Fear thou not for I am with thee, be not dismayed for I am thy God, I will strengthen thee, yea I will help thee, yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my rightousness.
"Could God heat a burrito in the microwave so hot that he himself could not eat it?"
Homer Simpson
Homer Simpson
bradruth
Lifer
- Aug 9, 2002
- 13,479
- 2
- 81
Well we'll only know there is a God. If we die and there is no afterlife, we won't know anything because we will have ceased to exist.
I personally don't follow religion and I consider myself an Agnostic, but there's almost no way either argument will be proven. And that's a good thing. Imagine if it was proven that there was no God--many people would lose hope that their lives have meaning. If that occurs why should we live "good" lives instead of just catering to our most basic desires? Religion, despite all the bad that occurs in it's name, serves a purpose. That purpose is hope.
I don't think his wave function removes the last "gap" by any means. First of all it's not proven. Secondly, there are practically an infinite number of "gaps" in what physics can explain today. Why doesn't he first try to prove some easy stuff we are missing first, like a unifying theory to combine or explain the four elemental forces (gravity, electromagnetic, weak, strong), or perhaps something simple like explaining instantaneous transmission at a distance (photon pairs)? or spontaneous creation/destruction of sub-atomic particles?
What if god was the singularity that caused the big bang, killing himself in a giant explosion to create the universe?
I just started a new religion.. Chrisism
I just started a new religion.. Chrisism
OS
Lifer
- Oct 11, 1999
- 15,581
- 1
- 76
I don't know if anyone else noticed, but that piece isn't really written by Stephen Hawking himself, but by someone named Quentin Smith as an interpretation of Hawking's ideas.
see here
At anyrate, even the brightest minds don't know everything with absolute certainty. Einstein didn't believe in quantum mechanics, but to this date QM has been rigorously tested and yet to be disproven.
see here
At anyrate, even the brightest minds don't know everything with absolute certainty. Einstein didn't believe in quantum mechanics, but to this date QM has been rigorously tested and yet to be disproven.
Stephen Hawking is a brilliant physical scientist...but he sucks ass as a philosopher. He makes some tremendous philosophical errors. In order to positively assert what he did, and make all the make all the underlying stipulations that hw didn't detail, he himself would have to be God.
I'm not going to go into gory details here but: The dude is not a top shelf scientist and doesn't put out original stuff -- everything in that article has been around for a while -- and he's crippled, you think he doesn't have some personal issues with a higher power.
If a person is really going to think about the existence of God it would be wise to learn the logical constructs used by the great historical philosophers to debate about God and creation/evolution and so forth...
One of these constructs is simply: don't apply logic or science to God... i.e. something supernatural is not required to be logical or scientific and we would define science.
For example: The "Hello, world" program written by Linus Torvalds would hardly give the program an idea of Linus' intellect..oh and wait, the program can't even think! Well, that is the idea: If there is higher power that created the universe (which I believe by the way) then we have to understand that "thinking" and active processes of this higher power are concepts we can't even fathom so it is idiotic to take math and logic and make God fit into this 'box' and when God doesn't, declare God dead. It is like a all the artist's painting getting together and deciding the artist never existed.
Mankind cannot prove God doesn't exist; mankind cannot prove God does exist other than noting that fact that we are here. You cannot prove that the universe is just "there" apparently and go about your business quoting that mass and energy cannot be destroyed, only converted from one form to another (thermodynamics). The two statements are directly opposed. Now we see thermodynamics at work everyday, we fly planes, nourish our bodies, etc. using these laws...they haven't failed us yet.
What I would like answered is where did all this mass and energy [of our universe] originate (what is the causual source of it) if there is no God, and explain it without breaking proven laws of physics? There is no answer to this question. The Big Bang, several trillion year wave form oscillations of our universe, evolution...just mechanisms of a higher power fleshed out in physical laws that we perceive...they don't answer the metaphysical why or how, just the physical how, which gets you no closer to proving the non-existence of God than Nietzche was when he said God was dead.
Anyhow...I'll get off the crazy horse now...
<-- Chemical Engineering PhD student, not saying I'm smart or know everything, just saying I'm not stupid.
I'm not going to go into gory details here but: The dude is not a top shelf scientist and doesn't put out original stuff -- everything in that article has been around for a while -- and he's crippled, you think he doesn't have some personal issues with a higher power.
If a person is really going to think about the existence of God it would be wise to learn the logical constructs used by the great historical philosophers to debate about God and creation/evolution and so forth...
One of these constructs is simply: don't apply logic or science to God... i.e. something supernatural is not required to be logical or scientific and we would define science.
For example: The "Hello, world" program written by Linus Torvalds would hardly give the program an idea of Linus' intellect..oh and wait, the program can't even think! Well, that is the idea: If there is higher power that created the universe (which I believe by the way) then we have to understand that "thinking" and active processes of this higher power are concepts we can't even fathom so it is idiotic to take math and logic and make God fit into this 'box' and when God doesn't, declare God dead. It is like a all the artist's painting getting together and deciding the artist never existed.
Mankind cannot prove God doesn't exist; mankind cannot prove God does exist other than noting that fact that we are here. You cannot prove that the universe is just "there" apparently and go about your business quoting that mass and energy cannot be destroyed, only converted from one form to another (thermodynamics). The two statements are directly opposed. Now we see thermodynamics at work everyday, we fly planes, nourish our bodies, etc. using these laws...they haven't failed us yet.
What I would like answered is where did all this mass and energy [of our universe] originate (what is the causual source of it) if there is no God, and explain it without breaking proven laws of physics? There is no answer to this question. The Big Bang, several trillion year wave form oscillations of our universe, evolution...just mechanisms of a higher power fleshed out in physical laws that we perceive...they don't answer the metaphysical why or how, just the physical how, which gets you no closer to proving the non-existence of God than Nietzche was when he said God was dead.
Anyhow...I'll get off the crazy horse now...
<-- Chemical Engineering PhD student, not saying I'm smart or know everything, just saying I'm not stupid.
I agree, you are definitely not stupid. I disagree with part of your thinking there though. The part I disagree with is the analogy you're trying to make between humans and inanimate objects. You say that (and I quote) :
"For example: The "Hello, world" program written by Linus Torvalds would hardly give the program an idea of Linus' intellect..oh and wait, the program can't even think! Well, that is the idea: If there is higher power that created the universe (which I believe by the way) then we have to understand that "thinking" and active processes of this higher power are concepts we can't even fathom so it is idiotic to take math and logic and make God fit into this 'box' and when God doesn't, declare God dead. It is like a all the artist's painting getting together and deciding the artist never existed."
Now what you're saying in essence is that a computer program cannot understand it's creator, and artists paintings cannot understand their creator anymore than humans can. The problem with this thinking is that humans and non sentient objects are not alike and cannot be compared or made analogous in my opinion.
We are not computer programs, we are not paintings. We have minds, we CAN think for ourselves. We are different. In essence, we are unlike anything else we have ever encountered thus far. We are THE single most intelligent beings we know of in the universe so far. To compare us to a friggin painting to me is just ludicrous.
You can not prove we are incapable of understanding our creator anymore than anyone can prove that such a creator exists or not.
On the other hand, I do agree with the rest of your post. There is no way to prove or dispprove a diety at this point. And in so far as how the universe was created, where did all the matter come from, if you say that it cannot just appear, that some god had to create it, or it would violate currently known laws of physics, first of all doesn't that go against your first argument of not applying logic as we know it to understand god? And secondly, if it would violate physical laws for the universe to have just popped up out of nowhere, then wouldn't it also violate those same laws if a diety were to have essentially done the same thing? Created matter out of nothing?
Btw the big bang does not stipulate matter from nothing, it rather theorizes that matter was at it's densest point at the beginning of the big bang, and then everything came from that extremely hot, energetic, dense mass. The big bang does not violate laws of physics, the very laws it was founded on!
A diety that just poof created the entire universe out of nothing, however would.
On the other hand a diety that followed the laws of physics to create the universe would not violate those laws. So again we are at square one in so far as being able to prove or dispprove the existence of god.
But then who is to say that the diety must follow our laws? For all we know our laws may not be 100% correct, or may have special cases in certain circumstances we have not encountered yet. Case in point Newton's laws not being applicable when approaching the speed of light, etc.
edited for typos cause I typed too fast..one of those stream of consciousness posts that are oh such a waste of your time to read compared with a YAGT or a NEF post
DanTMWTMP
Lifer
- Oct 7, 2001
- 15,908
- 19
- 81
dying is like sleeping forever w/o the dreaming part....cuz u don't exist anymore.......u just don't exist...u don't realise u exist anymore...ur DEAD...dead dead D E A D...meaning ...dead..meaning...u don't live?..meaning u can't see light, u can't feel, u can't think, u can do jack, ..ur dead....u just don't exist anymore....anywehre.....
then again i knw i can be wrong...
but i like to view it like that...eternal sleeep....mmmmmmmmm..
religious fanatic
INFIDELS!!!! Y OU ARE ALL GOING TO HELL!!! THAT IS NOT TRUE!!!!!!!
/religious fanatic
INFIDELS!!!! Y OU ARE ALL GOING TO HELL!!! THAT IS NOT TRUE!!!!!!!
/religious fanatic
"I don't know which is the bigger disappointment, my failure to formulate a unified field theory or you. "
silverpig
Lifer
- Jul 29, 2001
- 27,703
- 12
- 81
Originally posted by: element®
I agree, you are definitely not stupid. I disagree with part of your thinking there though. The part I disagree with is the analogy you're trying to make between humans and inanimate objects. You say that (and I quote) :
"For example: The "Hello, world" program written by Linus Torvalds would hardly give the program an idea of Linus' intellect..oh and wait, the program can't even think! Well, that is the idea: If there is higher power that created the universe (which I believe by the way) then we have to understand that "thinking" and active processes of this higher power are concepts we can't even fathom so it is idiotic to take math and logic and make God fit into this 'box' and when God doesn't, declare God dead. It is like a all the artist's painting getting together and deciding the artist never existed."
Now what you're saying in essence is that a computer program cannot understand it's creator, and artists paintings cannot understand their creator anymore than humans can. The problem with this thinking is that humans and non sentient objects are not alike and cannot be compared or made analogous in my opinion.
We are not computer programs, we are not paintings. We have minds, we CAN think for ourselves. We are different. In essence, we are unlike anything else we have ever encountered thus far. We are THE single most intelligent beings we know of in the universe so far. To compare us to a friggin painting to me is just ludicrous.
You can not prove we are incapable of understanding our creator anymore than anyone can prove that such a creator exists or not.
On the other hand, I do agree with the rest of your post. There is no way to prove or dispprove a diety at this point. And in so far as how the universe was created, where did all the matter come from, if you say that it cannot just appear, that some god had to create it, or it would violate currently known laws of physics, first of all doesn't that go against your first argument of not applying logic as we know it to understand god? And secondly, if it would violate physical laws for the universe to have just popped up out of nowhere, then wouldn't it also violate those same laws if a diety were to have essentially done the same thing? Created matter out of nothing?
Btw the big bang does not stipulate matter from nothing, it rather theorizes that matter was at it's densest point at the beginning of the big bang, and then everything came from that extremely hot, energetic, dense mass. The big bang does not violate laws of physics, the very laws it was founded on!
A diety that just poof created the entire universe out of nothing, however would.
On the other hand a diety that followed the laws of physics to create the universe would not violate those laws. So again we are at square one in so far as being able to prove or dispprove the existence of god.
But then who is to say that the diety must follow our laws? For all we know our laws may not be 100% correct, or may have special cases in certain circumstances we have not encountered yet. Case in point Newton's laws not being applicable when approaching the speed of light, etc.
edited for typos cause I typed too fast..one of those stream of consciousness posts that are oh such a waste of your time to read compared with a YAGT or a NEF post
Yay! Two sensible posts here!
Let me add that all we can do right now is prove or disprove the existence of god as he is described currently. This description is constantly changing in the face of scientific advances, but one has to consider how much that has been said about god has been concocted by people and how much is truly a valid description.
For example, ancient people had a volcano god and attributed eruptions of the local volcano to an angry volcano god. Now that we know how volcanoes work (for the most part), I don't think very many people believe in any sort of volcano god. I'm quite sure, had science not advanced us to the point of understanding volcanoes, that eruptions would still be explained as part of "god's will" and left at that.
Okay, so we have one example of a concoction, and have established that at least one natural phenomenon has been erroneously attributed to the mood of a god. The nature of the universe, and the origins of life are two examples of phenomena that may be purely natural, or may be the result of a god. As of now, organized religion attributes both of these as effects of god. Are they really effects of a god or are they purely natural occurances which have been erroneously attributed to acts of a creator?
Based partly on how the current god vs. science track record is running, I find it premature to simply write off currently unexplained natural phenomena as acts of god.
Some say god has always existed and the universe is a finite creation, others say god has never existed and the universe has always been. I say: good questions, but don't even think anyone can answer them for you
LMAO at a mere 2 sensible posts in a thread being cause for celebration. I remember a time when the inane babble was the exception and not the majority here.
I think if there is a god, and it is a good god, someone will create a bulletin board system with moderation so strict that any inane babble posts that do not address the topic at hand wil be cause for a ban.
unfortunately such a board would have cause even I to be banned from it long ago during the times of sheer boredom from silly topics leading me to post drivel to them., but this, could have been an interesting serious topic!
I say make a serious-off-topic area on AT and delete all the nonsense posts who's with me?
And shup you fools that would call for the deletion of this post, I'm being serious so you can't delete it and besides we are not under the delete nonsense rules yet. And another thing god is mentioned in this post too so stuff it! lol
Warning Irony meter at maximum! All hands on deck! Abort Abort BAIL OUT! BAIL OUT! ABANDON SHIP ABANDON SHIP!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter