That's not destruction of matter. That's destruction of an object. They're not the same thing.

"Since energy and momentum must be conserved, *the particles are not actually made into nothing*, but rather into new particles."

Did you read your own link?


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Sep 3, 2010)

Jυstin said:


> "Since energy and momentum must be conserved, *the particles are not actually made into nothing*, but rather into new particles."



These new particles are typically photons, which aren't made up of matter.


----------



## Jυstin (Sep 3, 2010)

Well it says during _low energy_ annihilation, photon production is _favored_. Though it has no mass, some would argue that photons are a form of matter. Partly because the speed in which they travel can be affected some by physical obstacles, like water for instance.

My original thought was that matter could be destroyed. I had heard that the original law was changed once new discoveries were made. I'm actually hoping that's the case :/


----------



## UX7 (Sep 3, 2010)

And why is this news?  Is not like he is providing proof for it, he is just stating his *opinion *based on past experiences and whatnot. The problem comes when people take his word to be a "fact" or "truth" 

People who do this are no better than those religious nutjobs that take the word of the bible or their religion as "fact" or "truth".

At the end of the day nobody really knows until they die. And we know that nobody has ever come back from that 

Conclusion: Think for yourself


----------



## Mael (Sep 3, 2010)

Hawkins clearly means that humans have spiral power and thus don't need a god.  Row, row, fight da powah.


----------



## Bender (Sep 3, 2010)

Mael said:


> Hawkins clearly means that humans have spiral power and thus don't need a god.  Row, row, fight da powah.



MANKIND'S POWER IS THE POWER THAT WILL PIERCE THE HEAVEN'S!!!


----------



## abcd (Sep 3, 2010)

Bender said:


> MANKIND'S POWER IS THE POWER THAT WILL PIERCE THE HEAVEN'S!!!



Russia has started it already


----------



## sadated_peon (Sep 3, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:
			
		

> Its not insanity, you're missing the context.
> 
> Hawking had no issue using the God metaphor in the past. What changed from then till now has more to do with politics and personal beliefs than anything else.
> 
> ...


He had no problem using a god metaphor before to describe quantum mechanics. THIS HAS NO CHANGED. 

When giving a literal statement about the origin of the universe he doesn?t use a god metaphor because he is speaking in a literal sense about what actually happened. 

You are insane, absolutely mental; these are two completely different topics, and two completely different contexts. 

The fact that in the past he used god as a metaphor in response to an Einstein quote, and now talking about a different subject in different context of literal science he say there is no place for god in the equations is not in any way a change based on politics or personal belief. 

This is simple projection on your part, it is sad and pathetic. 


			
				Sen Katimi said:
			
		

> When you were little, you knew the sky was blue, right? Even if you didn't know why, you knew it was blue. When you were little, you didn't care why the sky was blue, it just was. Faith works the same way. Believing is seeing wtih faith. You have to believe before you can see. This world has become full of Doubting Thomases. You have to see it to know it exists. Why not just have the faith of a child? Sheesh.


The sky isn?t always blue. 
You faith has let you down again. 



			
				Sen Katimi said:
			
		

> The world is complex though. You realize scientists have been trying for hundreds of years to explain the world, and they haven't figured out everything yet? We're not meant to understand everything, otherwise, we'd be stinking geniuses when we're born. And, guess what? We're not.


I guess we should do away with airplane, submarines, rockets, space stations, etc
Because if man was meant to fly, stay under water, go into space, live in space, etc we would have been born that way. 

Your drive to remain ignorant is a testament to your how awful your religion is.


----------



## Grrblt (Sep 3, 2010)

Jυstin said:


> That's not destruction of matter. That's destruction of an object. They're not the same thing.
> 
> "Since energy and momentum must be conserved, *the particles are not actually made into nothing*, but rather into new particles."
> 
> Did you read your own link?



Didn't have to read my own link. I made the same misinformed claim you did in a university level physics paper I wrote a few months back, and was corrected by the doctoral student who graded it. Since then I know that it's energy that can't be created or destroyed, and matter is just one type of energy which can be converted into another


----------



## kazuri (Sep 3, 2010)

> but god lives outside of TIME acc to most ppl



That is impossible. He existed before he created humans, he existed during,there is now a way to tell 'time' where he exists. Before humans, and during humans.

You can't think, or do, without time. We can't prove god 'thinks' but we 'can' prove he does, hence him doing stuff.


----------



## Havoc (Sep 3, 2010)

Bender said:


> Good transportation
> 
> Good exercise
> 
> ...


And?

Free will, duh.

You can't even ride a bike, I doubt you can understand what a contradiction even is.

How is it dumb if you said the show was going to be canceled?  

Typical non bike rider response.


----------



## kazuri (Sep 3, 2010)

> Good job supporting your boy.



Stop assuming I give a shit about hawking.



> 1. Science deals with known data.
> 2. Therefore what we don't know or cannot observe falls outside the realm of science.



Hence why we don't make stupid assumptions. And it doesn't 'fall outside the realm of science'. What we don't know or cant observe is the object of science, ie figuring it out, learning how to observe.



> The experiment is a variant of your reflection in a mirror being evidence of multiple dimensions.



You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.



> If we don't know enough to understand it, then we have no business claiming God did, or didn't do it. If Hawking doesn't know why the forces in the universe act the way they do, then its personal bias for him to suggest God is un-necessary in order to describe it.



No, hawking is saying because those laws exist the way they do, god is unnecessary for the matter that is affected by those laws to create life. I mean really, 13 pages in and you don't understand the point hawking was making?



> There are too many people who are "scarred for life" by their parents taking them to church to say atheism is real?



Scientists know drugs are created in the brain. They know they are released in terrifying experiences, including nearly dying. Unless of course you think heaven is real, but its just a drug trip god holds in such high esteem.


----------



## Jυstin (Sep 3, 2010)

Grrblt said:


> Didn't have to read my own link. I made the same misinformed claim you did in a university level physics paper I wrote a few months back, and was corrected by the doctoral student who graded it. Since then I know that it's energy that can't be created or destroyed, and matter is just one type of energy which can be converted into another



Well if energy can be neither created nor destroyed, and matter is just another form of energy, wouldn't that mean it can't be created nor destroyed either? 

Nevertheless, I'd be glad to hear that it _can_. I just couldn't find where it was absolutely stated :I


----------



## Bender (Sep 3, 2010)

> You can't even ride a bike, I doubt you can understand what a contradiction even is.



I can ride your mom.



> How is it dumb if you said the show was going to be canceled?



When they see how shitty the show is without him.

Kinda similar to how Nickelodeon's "All That" was without the original cast.



> Free will, duh.



And you criticize me for contradiction. 

Why'd god give people free will if there are overbearing assholes such as me and then other people who question him? That's just asking to be called a "douche". Dude is no better than a dictator. People can do whatever they want and live without the need of a benevolent deity like "god" to govern us. 

Oh and 

"do not judge others"

yet look at what god is doing. 


Tell me if god is so kinda and all-knowing how come he doesn't answer the door when you call?


Saying as long as you obey god you'll enter Heaven is about as likely as you receiving "coal" on Christmas from Santa if you misbehave. 


Psychopathic manchild logic it's super lulz.


----------



## Ceria (Sep 3, 2010)

Miss Fortune said:


> Hawing says God's not needed. Common Knowledge?



more like common incompetence.


----------



## Sanity Check (Sep 3, 2010)

kazuri said:


> Hence why we don't make stupid assumptions. And it doesn't 'fall outside the realm of science'. What we don't know or cant observe is the object of science, ie figuring it out, learning how to observe.



Noope, my niggrah.

Science doesn't deal with assumptions, or truth.  It deals with FACT.  

What we don't know or can't observe falls into the realms of philosophy, theology, et all.  Its not that science doesn't make stupid assumptions, it does on a daily basis.  The difference is science is based on a process which allows those stupid assumptions to be weeded out easier with higher accuracy.  Despite popular propaganda and marketing, science is far from perfect.

The stereotypical issue many have with religious people is some blindly believe everything they read in a book(the Bible) and everything a priest tells them.  

Is there a difference between an atheist who blindly believes everything science tells them.  Who blindly believes everything a scientist like Hawking says.  And, a religious person who blindly believes everything a priest or the Pope, says?

In my eyes, there's no difference.  Atheists and religious folks and anyone and everyone who blindly goes along with everything science, a politician or a religion tells them is exactly the same.

They're all people who have given up thinking for themselves and found something else to do all their thinking for them.  

The meaning of being a skeptic is to question the things people say.  It doesn't matter if you're the Pope or a scientist like Hawking.  If you say something people should question it.  No one should be considered above criticism.

I'm not pro religion or pro science, or anything similar.  I'm pro skeptic and pro thinking for yourself & not blindly believing everything people say, just because they said it.  



kazuri said:


> You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.



So many people have said this to me.  I've never heard this, before.



kazuri said:


> No, hawking is saying because those laws exist the way they do, god is unnecessary for the matter that is affected by those laws to create life. I mean really, 13 pages in and you don't understand the point hawking was making?



Hawking is stating his personal opinion.  Unfortunately, many will interpret it as an unassailable scientific fact.  Maybe because they consider science to be above criticism, and blindly go along with things scientists like Hawking say?



kazuri said:


> Scientists know drugs are created in the brain. They know they are released in terrifying experiences, including nearly dying. Unless of course you think heaven is real, but its just a drug trip god holds in such high esteem.



Near death experiences are rare.  That's not an acceptable explanation by any means.  Its a petty stereotype.

Its no different from religious folks negatively stereotype atheists as "lacking moral values".


----------



## John Carter of Mars (Sep 3, 2010)

totally converted to debate thread.


----------



## UX7 (Sep 3, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Noope, my niggrah.
> 
> Science doesn't deal with assumptions, or truth.  It deals with FACT.
> 
> ...



I approve this post  Hit it right where it hurts  NOW we are getting somewhere

+reps  

edit 1 : (oh come on! i can't rep you yet!  I must spread rep before giving you


----------



## Seisokumaru (Sep 3, 2010)

Scientists are in an unfortunate public position when they get famous enough for the proles to start paying attention to what they say.  Hawking, being something of an authority, can't really speak his opinions or his feelings without it being taken as scientific fact (or theory).

He's not saying, "Hey look at my scientific disproving of God", he's saying, "Based on my life experience, I don't think God is necessary."  But because he's a scientific authority that opinion is given the weight of fact.

Look, I agree with him, but a truly religious person is not going to change their mind because of anything quantum physics or string theory has to say on the subject.


----------



## Banhammer (Sep 3, 2010)

There's no such thing as free will, only the universe shifting into it's most entropically profitable state.


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Sep 3, 2010)

dark messiah verdandi said:


> I am not making up my own laws. I am stating what is logical.
> If you don't understand logic, then you don't need to be arguing.
> The law of conservation of mass and energy states roughly states "nothing can be created nor destroyed, mearly changed from one state to another"
> 
> ...



*

Look, an omnipotent being would be able to do ANYTHING. Get that through your skull. 
* 


g_core18 said:


> Can't be proven either. You lose.



*I don't lose cause I never said He could be proven. *


----------



## sadated_peon (Sep 3, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> Look, an omnipotent being would be able to do ANYTHING. Get that through your skull.


Are you saying that your god can do the impossible?


----------



## John Carter of Mars (Sep 3, 2010)

Isn't that hwy he is addressed as God^


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Sep 3, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> Are you saying that your god can do the impossible?



*Didn't I just say that? *


----------



## kazuri (Sep 3, 2010)

^No. If god makes the rules, was it really impossible to begin with? If anything he isn't doing the impossible, he's limiting us from what is possible. The bastard.


----------



## Sen Katimi (Sep 3, 2010)

Yet again, what is possible for God, we can't comprehend. Like my analogy of Humpty Dumpty in Japanese. Somethings you just have to have the faith to believe. Which you obviously don't.


----------



## kazuri (Sep 3, 2010)

There is nothing to have faith in. There are many religions that offer the same thing. Many gods who offer the same thing. You are picking a specific one just because of the current trends, and more than likely geological and family influence.

If 2 religions offer exactly the same thing, both say god is 'all love', how do you pick which one to have faith in?

You don't have faith, you have extreme want for the 'rewards' a religion claims to offer. You want it so bad, you cannot accept it as untrue. 

Faith is just wanting so badly you wont accept it any other way.


----------



## Rabbit and Rose (Sep 3, 2010)

lalalalalalala yeah hawking.
he doesn't want a rage war between the athiests and the religionists.


----------



## Esponer (Sep 3, 2010)

Jυstin said:


> Well if energy can be neither created nor destroyed, and matter is just another form of energy, wouldn't that mean it can't be created nor destroyed either?


No sir.

Let me go back to your mention of the difference between matter and an object. An object is made of matter. Let's pick an apple. This is a _form_ of matter. You can physically destroy an apple. You'll still have the same mass, the same matter. (Destroying it with an ordinary physical tool will also mean you still have the same elemental composition.) That a hammer, say, cannot destroy mass does not mean that it cannot destroy an apple.

Mass is _a_ form of energy (I'm worried about the language 'another form', and not sure what the implied 'first' form is), and processes can reduce or increase how much mass there is.


----------



## Xyloxi (Sep 3, 2010)

Sen Katimi said:


> Yet again, what is possible for God, we can't comprehend. Like my analogy of Humpty Dumpty in Japanese. Somethings you just have to have the faith to believe. Which you obviously don't.



I see your point, but it is you who lacks faith, for I do not see your life devoted to the God Emperor of Mankind.


----------



## The Weeknd (Sep 3, 2010)

God forsaken us a long time ago. He doesn't care about us. He's letting us destroy ourselves for his own entertainment. Once we are gone he'll know that he loved us.


----------



## Esponer (Sep 3, 2010)

TwinedBlade said:


> God forsaken us a long time ago[citation needed]. He doesn't care about us[citation needed]. He's letting us destroy ourselves for his own entertainment[citation needed]. Once we are gone he'll know that he loved us[citation needed].


Fixed for you.


----------



## Xyloxi (Sep 3, 2010)

Esponer said:


> Fixed for you.



You just need to have faith.


----------



## The Weeknd (Sep 3, 2010)

Esponer said:


> Fixed for you.



Ummmm Look around dude. Pollution, Oil Leaks, Wars, Stupidity.


----------



## sadated_peon (Sep 3, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *Didn't I just say that? *


So,
He can be both god, man, and spirit in a trinity. 
he can lie and tell the truth at the same time, 
He can add 1 to 1 and get 3. 
He does and does not exist. 

Final question, 
Can he create a rock so heavy that even he can not lift it?


----------



## Xyloxi (Sep 3, 2010)

TwinedBlade said:


> Ummmm Look around dude. Pollution, Oil Leaks, Wars, Stupidity.



Do explain why God causes oil leaks, wars and stupidity please.


----------



## FmDante (Sep 3, 2010)

What god are you talking about? Fake religion god? Fake Mythological god(s)? Or about the one that created this universe in the plain of existence?


----------



## Esponer (Sep 3, 2010)

TwinedBlade said:


> Ummmm Look around dude. Pollution, Oil Leaks, Wars, Stupidity[original research].


None of those prove the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, sentient creator of reality that specifically does not care about us but is instead watching us with Schadenfreude.


----------



## UX7 (Sep 3, 2010)

kazuri said:


> There is nothing to have faith in. There are many religions that offer the same thing. Many gods who offer the same thing. You are picking a specific one just because of the current trends, and more than likely geological and family influence.
> 
> If 2 religions offer exactly the same thing, both say god is 'all love', how do you pick which one to have faith in?
> 
> ...



You are just seeing one side of the coin. There is the religion(god) and a higher power (hate saying "god" because people think immediately of religion). 

Do you really believe that there is no higher power? Are you really THAT arrogant to think that there is nothing higher than us. For all we know, some alien in a high school classroom created our known universe. 

Time for an example 

An ant might consider a dog a higher power, a dog might consider a human a higher power, a human might consider an alien a higher power, that alien might consider a super alien a higher power...you see my point? The preceding species or animals or being is far less powerful than the next one. 

There is different levels to what we call "reality"


----------



## Punpun (Sep 3, 2010)

UX7 said:


> Do you really believe that there is no higher power? Are you really THAT arrogant to think that there is nothing higher than us. For all we know, some alien in a high school classroom created our known universe.



And naturally we have to give a cult to this alien ? 



> Time for an example



Probably a stupid one ...



> An ant might consider a dog a higher power, a dog might consider a human a higher power, a human might consider an alien a higher power, that alien might consider a super alien a higher power...you see my point? The preceding species or animals or being is far less powerful than the next one.



... What did I said. 

Ants and dog aren't sapient beings. Your point ?


----------



## Havoc (Sep 3, 2010)

Bender said:


> I can ride your mom.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You write too much.


----------



## Esponer (Sep 3, 2010)

UX7 said:


> Do you really believe that there is no higher power? Are you really THAT arrogant to think that there is nothing higher than us.


That wouldn't be arrogance. Arrogance is an exaggerated sense of one's abilities. Thinking that humanity is the 'highest power' could only be arrogance if there was an equal or better known power we were comparing humanity to.

Without one, thinking humanity is the 'highest power' isn't arrogance, because you do not need to exaggerate the abilities of humanity to be at the top of the list of known 'powers' (punctuation here as I'm not really sure what 'a higher power' _means_).

It might be ignorance, lack of imagination or an unrealistic assumption of the probabilities, but it's not arrogance.


----------



## UX7 (Sep 3, 2010)

Mandom said:


> And naturally we have to give a cult to this alien ?



Cult? Worship? That is for the weak minded!  Or are you asking that question because you are in fear? 




> Probably a stupid one ...



Quick for conclusion I see  




> ... What did I said.
> 
> Ants and dog aren't sapient beings. Your point ?



 you purposely didn't quote my last sentence  The answer was there  So are you telling me you chose to ignore it? 




Esponer said:


> That wouldn't be arrogance. Arrogance is an exaggerated sense of one's abilities. Thinking that humanity is the 'highest power' could only be arrogance if there was an equal or better known power we were comparing humanity to.
> 
> Without one, thinking humanity is the 'highest power' isn't arrogance, because you do not need to exaggerate the abilities of humanity to be at the top of the list of known 'powers' (punctuation here as I'm not really sure what 'a higher power' _means_).
> 
> It might be ignorance, lack of imagination or an unrealistic assumption of the probabilities, but it's not arrogance.



Maybe you are right who knows. The universe is so huge that is impossible to think that a more advance race of beings does not exist. Let me rephrase that.

I believe people are arrogant when they think there is nothing higher than themselves other than the religious (god)


----------



## Punpun (Sep 3, 2010)

UX7 said:


> Quick for conclusion I see
> 
> you purposely didn't quote my last sentence  The answer was there  So are you telling me you chose to ignore it?



Damn straight I did. 

Well, I'd misunderstood ya, you aren't a stupid believer. :33


----------



## UX7 (Sep 3, 2010)

Mandom said:


> Damn straight I did.
> 
> Well, I'd misunderstood ya, you aren't a stupid believer. :33



:33


----------



## Sen Katimi (Sep 3, 2010)

Xyloxi said:


> I see your point, but it is you who lacks faith, for I do not see your life devoted to the God Emperor of Mankind.



So, you see my point, but you think that is the only higher power? Or am I misunderstanding you?


----------



## Mintaka (Sep 3, 2010)

> When you were little, you knew the sky was blue, right? Even if you  didn't know why, you knew it was blue. When you were little, you didn't  care why the sky was blue, it just was. Faith works the same way.  Believing is seeing wtih faith. You have to believe before you can see.  This world has become full of Doubting Thomases. You have to see it to  know it exists. Why not just have the faith of a child? Sheesh.


You are a moron.  Yeah we could see the sky, we can't see this invisible sky loser you claim exists.


----------



## Sen Katimi (Sep 3, 2010)

Tokoyami said:


> You are a moron.  Yeah we could see the sky, we can't see this invisible sky loser you claim exists.



It takes one to know one. Believing is seeing; seeing is not believing.


----------



## Mintaka (Sep 3, 2010)

Believing is useless.

You can believe something all you want, it doesn't make it real.


----------



## RAGING BONER (Sep 3, 2010)

Tokoyami said:


> Believing is useless.
> 
> You can believe something all you want, it doesn't make it real.



Knowing something is impossible...everything you "know" is nothing more than a belief.


----------



## Bender (Sep 3, 2010)

Sen Katimi said:


> It takes one to know one. Believing is seeing; seeing is not believing.



Nice comeback






















NOT
















Thanks for destroying my faith in humanity with your incalculable stupidity. 

It makes the world a better place.



_twit_


----------



## Kira U. Masaki (Sep 3, 2010)

Botzu said:


> I just wanted to add that the way proof(as 100% certainty) is being used is not the point. Belief is not a mater of proof. When assessing whether to believe or not believe something, one only needs to look at the evidence. If there is sufficient evidence to hold the position it is rational to believe. If there is not sufficient evidence to hold the position then it is not rational to believe. We don't live our lives based on this 100% certainty.



I dont know several people on here are trying their hardest to say exactly that, the existence of  God is impossible, roughly translated as 100 percent certainty. 

I will agree with you on the point you can believe something and that does not require 100 percent certainty; the problem becomes when you say *I know*. A rationale scientist can say based on all the work out there, I do not believe in a God. But he cannot say I know that God doesnt exist.


----------



## Perseverance (Sep 3, 2010)

Should be interesting to see some people's reactions in hell (if there is one). .


----------



## Dolohov27 (Sep 3, 2010)

See's thread title, thinks to him self interesting, reads a few post, head implodes.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 4, 2010)

Perseverance said:


> Should be interesting to see some people's reactions in hell (if there is one). .



Should be interesting to see some people's reactions when they rot in the ground instead of ascending to their infantile Land of Cockaigne. 

Oh wait.


----------



## Taco (Sep 4, 2010)

Tokoyami said:


> You are a moron.  Yeah we could see the sky, we can't see this invisible sky loser you claim exists.



Where'd you get the assumption that a creator would take on a physical form? So much for exploring the possibilities  Or do you only twist things into how you want to see them so you can try to get a point across?



Bender said:


> Nice comeback
> 
> NOT
> 
> ...



Grow the fuck up, and preview post before you submit. Because the irony is just  

I'm seriously amused at how poorly people behave and react to one another. 

Shit like this leads to absolutely NOWHERE. Except higher post count and higher post count = bigger epeen. People come in close-minded, and they leave that way. There is no point in discussing something people refuse to think about and consider, because in their minds, they are right, and whoever goes against what they're saying is an idiot.


----------



## -Dargor- (Sep 4, 2010)

TwinedBlade said:


> Ummmm Look around dude. Pollution, Oil Leaks, Wars, Stupidity.



We were doing that looooooong before god ever came to anyone's mind.

Cavemen.

Its just that now instead of big wooden clubs we got nukes.

Unless you believe in adam & eve and all that crap.



Tokoyami said:


> Believing is useless.
> 
> You can believe something all you want, it doesn't make it real.





RAGING BONER said:


> Knowing something is impossible...everything you "know" is nothing more than a belief.


Santa??!


----------



## Bender (Sep 4, 2010)

Forbidden Truth said:
			
		

> Shit like this leads to absolutely NOWHERE. Except higher post count and higher post count = bigger epeen. People come in close-minded, and they leave that way. There is no point in discussing something people refuse to think about and consider, because in their minds, they are right, and whoever goes against what they're saying is an idiot.





I don't know why I'm even dignifying this post with a response I mean it is just so much fail I think I might   to death.


----------



## -Dargor- (Sep 4, 2010)

Funniest part was when he said 


> Or do you only twist things into how you want to see them so you can try to get a point across?


Thats what every religion's been doing since well, forever.

And then he went on to talk about irony


----------



## Tkae (Sep 4, 2010)

*accidentally trips over his life support*

Oops 





Who needs God now?


----------



## iFructis (Sep 4, 2010)

He is trying to sell books, next time he might come put with an even worse stuff


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Sep 4, 2010)

cuz only a genius like Hawking can come up with this conclusion.


----------



## Taco (Sep 4, 2010)

Bender said:


> I don't know why I'm even dignifying this post with a response I mean it is just so much fail I think I might   to death.



Why not if you're not contributing anything to the discussion?



-Dargor- said:


> Funniest part was when he said
> 
> Thats what every religion's been doing since well, forever.
> 
> And then he went on to talk about irony



No, I'm not here representing a religion.

And no, that's what *HUMANS* have been doing for ever. And still continue to do it. Even the nonreligious, as I quoted. Or did you perhaps.. not see that? 
The fact that you think that the religious are the only flawed people is ironic itself, because you're pretty damn ignorant if that's the case.

Does spamming   make me automatically win? Or is that only for the cooler kids?


----------



## Longcat is Long (Sep 4, 2010)

I don't really see why this matters.

People (particularly scientists) who really want to understand how the universe began  without turning to some sort of copout explanation that doesn't involve explaining the mechanisms behind how it happened usually don't point to a divine being as an explanation.

They are wrong of course, as the Invisible Pink Unicorn personally told me that She did it last Thursday, and planted memories and evidence of every event beforehand just to screw with people, particularly scientists.

You just have to believe hard enough, She'll come to you too, and reveal all sorts of interesting facts about how the universe, the world, and even humanity came into being, you just have to have faith.


----------



## Taco (Sep 4, 2010)

Longcat is Long said:


> You just have to believe hard enough, She'll come to you too, and reveal all sorts of interesting facts about how the universe, the world, and even humanity came into being, you just have to have faith.



Only if there's a pink unicorn heaven for me to go to after I die. Filled with pink (and only pink) unicorns, of course.


----------



## Eru Lawliet (Sep 4, 2010)

Interesting article, but nothing really new. 

I think one of humanities "purposes" (if you want to call it that) is to advance. And I think growing out of religion is part of the process/our progression.

We can see it already, the more that can be explained by science, the less people believe in some higher being, that did all the wonders. This is also why the percentage of deeply religious people is far lower with scientists and generally with educated people than with not so well educated people (I'm not refering to intelligence here).
For example, the only believing people I met at university (and these were only very few) are people, where religion played a big part in their bringing up. At least that's how I'd explain it. I guess it's harder to let go in that case.

I think the time will come, when there's really no place for religion anymore, when humanity has grown out of it. But I guess we won't live to see it. I think that's for future generations.


----------



## Sen Katimi (Sep 4, 2010)

Kira U. Masaki said:


> I dont know several people on here are trying their hardest to say exactly that, the existence of  God is impossible, roughly translated as 100 percent certainty.
> 
> I will agree with you on the point you can believe something and that does not require 100 percent certainty; the problem becomes when you say *I know*. A rationale scientist can say based on all the work out there, I do not believe in a God. But he cannot say I know that God doesnt exist.



I agree with you. Even science cannot completely disprove everything.



Forbidden Truth said:


> Where'd you get the assumption that a creator would take on a physical form? So much for exploring the possibilities  Or do you only twist things into how you want to see them so you can try to get a point across?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I try to be open-minded, but I still believe what I believe.



Eru Lawliet said:


> Interesting article, but nothing really new.
> 
> I think one of humanities "purposes" (if you want to call it that) is to advance. And I think growing out of religion is part of the process/our progression.
> 
> ...



Oddly, I actually agree with you. History's shown this for every generation. Every time there was a great scientific birth, religion's necessity to a nosedive, and vice versa.


----------



## Praecipula (Sep 4, 2010)

There is no God. You make you own beliefs.


----------



## dark messiah verdandi (Sep 4, 2010)

I find it hillarious that people think that science would be incompatible with a deity, IF one existed.

It wouldn't be outside of the realm of study being a real thing, so even though it is at a higher plateau than humans, it doesn't mean we couldn't learn about it or from it.

Scientists are against the thought of a theist god because they generally break the laws of physics like nothing. If such a being existed it would'nt simply break the laws, but would just be so advanced that it would work IN them.

If there were a god, it would work based on HIGHLY advanced biological and or technological systems. If something similar to a god presented itself, it would simply be the apex of biological and technological being.

God wouldn't be outside of science, science would be its tool.

But as I said earlier, it would cease to be a supernatural creature, and become a _*supernormal*_ one.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Sep 4, 2010)

Stephen also thinks little green aliens will come down from mars and kill us all  

Hey i'm all for freedom of religion, be an atheist if you want, even as a Catholic, i understand the lack of logical reasoning behind my own faith and most others  

But we have enough intolerant people of other people's faiths as it is, we don't need Stephen coming into the equation acting like his opinion holds more weight than anyone else's simply because he's a smart guy 

You could take any crazed rightwing Evangelist and put them on the opposite side, and it would be the same terrible situation as this


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Sep 4, 2010)

dark messiah verdandi said:


> I find it hillarious that people think that science would be incompatible with a deity, IF one existed.
> 
> It wouldn't be outside of the realm of study being a real thing, so even though it is at a higher plateau than humans, it doesn't mean we couldn't learn about it or from it.
> 
> ...



*I find it hilarious how incredibly simple minded and incapable of learning you are constantly proving yourself to be. 

One, scientists themselves are not against the idea of God. Some are, some are not. And those who are against the idea of God are not against the idea because he would break the laws of physics, that's absurd. God would have created existence and all of it's laws. God wouldn't work according to out laws unless He wanted to. Again, God would be able to do any and everything. And lol @ you claiming you know how a God would work id he existed. If there is a God, he wouldn't be something we could comprehend unless he chose to let us comprehend. 

Also, stop assuming the laws of physics and whatnot are written in stone. We know a lot less than you think. *


----------



## Inuhanyou (Sep 4, 2010)

Wouldn't this deity be an "It" and not a "He"? 

"He" is from the christian theology, what your referring to is neutral 

Although what classifies as a deity to me is very confusing. Would the big bang constitute as a God? The Air, because it gives us life? Would the earth itself constitute as a God? In Blue Gender, that's how it was, interesting series


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Sep 5, 2010)

"Science" was never designed to answer all questions; it was only designed to answer physical ones. That's why people avoid consciousness. It's a totally nonphysical but real aspect of life. That's why we leave the realm of certainty the further down we go. The universe becomes less perceivable up until the point where senses are subverted entirely, and gathering data is physically impossible. 

It's clear that much of the world is not measurable. And because anything that leaves the realm of measurement into the world of assumption and speculation is philosophy, one can only philosophize about the universe in its entirety. Pretending that the universe is only what is observable ISN'T based on anything empirical; and is actually proven untrue every day when you wake up and experience the crust in your eyes.  

Unless you aren't a part of the universe--a bogus claim-- you cannot deny that the most intimate component of the world we live in is also a non-physical one.  Since I cannot, without a doubt, confirm one's consciousness with my own senses--of a creature most similar to me-- how can I be sure I'm examining the universe in its entirety? Only a fool would. "Belief" is for us. It flavors our biases and builds our interpretations every day.  No one is immune to it. That's why people go around trading paper for food; our "world" can easily be based on a fundamentally ludicrous perception; and is hard pressed not to. Best accept it; live and let live.


----------



## Dionysus (Sep 5, 2010)

That's a bold claim that consciousness doesn't come from the physical world, but some realm of infinite ignorance. Rather silly to _assume_ thought and feeling are not based upon the physical processes that occur in the body. I'm quite glad there are millions who do not take the advice to just accept what is currently known of believed. Scientific research would be rather shit, otherwise.

It might be sad for some, but I really believe everything can be explained by physical processes. A simple deterministic theory or equation is not something to hope for (and that's clear from just the mathematics of even classical physics). That the universe is complicated is a magic of sorts, but ultimately physical. Call it a belief, at this point (but I'd say more a hypothesis). Your thoughts and feelings are incredibly complex, but I don't doubt the physical origin.

Why do I love who I do? Well, let us begin by explaining the wiggling and giggling of atoms. If anyone here has ever tried to simulate a cloud of, say, 100 electrons, they would know the incredible computing power that is required to show the system's evolution for even a second. We have a long way to go to truly understand the brain and the body. Testing theories (based on observations of the brain) and simulating such a massive system is a monumental task.

Bah. I don't imagine many, if anyone else here, even knows what modern scientific research is like. Might as well be magic.


----------



## Petenshi (Sep 5, 2010)

Mashed Potato said:


> That's a bold claim that consciousness doesn't come from the physical world, but some realm of infinite ignorance. Rather silly to _assume_ thought and feeling are not based upon the physical processes that occur in the body. I'm quite glad there are millions who do not take the advice to just accept what is currently known of believed. Scientific research would be rather shit, otherwise.
> 
> *It might be sad for some, but I really believe everything can be explained by physical processes.* A simple deterministic theory or equation is not something to hope for (and that's clear from just the mathematics of even classical physics). That the universe is complicated is a magic of sorts, but ultimately physical. Call it a belief, at this point (but I'd say more a hypothesis). Your thoughts and feelings are incredibly complex, but I don't doubt the physical origin.
> 
> Why do I love who I do? Well, let us begin by explaining the wiggling and giggling of atoms. If anyone here has ever tried to simulate a cloud of, say, 100 electrons, they would know the incredible computing power that is required to show the system's evolution for even a second. We have a long way to go to truly understand the brain and the body.



Perception is a key factor in validating the metaphysical world. We know our perception is faulty, so who knows what we are missing? Its just as bold a claim to suggest that everything can be explained by the physical world as it is to say it isn't. We are biased in our attempts to answer all questions because we are physical in nature. Anything that looks or feels metaphysical we ignore, and/or try to theorize physical reasons it could happen.


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Sep 5, 2010)

Mashed Potato said:


> That's a bold claim that consciousness doesn't come from the physical world, but some realm of infinite ignorance. Rather silly to _assume_ thought and feeling are not based upon the physical processes that occur in the body. I'm quite glad there are millions who do not take the advice to just accept what is currently known of believed. Scientific research would be rather shit, otherwise.
> 
> It might be sad for some, but I really believe everything can be explained by physical processes. A simple deterministic theory or equation is not something to hope for (and that's clear from just the mathematics of even classical physics). That the universe is complicated is a magic of sorts, but ultimately physical. Call it a belief, at this point (but I'd say more a hypothesis). Your thoughts and feelings are incredibly complex, but I don't doubt the physical origin.
> 
> Why do I love who I do? Well, let us begin by explaining the wiggling and giggling of atoms. If anyone here has ever tried to simulate a cloud of, say, 100 electrons, they would know the incredible computing power that is required to show the system's evolution for even a second. We have a long way to go to truly understand the brain and the body.



But you can't measure "consciousness." All you can see is the result of it or experience it. Just like you can't juggle a computer program. It's not an assumption that consciousness isn't physical; it's an observation. If consciousness was physical, then the brain would have to borrow photons and molecules from elsewhere and project them on some "screen" of sorts. Leading to a Homunculus argument.


----------



## IDGabrielHM (Sep 5, 2010)

People here treating religion like it's something we just continually grow out of.  As though it were vestigial and no longer offers us anything but problems when it goes awry.

Come off it.

At one time it was common knowledge that the appendix was a useless organ.  Now we know different.  When I see trash-talk on faith it feels a lot like meeting yet another rube on the walk of life who hasn't figured out what the appendix does yet, and worse yet is seldom interested in even the most minimal research into the matter needed to become aware.

I have a lot of respect for Hawking.  Issuing a statement directly related to his field of personal expertise wherein he explains the way a universe erupts and forms; I don't see the problem with that.  The article seems to imply that he doesn't think further exploration is warranted on the before-the-beginning of the universe, and that I don't like because that's what a pussy would do.  Real go-getters probe like madmen.  I have a feeling those anecdotes were given faux context to pump up this article.

I always enjoy controversy around Hawking and religion, not just because he's so damn good, but because Hawking et al did a hell of a lot of work to demonstrate the probability and implications of the Big Bang.  After establishing this theory a timeline was created for the universe and calculated to a fairly narrow range in the 13-billions, which in turn actually scientifically confirmed the timeline stated in the oldest original language Genesis books before a few thousand years of translation and creative license posed it as a much shorter 6 to 7000-odd years.  This research did more to confirm the Genesis account than perhaps any other scientific venture in history; Hawking likely did more to prove the validity of theorizing a Judeochristian God than any person in the last thousand years.  I find it, as I said, worth a chuckle.


----------



## Petenshi (Sep 5, 2010)

IDGabrielHM said:


> People here treating religion like it's something we just continually grow out of.  As though it were vestigial and no longer offers us anything but problems when it goes awry.
> 
> Come off it.
> 
> ...



The bible isn't a timeline, it is a book. There is no validity that anyone can claim from it, so saying things like that are inane.


----------



## Mintaka (Sep 5, 2010)

> I always enjoy controversy around Hawking and religion, not just because  he's so damn good, but because Hawking et al did a hell of a lot of  work to demonstrate the probability and implications of the Big Bang.  *After  establishing this theory a timeline was created for the universe and  calculated to a fairly narrow range in the 13-billions, which in turn  actually scientifically confirmed the timeline stated in the oldest  original language Genesis books before a few thousand years of  translation and creative license posed it as a much shorter 6 to  7000-odd years.  This research did more to confirm the Genesis account  than perhaps any other scientific venture in history; Hawking likely did  more to prove the validity of theorizing a Judeochristian God than any  person in the last thousand years.  I find it, as I said, worth a  chuckle.*


Mind citing some source for this crap?  Or did you pull this out of your ass?


----------



## dark messiah verdandi (Sep 5, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *I find it hilarious how incredibly simple minded and incapable of learning you are constantly proving yourself to be.
> 
> One, scientists themselves are not against the idea of God. Some are, some are not. And those who are against the idea of God are not against the idea because he would break the laws of physics, that's absurd. God would have created existence and all of it's laws. God wouldn't work according to out laws unless He wanted to. Again, God would be able to do any and everything. And lol @ you claiming you know how a God would work id he existed. If there is a God, he wouldn't be something we could comprehend unless he chose to let us comprehend.
> 
> Also, stop assuming the laws of physics and whatnot are written in stone. We know a lot less than you think. *



Okay. First, I did not say that scientists are against the idea of god. Many of them are apologetics. I said that some people think they don't think the idea of science and a creature that is advanced to the apex of evolution, or a "god" would mesh.
Scientists would be enraptured by a creature whom was at the apex of being, and would not only try to learn from it, would be jubilant in it's existence and would just as quickly try to behave in it's likeness.

I am talking about people who disregard science because it disproves some of the methods used by divine creatures in their favorite religion of choice. You can try and rationalize it, but then it looses some of it's sparkle, so many people just disregard it, and demonize science as some sort of... illusion created by an imaginary force of evil.




another  thing is, you keep whining about omnipotence, without understanding how it works. there would no doubt be a REASON that it can do anything. And doing anything doesn't mean creating absurdities. it means anything that is logical of doing, it can. If god works by manipulating quantum probability, it is still working through a medium. 

If something has all powers, then that means whatever it does works through the medium of " Work + the displacement of an object"
Educate yourself, cause your looking dumb. 



If something makes an impact on an object, it must always do it using a medium, which is called force.
 It isn't just without form or function. Omnipotence means "all powers" Which means that energy and work are apart of it.

something even able to be called a god wouldn't be without the rules of nature, since it would live in them.

Also, where are you getting your idea of what a god is? Because it is a stupid one that makes no sense, which is why most scientists aren't thiests.
If a god doesn't make sense, and is just the paradigm of absurdity and chaos, then the reason to worship it becomes null. It wouldn't even be able to comprehend worship, simply because it would be above a logical thinking mind.
It would be a force of insanity and chaos.

And it makes me question you if you think that something that would even be close to a god wouldn't be suited for study. Even the christian god isn't that hard to get. If adam and eve can become gods by eating the fruits of knowledge of good and evil, and the fruit of eternal life, that means god is VERY explainable.

Human+fruit of knowledge of good and evil + fruit of eternal life = god.
Magic exists in the bible, and is taught by rogue angels, so it isn't hard to deduce that god is just a human with the knowledge of good and evil, magic, and eternal life.

Even the holy spirit bestows the ability to preform miracles, perfect knowledge and perfect wisdom, so what does that tell you???

If the power of transubstantiation is the power of god, and it is backed up by true scientific knowledge, perfect wisdom(senses), and the power of infinite life, then even the christian god works through science.

His power is infinite time+ perfect scientific knowledge+ the ability to control force.
THAT is what makes the christian god, god.

Not some ability to make absurd things happen. Absurdity has ALWAYS been an illusion in christianity. 


Now, if YOUR idea of god, is something that can create absurdities, that is all up to you, but every god in thiesm works through mediums of law, they just usually have the capacity to affect certain things that humans can't.

If a human was born tommorow, had the ability to telekinetically move atoms and grasped movement as a whole, that would be the closest thing to a god possible.




Mashed Potato said:


> That's a bold claim that consciousness doesn't come from the physical world, but some realm of infinite ignorance. Rather silly to _assume_ thought and feeling are not based upon the physical processes that occur in the body. I'm quite glad there are millions who do not take the advice to just accept what is currently known of believed. Scientific research would be rather shit, otherwise.
> 
> It might be sad for some, but I really believe everything can be explained by physical processes. A simple deterministic theory or equation is not something to hope for (and that's clear from just the mathematics of even classical physics). That the universe is complicated is a magic of sorts, but ultimately physical. Call it a belief, at this point (but I'd say more a hypothesis). Your thoughts and feelings are incredibly complex, but I don't doubt the physical origin.
> 
> Why do I love who I do? Well, let us begin by explaining the wiggling and giggling of atoms. If anyone here has ever tried to simulate a cloud of, say, 100 electrons, they would know the incredible computing power that is required to show the system's evolution for even a second. We have a long way to go to truly understand the brain and the body.



Goddamn that was beautiful. you get a rep.
Its a shame that people don't appreciate science. It isn't labs and test beakers. Its *understanding how things work*


----------



## Inuhanyou (Sep 5, 2010)

That reminds me of some Scientology bullcrap


----------



## Petenshi (Sep 5, 2010)

dark messiah verdandi said:


> Goddamn that was beautiful. you get a rep.
> Its a shame that people don't appreciate science. It isn't labs and test beakers. Its *understanding how things work*



You can never truly understand how things work unless you can do so from the perception of which that thing is doing it which is impossible. None of us can be atoms, and that is why we will never truly understand or figure out atoms.


----------



## dark messiah verdandi (Sep 5, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> You can never truly understand how things work unless you can do so from the perception of which that thing is doing it which is impossible. None of us can be atoms, and that is why we will never truly understand or figure out atoms.



The fuck are you talking about.
ALL of us are atoms. 
We are just alot of them sticking together at once due to _strong force_

Get the fuck out of here with that metaphorical bullshit. philosophy has it's place, and it isn't here.


----------



## Petenshi (Sep 5, 2010)

dark messiah verdandi said:


> The fuck are you talking about.
> ALL of us are atoms.
> We are just alot of them sticking together at once due to _strong force_
> 
> Get the fuck out of here with that metaphorical bullshit. philosophy has it's place, and it isn't here.



But you AREN'T an atom. The mere fact that you can only cling to the physical world makes you just as stubborn and idiotic as the evangelicals. 

Philosophy is in everything you do, you can do anything or think anything without philosophy so why don't you go sit back in your scientists chair and let the first thinkers who roamed the planet take this one son.

Humans saying everything is physical is like a fish saying everything around me is water! We haven't experienced everything, and right above our heads there could be a whole new world. I don't believe in it, but I am not going to turn it down simply because I don't know of it.


----------



## Kira U. Masaki (Sep 5, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *I find it hilarious how incredibly simple minded and incapable of learning you are constantly proving yourself to be.
> 
> One, scientists themselves are not against the idea of God. Some are, some are not. And those who are against the idea of God are not against the idea because he would break the laws of physics, that's absurd. God would have created existence and all of it's laws. God wouldn't work according to out laws unless He wanted to. Again, God would be able to do any and everything. And lol @ you claiming you know how a God would work id he existed. If there is a God, he wouldn't be something we could comprehend unless he chose to let us comprehend.
> 
> Also, stop assuming the laws of physics and whatnot are written in stone. We know a lot less than you think. *



this is one of the points alot of people cannot grasp, with our given grasp of the world, scientific laws are infalliable, thats why they are laws and not theories; however, likes all laws and rules they only hold true under certain circumstances, circumstances which the God figure can be completely beyond


----------



## dark messiah verdandi (Sep 5, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> But you AREN'T an atom. The mere fact that you can only cling to the physical world makes you just as stubborn and idiotic as the evangelicals.
> 
> Philosophy is in everything you do, you can do anything or think anything without philosophy so why don't you go sit back in your scientists chair and let the first thinkers who roamed the planet take this one.



It depends on what you think of as me, which is a philosophical question.
Am I a singular being? the conscious that controls my body? or the totality of my parts acting in concert?

In the third case, I am not one atom, but a number of them that I haven't calculated yet, all working together in a biological democracy, to move according to chemical and electric signals.

And I won't leave it to the first thinkers, because there were alot of things they got wrong, thinking spiritually before physically.
The problem is the mindset that physical means mundane. Movement itself is physical, so it isn't mundane, it's *integral*

Without physical, there is no emotional/"spiritual".
emotionality/spirituality is just a non-scientific way of trying to understand something because 

A. your senses are running at a low level, so you cannot properly observe something
B. You can't find the best route to something, due to your own technical incompetence.
C. You put sensations over empiricism.



Kira U. Masaki said:


> this is one of the points alot of people cannot grasp, with our given grasp of the world, scientific laws are infalliable, thats why they are laws and not theories; however, likes all laws and rules they only hold true under certain circumstances, circumstances which the God figure can be completely beyond


What god are you talking about?
specifically.


----------



## Petenshi (Sep 5, 2010)

dark messiah verdandi said:


> It depends on what you think of as me, which is a philosophical question.
> Am I a singular being? the conscious that controls my body? or the totality of my parts acting in concert?
> 
> In the third case, I am not one atom, but a number of them that I haven't calculated yet, all working together in a biological democracy, to move according to chemical and electric signals.
> ...



Like I said, I am not saying what your doing is wrong, I am saying it is narrowminded. Philosophers put spirituality first because they knew that is where true understanding lies. We understand the nature of physicality already simply by being physical beings even if it is not conscious. All five of our senses are physical, are they not? Everything about us is physical...so when physical beings try to use physical evidence to prove metaphysical things don't exist or aren't important it is incredibly biased. Science is only possible through metaphysical thinking because thoughts aren't physical as 0fear said anyways. Even if a thought was an electromagnetic pulse with a specific frequency it is far beyond our time and measure to make such a conclusion. So while I am perfectly capable of agreeing that you could be right, your theories have the same worth objectively in the universe. To us it may not, but like I said that is narrowminded.


----------



## Soda (Sep 5, 2010)

This is retarded. Why does Stephen Hawking get priority when it comes to caring about peoples opinions about God/gods/whatever? I want articles about my thoughts. 

If there were, then they would probably transcend EVERYTHING (they would write the laws and fart out alternate universes), there's no way we could explain that stuff with anything we could ever know.

Whatever. I don't care.


----------



## dark messiah verdandi (Sep 5, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> Like I said, I am not saying what your doing is wrong, I am saying it is narrowminded. Philosophers put spirituality first because they knew that is where true understanding lies. We understand the nature of physicality already simply by being physical beings even if it is not conscious. All five of our senses are physical, are they not? Everything about us is physical...so when physical beings try to use physical evidence to prove metaphysical things don't exist or aren't important it is incredibly biased. Science is only possible through metaphysical thinking because thoughts aren't physical as 0fear said anyways. Even if a thought was an electromagnetic pulse with a specific frequency it is far beyond our time and measure to make such a conclusion. So while I am perfectly capable of agreeing that you could be right, your theories have the same worth objectively in the universe. To us it may not, but like I said that is narrowminded.



I wouldn't say philosophers in general, but theists. There are some philosophers that did NOT.
Ones that do would be... plato, aristotle, ect.

Ones that do NOT: Lucretius, Descartes.

I REALLY suggest that you look into  "The nature of things" and "meditations of first philosophy"

Those two books REALLY shaped my mind. It is not that thoughts aren't physical, it is that we don't think of them that way. Every thought is physical. Try to think without a brain... the very thought itself is absurd.

Realize what thoughts really are. Observations based on sensation, referenced through memory.

The problem with overly spiritual thinking is that it ignores the obvious for something that the mind desires. Without first focusing on the physical, it is basically lying to yourself.

I am not saying that the body cannot align itself with energies that are on a different spectrum, quite the opposite. I am saying even though energies work through different spectrums, all energy is inherently physical, that is how it has force.


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Sep 5, 2010)

^So the concept of "one" is physical because we can only present it symbolically or through objects? 

Uhhhh no. One is an abstraction. It can only be appreciated intellectually. Orange may appear with a certain frequency of light, but orangeness can only be experienced. If you were to "look" at a photon, it'd look just like a photon for blue, green, or any other color. The brain is "physical," but the brain and "mind" aren't the same thing. BTW, "energy" is also an abstraction used to represent interaction between "matter." There is no "energyness."

It's a common mistake to confuse an actual tree for the word "tree." 

 Without the non physical component(abstractions, experiences, and memory), the physical(for us) is useless; like a book in a language you don't understand or a computer with no software. 

Another thing to think about: How did our brains evolve the ability to comprehend language? Something physically composed of nothing but squiggly lines and moving air? "Water" can mean "dog" if two people agreed on it. It makes more sense to say that every thought we have makes measurable impact on the "physical world,"  as opposed to saying every thought is physical. Because they aren't. If they were, abstraction would be pointless.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Sep 5, 2010)

> Another thing to think about: How did our brains evolve the ability to comprehend language? Something physically composed of nothing but squiggly lines and moving air? "Water" can mean "dog" if two people agreed on it. It makes more sense to say that every thought we have makes measurable impact on the "physical world," as opposed to saying every thought is physical. Because they aren't. If they were, abstraction would be pointless.



I think you two are saying the same thing, and the difference is semantics.  Just look at the post he is replying to.  The post he is replying to, is contrasting physical with metaphysical. 





> Science is only possible through metaphysical thinking because thoughts aren't physical as 0fear said anyways.



In that case, one would reply that there is nothing metaphysical. All is physical. So I don't think you two are disagreeing. You are just using the words in different ways. You are right of course but look at the context of his comment and what he is disagreeing with. He is right too. As you are. 

So you are both right and Petenshi  is wrong.


----------



## dark messiah verdandi (Sep 5, 2010)

0Fear said:


> ^So the concept of "one" is physical because we can only present it symbolically or through objects?
> 
> Uhhhh no. One is an abstraction. It can only be appreciated intellectually. Orange may appear with a certain frequency of light, but orangeness can only be experienced. If you were to "look" at a photon, it'd look just like a photon for blue, green, or any other color. The brain is "physical," but the brain and "mind" aren't the same thing. BTW, "energy" is also an abstraction used to represent interaction between "matter." There is no "energyness."
> 
> ...




The thing is interpretation is a physical process.
These things are all ways that the brain memorizes data. Through patterns.
Language usually occurs for a few reasons. Inspiration and memorization. A word is thought of, and people remember it.

One is a paradigm. A concept used to state singularity in an observed object. It is only there for the process of memorization. If we had no memory, there would be no need to conceptualize such a thing, or more specifically, no ability to.

Abstraction is a physical process that evolved in human beings for the ease of data retrieval and understanding. It is just another way to recognize patterns.

I can say it is physical because certain locations in the brain have synapse firings during the process, and every time it happens, these synapses fire.

It is a good thing we have computers because that gives you a paradigm to work off of with my next simile. A brain is basically like a biological quantum computer, or even better, the word to explain a biological quantum computer would be encephalon(brain). It is extremely complex, yet remarkably simple.

It uses flesh as circuitry and the body as a fuel tank/power plant/ extension for functions. Electricity powers it, and through evolution it has self-programmed to process data in a way that is extremely symbolic to ease the power usage and save energy by not absorbing all sensory data.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Sep 5, 2010)

dark messiah verdandi said:


> The thing is interpretation is a physical process.
> These things are all ways that the brain memorizes data. Through patterns.
> Language usually occurs for a few reasons. Inspiration and memorization. A word is thought of, and people remember it.
> 
> ...




The process is physical but the result (the thoughts/ ideas) is intellectual.  

Or this is all is just semantics, when we are talking about ideas and thoughts we are not talking about the chemical process but about ideas or thoughts. In my eyes, the disagreement here is about semantics and not really that relevant. 

Look here by the way : 




I just find the whole issue to be semantics really. I wouldn't find the opinion that the mind or thoughts  is metaphysical to be semantics, I would find it just wrong. 

Anyway, my opinion is that all mental phenomena are a result of physical procedures.  Obviously. So you are right. However it is useful, to call some phenomena mental phenomena, and some other ones physical and to distinguish between them. And to distinguish between the mental and the physical.   For the reasons Fear says. However we must always be aware that everything mental is a result of physical procedures.  (In fact they are one and the same.)

So while it might be useful, one should not do it, to say that body and soul are separate or that a soul exists or that Santa exists or that a God exists. because thoughts are not physical so a soul may not be physical too. That is just a fallacy and a wrong argument on so many levels. Or that mind exists on a non-physical metaphysical plane. No, we make a distiction between mental states for semantic purposes.

So when we are talking about brain, we usually aren't talking about the mind.  This is language. It doesn't mean that they are really separate. They are separate, for us, in our language(and in the meaning we give to the words, because we reffer to different things with them.)


----------



## dark messiah verdandi (Sep 5, 2010)

Narutofann12 said:


> The process is physical but the result (the thoughts/ ideas) is intellectual.
> 
> Or this is all is just semantics, when we are talking about ideas and thoughts we are not talking about the chemical process but about ideas or thoughts. In my eyes, the disagreement here is about semantics and not really that relevant.
> 
> ...



Well thank you for the post and the links. I read both of them.
I understand what you mean by using mental as a descriptive phrase for lack of a better one.

I like to use a familiar analogy to make it more simple however.

If you think of the brain as hardware, the mind is simply software...
all it is comprised of is etchings within the cellular structure of the brain matter to create a memory of data. The mind is the electricity moving through the programed circutry and if I may, it going through the save data of your life.

That is just how awesome the brain is though. It is an unparalleled memory card that can remember up to 180 years of data at once. Waking up is the brain rebooting, and the mind is just the accumulated functions and data of the brain's software.

computers are people trying to rebuild the brain.
once we get quantum laptops, they may beat them though... at least in written math and probability.


----------



## Le Pirate (Sep 5, 2010)

And because Hawkings said it, its just that much more cared about.


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Sep 5, 2010)

dark messiah verdandi said:


> The thing is interpretation is a physical process.
> These things are all ways that the brain memorizes data. Through patterns.
> Language usually occurs for a few reasons. Inspiration and memorization. A word is thought of, and people remember it.
> 
> ...



You have absolutely no understanding of what is "physical" and "non-physical" do you? A network of neurons isn't a thought. That's like calling a DVD a movie. A DVD is nothing but plastic and metal.

It's not semantics; it's a real distinction. There is a nonphysical component that no one can dismiss. Sure they're strongly  intermingled, but that doesn't change the fact that part of this universe can only be experienced. And that part is "I."


----------



## dark messiah verdandi (Sep 5, 2010)

0Fear said:


> You have absolutely no understanding of what is "physical" and "non-physical" do you? A network of neurons isn't a thought. That's like calling a DVD a movie. A DVD is nothing but plastic and metal.
> 
> It's not semantics; it's a real distinction. There is a nonphysical component that no one can dismiss. Sure they're strongly  intermingled, but that doesn't change the fact that part of this universe can only be experienced. And that part is "I."



No, there isn't. The mind is simply the sensory and calculating process of the brain. It isn't seperate, it is just the function. Your analogy was completely wrong. The movie is what happens when the magnetic waves hit the disk and create a pattern of light and sound. the disk is its medium.

The mind is what happens when synapses fire within the brain, and the etched cells create a loaded amount of experiences and memory which make the totality of "you"

You is just the collective memory of all the things that have happened functioning in real time. All it is are the chemical drives and your memory working at once.

You want because of brain chemicals, and with memory you realize how to "do" and then you do it.


You just want to overcomplicate things because it gives your brain pleasure.
Everything isn't that complicated.


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Sep 5, 2010)

dark messiah verdandi said:


> No, there isn't. The mind is simply the sensory and calculating process of the brain. It isn't seperate, it is just the function. Your analogy was completely wrong. The movie is what happens when the magnetic waves hit the disk and create a pattern of light and sound. the disk is its medium.
> 
> The mind is what happens when synapses fire within the brain, and the etched cells create a loaded amount of experiences and memory which make the totality of "you"
> 
> ...



Pour me some consciousness please. I want some in a cup. 

If you were to really think about it, then you'll see that you're oversimplifying it.


----------



## Kira U. Masaki (Sep 5, 2010)

dark messiah verdandi said:


> It depends on what you think of as me, which is a philosophical question.
> Am I a singular being? the conscious that controls my body? or the totality of my parts acting in concert?
> 
> In the third case, I am not one atom, but a number of them that I haven't calculated yet, all working together in a biological democracy, to move according to chemical and electric signals.
> ...



an omnipotent one, whether real or theoretically, well thats another debate.


----------



## Pickindazys (Sep 5, 2010)

0Fear said:


> Pour me some consciousness please. I want some in a cup.



You have no idea how stupid that sounds.

What do you want him to do blend a brain smoothie?


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Sep 5, 2010)

Pickindazys said:


> You have no idea how stupid that sounds.
> 
> What do you want him to do blend a brain smoothie?



Have you been reading? That's the point I'm trying to make. The idea of physically handling an experience is ludicrous. 


Where are you people from? Really. Why do I bother posting here?





Screw arguing. If it makes you feel better, then all perceptual experiences are made up of magic marbles that your brain orders from dimension 17 every time the right synapses fire. The magic marbles are displayed on 3d simulation screen made up of super atoms. Of course, your dimension 17 self needs to order magic marbles from D 23 and project them with super duper atoms. This goes on ad infinitum. Point is, we needs them marbles. 



There you go. Problem solved.


----------



## Pickindazys (Sep 5, 2010)

0Fear said:


> Have you been reading? That's the point I'm trying to make. The idea of physically handling an experience is ludicrous.
> 
> 
> Where are you people from? Really. Why do I bother posting here?



Thoughts are a by product of the brain. Information processing is all that is.



0Fear said:


> Screw arguing. If it makes you feel better, then all perceptual experiences are made up of magic marbles that your brain orders from dimension 17 every time the right synapses fire. The magic marbles are displayed on 3d simulation screen made up of super atoms. Of course, your dimension 17 self needs to order magic marbles from D 23 and project them with super duper atoms. This goes on ad infinitum. Point is, we needs them marbles.
> 
> 
> 
> There you go. Problem solved.



???


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Sep 5, 2010)

Pickindazys said:


> Thoughts are a by product of the brain. Information processing is all that is.



What the heck is information? 

There's no such thing as context free information. 10101 doesn't mean anything inherently. It becomes information when...


forget it.


----------



## Pickindazys (Sep 5, 2010)

0Fear said:


> What the heck is information?
> 
> *There's no such thing as context free information. 10101 doesn't mean anything inherently. It becomes information when...*
> 
> ...



I'm with ya forget it


----------



## dark messiah verdandi (Sep 5, 2010)

0Fear said:


> Pour me some consciousness please. I want some in a cup.
> 
> If you were to really think about it, then you'll see that you're oversimplifying it.



Silly. How about you pour me some photons in a cup?
Just because something is physical, doesn't mean it's tangible.

Thoughts are a function of a substance. It is the brain taking information it knows, and cross-referencing it with something else. 

Here is a mental exercise for you. Try to think of a creature with qualities that you have never experienced, without trying to do it by a method of subtraction.

Just nothing heard of. Not a chimera of additional traits, or subtracted ones.
A completely unique thing. Can you?


Of course not, because imagination itself is just the function of memory working with addition and subtraction of traits.

An arm is an object. Lifting is a function.
A brain is an object, a thought is a function.




Pickindazys said:


> Thoughts are a by product of the brain. Information processing is all that is.
> ???



Thanks for the assist.


----------



## Banhammer (Sep 5, 2010)

> Here is a mental exercise for you. Try to think of a creature with qualities that you have never experienced,


Loaded question :/


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Sep 5, 2010)

dark messiah verdandi said:


> Silly. How about you pour me some photons in a cup?
> Just because something is physical, doesn't mean it's tangible.
> 
> Thoughts are a function of a substance. It is the brain taking information it knows, and cross-referencing it with something else.
> ...




Ok I'll bite. What encodes this information? Because in order to have this  "information" you need a grammar--information that dictates the context of information. "Memory" doesn't just exist without  this context. Only a person that takes abstraction for granted would make that error. 

And what about new experiences never memorized.  How can the brain accurately interpret them? I hate the analogy, but can a computer interpret JAVA without a compiler?  Is there an invisible meta-brain made up of photons?


----------



## dark messiah verdandi (Sep 5, 2010)

0Fear said:


> Ok I'll bite. What encodes this information? Because in order to have this  "information" you need a grammar--information that dictates the context of information. "Memory" doesn't just exist without  this context. Only a person that takes abstraction for granted would make that error.
> 
> And what about new experiences never memorized.  How can the brain accurately interpret them? I hate the analogy, but can a computer interpret JAVA without a compiler?  Is there an invisible meta-brain made up of photons?



The incoder is the bioelectricity. It etches data onto each brain cell, and infact uses quantum mechanics to do so, which gives it FAR more space than it just being a singular bit of data. Each cell holds many bits of data.

Now, the cells, which have been etched upon have different algorithms based on hormonal changes, so if one cell does one thing if a certain part of the brain activates, it can do a completely different thing when another chemical is activated.

As we said before, the mind itself is something like the operating system. What you want to know is "well, who is using the operating system"... The answer is the unconscious, which are automated drives in the human body. Instincts are the most central of the drives in the human body, so the parts of the brain which are already made before we develop a sense of self (which happens around 2 mos after birth) are what is at the end.

The instincts pilot the operating system call the mind, and the mind controls the body, unless the instincts manually override it.


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Sep 6, 2010)

Ok, so you aren't really saying anything. You're so busy talking about what is going on in the brain that you're ignoring qualia entirely(not the physical processes you think give rise to it, but the actual experience of "orangeness" and "pain."--what's displaying orangness, chief?) And you still haven't fully explained how "instincts" (wherever they are located) use "nonliving" uncontextual bio-electricity to encode anything. Did it have a hidden reference sheet somewhere telling it which switch to pull when a cell twitches a certain way? Or does it stumble across the set of abstractions in bioelectrical code serendipitously." Or did "instinct" sit down and have a meeting with the neurons it'd be working with.

Basically, even if you bring instinct into it; "dead" nature using something as highly abstract as "code" is a bit far-fetched in a world of 100% material. Producing something that represents something else is something most animals can't do.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Sep 6, 2010)

The actual experience is a physical processes.  Also there is no reason to explain what exactly physical processes they are to make that claim.



dark messiah verdandi said:


> The incoder is the bioelectricity. It etches data onto each brain cell, and infact uses quantum mechanics to do so, which gives it FAR more space than it just being a singular bit of data. Each cell holds many bits of data.
> 
> Now, the cells, which have been etched upon have different algorithms based on hormonal changes, so if one cell does one thing if a certain part of the brain activates, it can do a completely different thing when another chemical is activated.
> 
> ...



You are making claims here about how exactly the brain, mind and instincts work that may not be entirely accurate. 

My also inaccurate understanding is that we consciously and unconsciously ran our OP system that is our mind. Also it is hard to understand whether instincts manually override, or are always active. Probably the second.


----------



## dark messiah verdandi (Sep 6, 2010)

Narutofann12 said:


> The actual experience is a physical processes.  Also there is no reason to explain what exactly physical processes they are to make that claim.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



you right


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Sep 6, 2010)

Narutofann12 said:


> The actual experience is a physical processes.  Also there is no reason to explain what exactly physical processes they are to make that claim.



You can "explain" everything else. Why not try to explain how a mound of "material" experience itself and its surroundings. If it's physical it shouldn't be too hard.


----------



## dark messiah verdandi (Sep 6, 2010)

0Fear said:


> You can "explain" everything else. Why not try to explain how a mound of "material" experience itself and its surroundings. If it's physical it shouldn't be too hard.



It experiences itself by experiencing everything else around it and understanding there is a distinction. When humans are still infants, their senses are too strong, so they are less distinct. vision is too blurry because they see light too well, and the same with all the rest.

At this time, they cannot distinguish themselves from their mothers, and for a baby who is less than two months old, there is no distinction.
Only when they realize that the heartbeat they hear from nursing isn't their own, and their senses adapt, do they actually realize, "I am not this big thing, I am the little thing"

Your problem is you are too wrapped up in emotional feelings without realizing objects are what "feel" in the first place. you can't feel with a spirit, because change only happens between physical objects when they interact.
you keep explaining things like mental concepts, but those are only... adaptations to data itself, which make processing easier. they are functions. Movements of the brain, and movement is energy/force, which are both intangible, but physical things.


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Sep 6, 2010)

dark messiah verdandi said:


> It experiences itself by experiencing everything else around it and understanding there is a distinction. When humans are still infants, their senses are too strong, so they are less distinct. vision is too blurry because they see light too well, and the same with all the rest.
> 
> At this time, they cannot distinguish themselves from their mothers, and for a baby who is less than two months old, there is no distinction.
> Only when they realize that the heartbeat they hear from nursing isn't their own, and their senses adapt, do they actually realize, "I am not this big thing, I am the little thing"
> ...



Once again you're dancing around qualia. I'm not even talking about "emotional feelings." I'm talking about basic perception: smells, tastes, images, sounds, and textures. These are what we experience. "Objects" are never experienced directly. They're interpreted. We only know about these objects because of unmeasurable experience. For all we know, "matter" could just be made up to provide continuity; to limit an individual to a particular instance, and provide a point of reference. But we can never be sure, because once again, we depend on perception for everything.


----------



## dark messiah verdandi (Sep 6, 2010)

0Fear said:


> Once again you're dancing around qualia. I'm not even talking about "emotional feelings." I'm talking about basic perception: smells, tastes, images, sounds, and textures. These are what we experience. "Objects" are never experienced directly. They're interpreted. We only know about these objects because of unmeasurable experience. For all we know, "matter" could just be made up to provide continuity; to limit an individual to a particular instance, and provide a point of reference. But we can never be sure, because once again, we depend on perception for everything.



Oh... are you asking what are the senses?
They are electrical signals that are... distinguished by sensory organs and sent to the brain to either memorize or cross refference with other memories.

Sweet is a feeling. so is hot, angry, and everything else that is simular.
If you are asking how they are interpreted, then memory is the answer.

And these theories of yours have no logical basis, thus are not valid. Just thinking of an absurdity doesn't make it valid. I can't say, well we haven't found that anti-gravity DOESN'T exist, so it can. Incorrect. That is a fallacy and you should rid yourself of that thought pattern. There are some things that cannot exist, due to their inconsistency with what existence is.

Interpretation doesn't have matter, but it has energy, which is why it is a movement, a function. It is the movement of one synaptic area to another. The left to the right, and vice-versa.

A realm that is not physical is not possible, because physical things are the only things that exist.


I Suggest you read rene descartes' Meditations on first philosophy. That will clear your head of this absurd thought.


----------



## Petenshi (Sep 6, 2010)

dark messiah verdandi said:


> I can't say, well we haven't found that anti-gravity DOESN'T exist, so it can. Incorrect. That is a fallacy and you should rid yourself of that thought pattern.



No, a fallacy is you thinking humans have anywhere near the capacity to make such a claim. Its fine to apply laws to where we are living because they work. However, since we haven't *experienced* any other part of the universe you cannot just assume everything works the same there. 



> A realm that is not physical is not possible, because physical things are the only things that exist.



Thats fine to think this, but to purport that you know only physical things exist knowing you are a physical being is extremely naive and frankly anti-intellectual.

And its funny you bring up descarte, your posts seem to suggest you have no idea what his conclusions were.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Sep 6, 2010)

> Thats fine to think this, but to purport that you know only physical things exist knowing you are a physical being is extremely naive and frankly anti-intellectual.



No, its not. We have only evidence of a physical realm existing. Looking at the evidence we have and saying that is neither naive nor anti-intellectual. It's hilarious to see people defending Dualism, especially substance dualism at this age


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Sep 6, 2010)

dark messiah verdandi said:


> Oh... are you asking what are the senses?
> They are electrical signals that are... distinguished by sensory organs and sent to the brain to either memorize or cross refference with other memories.
> 
> Sweet is a feeling. so is hot, angry, and everything else that is simular.
> ...



Reading what you're saying, I don't think you should be the one to tell anyone how to think. And that's ignoring the fact that all I posted was a hypothetical. Claiming that it is my theory is strawman. 

You are demonstrating a severe ignorance when it comes to computation. 

First of all, a computation is useless without a correlation. Code with the purpose of displaying visual information is useless without a method of output: a monitor and a decoder. 

"Where is our 'monitor' and decoder?" is all I'm asking. To put it even more simply, what decodes and projects the qualities of sensation? All you keep saying is over simplified mumbo-jumbo that doesn't even touch the entire answer. 

And don't say "memory" because memory too needs to be decoded and projected, and that will create an infinite loop.


----------



## Petenshi (Sep 6, 2010)

Elim Rawne said:


> *No, its not. We have only evidence of a physical realm existing. *Looking at the evidence we have and saying that is neither naive nor anti-intellectual. It's hilarious to see people defending Dualism, especially substance dualism at this age



Right, so saying dualism doesn't exist is logical, but claiming to KNOW that there is no dualism is not because we can only perceive a physical realm. Sorry that I don't think that anyone has any omniscient qualities.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Sep 6, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> Right, so saying dualism doesn't exist is logical, but claiming to KNOW that there is no dualism is not. Sorry that I don't think that anyone has any omniscient qualities.



How do you even know a seperate realm exists ?


----------



## Petenshi (Sep 6, 2010)

Elim Rawne said:


> How do you even know a seperate realm exists ?



I don't. But there is enough doubt for me to say, I don't know and move on. Dark Messiah verandi seems to be more confident than he can with the information he possesses. He can believe that there are only physical processes but he can't possibly know.

And frankly, I see no harm in discussing metaphysical things even if they might not exist because it does still affect how we view our physical realm and the problems that lie within.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Sep 6, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> I don't. But there is enough doubt for me to say, I don't know and move on. Dark Messiah verandi seems to be more confident than he can with the information he possesses. He can believe that there are only physical processes but he can't possibly know.



Everything we've learned in the last 50 years points that way. Stuff like Idealism and Substance Dualism has been thoroughly disproved. It's fairly logical to assume that a second realm doesn't exist. 
I also find it hilarious that someone like you tried to use buzzwords like "naive" and "anti-intellectual" to paint your opponent in a bad light, especially when those things fit you more


----------



## Petenshi (Sep 6, 2010)

Elim Rawne said:


> Everything we've learned in the last 50 years points that way. *Stuff like Idealism and Substance Dualism has been thoroughly disproved.* It's fairly logical to assume that a second realm doesn't exist.
> I also find it hilarious that someone like you tried to use buzzwords like "naive" and "anti-intellectual" to paint your opponent in a bad light, especially when those things fit you more



We can both agree that there is heavy evidence that gravity exists and we both believe in it. However, unlike you I leave room for that to be wrong. That is not naive or anti-intellectual as it leaves room for thoughtful discussion and scientific progress. By saying I know this is true, you have shut the door on any more discussion on the issue and furthermore stagnated any further progress that may be made in the future. If we are wrong and gravity really doesn't exist, then we will probably never find out due to how the scientific community ostracizes those whom disagree with accepted theories of most scientists. 

That is the true anti-intellectualism. Being intellectual does not mean being right or correct, but open to ideas that further the field you are discussing and giving a greater understanding to the field as a whole as it relates to everything else. 

Your a neurosurgeon right? Imagine if you were one 50 years ago and thought the same way you do now. Countless changes were made to the medical field from then and people were wrong. Why can you conclude that you have nothing more to learn, because from my perspective that is what it seems like you are doing. I am not telling you that you aren't right, or that there is not evidence to support your claims. I am saying that the face of anti-intellectualism is ignoring other possibilities just because you think your right.


----------



## dark messiah verdandi (Sep 6, 2010)

0Fear said:


> Reading what you're saying, I don't think you should be the one to tell anyone how to think. And that's ignoring the fact that all I posted was a hypothetical. Claiming that it is my theory is strawman.
> 
> You are demonstrating a severe ignorance when it comes to computation.
> 
> ...



In the brain.
There is a part in the left side that sequences patterns for easy recognition.
There is a man who underwent brain damage to that exact part of his brain, and he can see light patterns and objects, but has no ability to comprehend what they are. He can see a plate clearly, but to him all it is is an image with depth, volume, color, length and width. He cannot comprehend what it is, and when people tell him, then he is like "OH! THAT'S what that was..."

Because of this affliction, he cannot perform any tasks without help, and cannot drive because he wouldn't be able to distinguish what a car, sign, or even pedestrians are.

The decoder is a function in a part of the brain too. The monitor is just all your senses working at once. both work together and create what humans have intitled "the experience".

EDIT: excuse me... right side...


----------



## Elim Rawne (Sep 6, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> We can both agree that there is heavy evidence that gravity exists and we both believe in it. However, unlike you I leave room for that to be wrong. That is not naive or anti-intellectual as it leaves room for thoughtful discussion and scientific progress. By saying I know this is true, you have shut the door on any more discussion on the issue and furthermore stagnated any further progress that may be made in the future. If we are wrong and gravity really doesn't exist, then we will probably never find out due to how the scientific community ostracizes those whom disagree with accepted theories of most scientists.
> 
> That is the true anti-intellectualism. Being intellectual does not mean being right or correct, but open to ideas that further the field you are discussing and giving a greater understanding to the field as a whole as it relates to everything else.
> 
> Your a neurosurgeon right? Imagine if you were one 50 years ago and thought the same way you do now. Countless changes were made to the medical field from then and people were wrong. Why can you conclude that you have nothing more to learn, because from my perspective that is what it seems like you are doing. I am not telling you that you aren't right, or that there is not evidence to support your claims. I am saying that the face of anti-intellectualism is ignoring other possibilities just because you think your right.





> Anti-intellectualism is hostility towards and mistrust of intellect, intellectuals, and intellectual pursuits, usually expressed as the derision of education, philosophy, literature, art, and science, as impractical and contemptible. Alternately, self-described intellectuals who are alleged to fail to adhere to strict standards of rigorous scholarship may be described as anti-intellectuals



lrn2definitions. I do leave out room for error, but unlike you, I practically don't believe in dualism. I know you want to romanticize thought and qualia(lol), but the way things are going, its going to be nothing but bullshit. Why stop at Dualism ? Why aren't you defending Idealism,Interactionism and Parallelism ? You are just cherry picking what you want to believe and announce it like you're some sort of special guy who is open minded. In reality, you're nothing but a tool. 
And no, I'm not a neurosurgeon. All your assumptions are proven wrong,again.


----------



## Petenshi (Sep 6, 2010)

Elim Rawne said:


> lrn2definitions. I do leave out room for error, but unlike you, I practically don't believe in dualism. I know you want to romanticize thought and qualia(lol), but the way things are going, its going to be nothing but bullshit. Why stop at Dualism ? Why aren't you defending Idealism,Interactionism and Parallelism ? You are just cherry picking what you want to believe and announce it like you're some sort of special guy who is open minded. In reality, you're nothing but a tool.
> And no, I'm not a neurosurgeon. *All your assumptions are proven wrong,again.*



Who says I did? 

*Sigh* This is what I am talking about. Time and time again you have proven that science is not important to you because its science, it is important to you because it allows you this place of strength and power because of its place in our society, perhaps for your ego. You don't need to call me a tool to prove your point if your correct, so why do it? 

This is the true death of intellectualism because you think only science can reign. If you didn't notice, science wasn't the only thing listed in your definition.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Sep 6, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> Who says I did?
> 
> *Sigh* This is what I am talking about. Time and time again you have proven that science is not important to you because its science, it is important to you because it allows you this place of strength and power because of its place in our society, perhaps for your ego. You don't need to call me a tool to prove your point if your correct, so why do it?
> 
> This is the true death of intellectualism.



Again, you're wrong. I like science because of the knowledge it imparts on us and frees us from the shackles of ignorance and superstition. I am a honest human being, If someone's wrong, I'll tell them that. If someone acts like a tool, I'll tell them that. Stop trying to victimize yourself and making me look like bad guy.


----------



## Petenshi (Sep 6, 2010)

Elim Rawne said:


> Again, you're wrong. *I like science because of the knowledge it imparts on us and frees us from the shackles of ignorance and superstition. *I am a honest human being, If someone's wrong, I'll tell them that. If someone acts like a tool, I'll tell them that. Stop trying to victimize yourself and making me look like bad guy.



Its not freeing anyone from anything if the same judging and prison like treatment of anything which does not follow along with current accepted scientific theories occurs.

Your just participating in the same game the superstitious take part in, you just have different methods. Science shouldn't be about proving everyone wrong or right, it should be about advancing our world in a positive direction. Your negative attitude towards me when you post has made me think that isn't what you are interested in.


----------



## dark messiah verdandi (Sep 6, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> Who says I did?
> 
> *Sigh* This is what I am talking about. Time and time again you have proven that science is not important to you because its science, it is important to you because it allows you this place of strength and power because of its place in our society, perhaps for your ego. You don't need to call me a tool to prove your point if your correct, so why do it?
> 
> This is the true death of intellectualism because you think only science can reign. If you didn't notice, science wasn't the only thing listed in your definition.



I wouldn't even say science is the only thing that reigns.
Along with it technique/craftsmanship.

Science(or should I SAY knowledge/learning) is only one half of what makes people great. The other half is creativity.

THOSE TWO will reign forever. The human powers are great, but those are the greatest. I think your difficulty is you are type-casting science.
There are hard and soft sciences, the collection of ALL of them is the greatest, and in fact what religion TRIES to be.

Religion is the attempt at understanding supernormal phenomena and creating law from it.

Once we learn natural laws, there is no need for supernatural ones. They are absurd.

For example, once one learns they can change by physical effort, rather than prayer, they begin to escape it's grasps.

If there were a such a thing as a logical god, it would be FORCED to work through natural law and science, just because science is the observation of how things work. If it works, there is an explanation for it.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Sep 6, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> Its not freeing anyone from anything if the same judging and prison like treatment of anything which does not follow along with current accepted scientific theories occurs.
> 
> Your just participating in the same game the superstitious take part in, you just have different methods. Science shouldn't be about proving everyone wrong or right, it should be about advancing our world in a positive direction. Your negative attitude towards me when you post has made me think that isn't what you are interested in.



Actually, science is about proving things right/wrong.


----------



## Mael (Sep 6, 2010)

Elim Rawne said:


> Actually, science is about proving things right/wrong.



We like to call that the empirical method. 

Anywho, science helps understand the universe around us.  It's not quite like TTGL where magical human pow0rz pops out outta nowhere and logic is that of an ork's.  Science, shown to be beneficial to the greater progression of humanity, should be the driving factor towards humanity.  Unfortunately organized religion has failed miserably in doing that, from the Christians of the Middle Ages to the Muslims of today.

Maybe I've immediately thought of Captain Pinbacker with that line.


----------



## Red (Sep 6, 2010)

> Does Hawking's view mean that modern physics "leaves no place for God in  the creation of the universe," as the Times suggests, or that *"God did  not create the universe,"*.


I think this is what he's getting at. Not a controversial statement for moderates who can reconcile science with Christianity. Even several scholastic translations of the first few words in the Genesis say the same thing.

Also SCIENCE


----------



## dark messiah verdandi (Sep 6, 2010)

Red said:


> I think this is what he's getting at. *Not a controversial statement for moderates who can reconcile science with Christianity. Even several scholastic translations of the first few words in the Genesis say the same thing.*
> 
> Also SCIENCE



Give this man applause, thread 

The word translated as create is more literally described as shape/split.


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Sep 7, 2010)

dark messiah verdandi said:


> In the brain.
> There is a part in the left side that sequences patterns for easy recognition.
> There is a man who underwent brain damage to that exact part of his brain, and he can see light patterns and objects, but has no ability to comprehend what they are. He can see a plate clearly, but to him all it is is an image with depth, volume, color, length and width. He cannot comprehend what it is, and when people tell him, then he is like "OH! THAT'S what that was..."
> 
> ...




Flawed answer. It could just as easily be explained that his brain isn't sending the proper code. Of course the 'monitor' won't produce the right picture if the decoder doesn't receive the proper message. Maybe you experience exactly what you're supposed to experience with that level of brain damage. 

But assuming that your explanation is complete; where and what does the brain project? A monitor works by sending decoded "output." Visual information not encoded in binary, but as pixels. But with your explanation all perception and output happens in brain, which lacks "greenness." 

What I'm asking is, when does an electrochemical nerve signal stop being a nerve signal and starts becoming blue, sharp pain, or the scent of cinnamon?


----------



## Grrblt (Sep 7, 2010)

0Fear said:


> What I'm asking is, when does an electrochemical nerve signal stop being a nerve signal and starts becoming blue, sharp pain, or the scent of cinnamon?



It doesn't stop being a nerve signal.


----------



## Superstars (Sep 7, 2010)

All this guy is saying is he believes the universe can be explained without God. That takes more faith than saying that God made the universe.


----------



## Petenshi (Sep 7, 2010)

Superstars said:


> All this guy is saying is he believes the universe can be explained without God. That takes more faith than saying that God made the universe.



How? 

If anything, they take equal amount of faith.


----------



## dark messiah verdandi (Sep 7, 2010)

0Fear said:


> Flawed answer. It could just as easily be explained that his brain isn't sending the proper code. Of course the 'monitor' won't produce the right picture if the decoder doesn't receive the proper message. Maybe you experience exactly what you're supposed to experience with that level of brain damage.
> 
> But assuming that your explanation is complete; where and what does the brain project? A monitor works by sending decoded "output." Visual information not encoded in binary, but as pixels. But with your explanation all perception and output happens in brain, which lacks "greenness."
> 
> What I'm asking is, when does an electrochemical nerve signal stop being a nerve signal and starts becoming blue, sharp pain, or the scent of cinnamon?





Grrblt said:


> It doesn't stop being a nerve signal.


BINGO!
Does a car ever stop being a vehicle because you stop calling it that?
No.
The difference is the frequency of the nerve signals. Cinnamon tastes different from cardamom because of the frequency the particles create when it is in contact with the gastronomical sensory organ(tongue).

Quality is not defined by itself, but by the uniqueness of what it is not. Green is simply what happens when yellow and blue particles mix. Without the word green, as long as there are eyes, it is perceived, but the word green is used to describe the colors it is different from. greenness is just when the color isn't a hue of red,blue,yellow,pink,violet,white,black,grey,orange,ect.

You are going too far to create a schism of body and mind by trying to ask where the ability to distinguish comes from. All mammalian consciousness stems from the brain. it doesn't connect us to some non-existent existence. All thought comes from brain matter. All mental ability comes from brain matter.

The fact that you think there is a spiritual world, or even have an open mind to it, means you don't know what you are talking about. All things are physical because to be a thing you HAVE to be physical. A thing is a subject that can be manipulated through power, and ALL things can be manipulated through power.

If the mind can be manipulated, then the mind is a thing, thus is physical.







Superstars said:


> All this guy is saying is he believes the universe can be explained without God. That takes more faith than saying that God made the universe.


Not really, because there is no evidence of god.
It takes faith to question something that is valid, not to question something that is invalid.

Example: It takes faith to imagine success at an impossible task.
It does NOT take faith to imagine success at something possible. That would take regular imagination.

To believe unreal events actually happened (like in religion) takes faith because they are naturally illogical.

To believe something that has evidence, or that is logically valid does not take faith, because it is logical. You don't need faith to believe the theory of relativity, just understanding.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Sep 7, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> How?
> 
> If anything, they take equal amount of faith.



No, Hawking's belief (if he is the one you are referring to) takes less amount of faith.


----------



## Suigetsu (Sep 7, 2010)

Mael said:


> I remember a religious ad asking how people would treat you if "life didn't matter" as a kid walks up and pulls a gun.
> 
> See...as much as I'd be inclined to think a sweeping change of mind for people to shed dogma and pursue more humanistic goals would be nice.  However, we have very stupid people.  These people need an almost primitive fear of divine retribution to keep their urges in check.  Not everyone is as bright as Mr. Hawkins or as rationale as you and I.  It's a sad notion I'm starting to feel.  To keep the dumb in check, give them a hell.



Like your corpse emperor?


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Sep 7, 2010)

Grrblt said:


> It doesn't stop being a nerve signal.



Dark said that the signals decode in the brain. If it doesn't stop being a nerve signal, then it never decodes(Goes from being CODE to a perception). A computer works, not by merit of the calculations it makes, but by the conceivable display it produces. Coded "signals" don't display anything; they are decoded and  displayed. 



dark messiah verdandi said:


> BINGO!
> Does a car ever stop being a vehicle because you stop calling it that?
> No.
> The difference is the frequency of the nerve signals. Cinnamon tastes different from cardamom because of the frequency the particles create when it is in contact with the gastronomical sensory organ(tongue).
> ...


Once again, you're not answering my question. You're giving me your personal philosophy, something you told someone else not to do earlier.  And you can't pretend that this question goes too far because guess what; physicality is only manifested through these experiences I'm talking about. Every "object" you think you see, is subject to thought. Even if it's all "just nerve signals," they were experienced first. Even the flubbing of these nerves are experiences.  Every axon, neurotransmitter,  synapses, and dendrite are only "known" through these experiences. 
Let me ask it again in a simple way. If we were to imagine that nerve systems were vats of marbles with each nerve having the appearance of a marble as it retains the function of a nerve, how does a totally physical marble taking the third person become the first person? How come everything isn't third person like the obvious material model would dictate?


----------



## Grrblt (Sep 8, 2010)

0fear, your post is so confused that I don't even know where to begin answering it.


----------



## Petenshi (Sep 8, 2010)

Narutofann12 said:


> No, Hawking's belief (if he is the one you are referring to) takes less amount of faith.



If you mean in terms of all the things we have assumed as true, then yes. But epistemologically speaking it is the same.


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Sep 8, 2010)

Grrblt said:


> 0fear, your post is so confused that I don't even know where to begin answering it.



You know exactly what I'm saying. It's in plain language. 

* Codes require decoding. So how does a neurological signal stay a neurological signal if it produces something that doesn't have the appearance of a neurological signal? Even if you were to say that both the experience and signal are synonymous, it's still a valid question. 

*What I was saying to Dark 1: "Physicality" is only known through "sensation." Every aspect of the physical can only be perceived through the "first person."
Every property is produced by the conscious mind. Even if consciousness was just the activity of nerve cells, there would be nothing perceived "outside" this activity,even the activity itself. Therefore, if anything was semantic about the process, "physical" would be, as physical would only describe subjective  properties which are inescapably attributed to the mind. 

*2 The Example : If neurological systems looked like vats of marbles, and these marbles still operated like neurons, how does a "physical" vat of marbles fundamentally identical to one that occupies a "third person space" become "first person"?


----------



## Grrblt (Sep 8, 2010)

0Fear said:


> You know exactly what I'm saying. It's in plain language.


No, for the most part I have no clue.



> * Codes require decoding. So how does a neurological signal stay a neurological signal if it produces something that doesn't have the appearance of a neurological signal? Even if you were to say that both the experience and signal are synonymous, it's still a valid question.


What exactly does it produce that doesn't have the appearance of a neurological signal?



> *What I was saying to Dark 1: "Physicality" is only known through "sensation." Every aspect of the physical can only be perceived through the "first person."
> Every property is produced by the conscious mind. Even if consciousness was just the activity of nerve cells, there would be nothing perceived "outside" this activity,even the activity itself. Therefore, if anything was semantic about the process, "physical" would be, as physical would only describe subjective  properties which are inescapably attributed to the mind.
> 
> *2 The Example : If neurological systems looked like vats of marbles, and these marbles still operated like neurons, how does a "physical" vat of marbles fundamentally identical to that which occupies a "third person space" become "first person."


That makes absolutely no sense to me. None whatsoever.


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Sep 8, 2010)

Grrblt said:


> What exactly does it produce that doesn't have the appearance of a neurological signal?



If a neurological signal by definition is a signal provided by a nervous system and "orange" is defined as "orangeness", how does the properties of a neurological signal convert into something bearing the properties of "orangeness"?



> That makes absolutely no sense to me. None whatsoever.



Let's forget the part about physicality for now and go to the marble point. 

In a materialist doctrine a marble and a neuron are both purely 'physical.' In compliance I hypothetically abstract the mysteriousness of a neuron into clearer terms of pure physicality by giving it the image of a non mysterious marble while retaining it's behaviour as a neuron.

I will put these marbles in a vat,set them on a table, and they will represent the nervous system. 

I ask the obvious question, " How would an object physically identical to the vat of these symbolic marbles taking space "outside of me"  create the sensation of being in the "first person"? 

Common sense logic would dictate that no manner of complexity in the assortment of the marbles, no change in the signals, or  actual assortment would ever change the fact that the system is an 'outside' object, and therefore does not even begin to address the difference between the vat of marbles on a table or the vat of marbles in a head. This is obvious because theoretically, a vat of marbles with the exact assortment and composition as mine will most likely not become 'me.' 

Of course this is overly-simplified. As living beings our atoms are constantly replaced. So our physical similarity with our past bodies is only "imagined."


----------



## Talon. (Sep 8, 2010)

Stephen Hawking FTW


----------



## Kira U. Masaki (Sep 11, 2010)

Hawking and his co author were on larry king live today talking about this book, just some things of note

Hawking himself said: God may exist, he is just not needed
his co author also said a spiritual world, God, etc. may exist, but in this book we simply show that a set of laws govern everything we know
Lastly King asked, do you answer Why?, and his response was yes, but you can always ask Why Why?

so I just found this interesting, given some of the directions this thread has taken


----------



## Miss Happy (Sep 11, 2010)

oh then God may existthat's good


----------



## Zhariel (Sep 11, 2010)

God, if you're out there, just join and make a thread saying Hawking is not needed. Until you do, I'm with Steve.


----------

