Stephen Hawking Says the Universe Was Not Created by God

[conv3rsion]

I cannot fucking stand when people use the word "Theory" in the context of scientific discussion without understanding what it actually means.

In science theory does not mean "speculative idea of", as in "By God Watson I have a theory!!!" it means "explanation for" which arises from a summary of hypotheses that have been supported repeatedly by evidence.

The theory of evolution means the explanation of evolution as repeatedly supported by evidence. Yes theories are often incomplete, but that does make them necessarily wrong (although a theory can later be disproven). Laws are not stronger than theories in science. A law DOES NOT TELL YOU WHY.

There is no absolute truth in science. At the same time, there are facts and there is evidence. Next time someone says something in science is "just a theory" tell them they don't know what they are saying.

For more on hypothesis vs theory vs law - Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, Law Definitions and http://wilstar.com/theories.htm . To quote the second

"The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process."

 

[conv3rsion]

To answer your first question I never said a certain religion was good for society. I said the idea of religion was good for society.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55h1FO8V_3w"]YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]

 

[riddarhusetgal]

I love engaging hardcore atheists in debates about religion. Because when you start quoting science and strict Aristotilean logic they start yelling emotional stuff like "retard!"

As if "retard" is taught at MIT as a branch of science. The fact of the matter is that no scientist worth his or her degree would argue that science confirms or negates the existence of a yet unknown force of nature (just like the strong force, weak force, electromagnetism, gravity, etc)....a yet unknown force of nature some people call "God".

 

[conv3rsion]

I love engaging hardcore atheists in debates about religion. Because when you start quoting science and strict Aristotilean logic they start yelling emotional stuff like "retard!"

As if "retard" is taught at MIT as a branch of science. The fact of the matter is that no scientist worth his or her degree would argue that science confirms or negates the existence of a yet unknown force of nature (just like the strong force, weak force, electromagnetism, gravity, etc)....a yet unknown force of nature some people call "God".

That's semantics. If you define "any force" as God then a lot of those atheists aren't actually atheists since they probably do not deny the possible existence of any unknown "force" as being responsible for or instrumental in the creation of the universe. Most atheists you meet would just say they don't believe in either the existence of a personal God or the God of the Bible/Torah/Koran/etc.

Actually, wait, what atheists yells "retard" when you quote science or logic? A scientist worth his degree would probably argue that currently understood scientific understanding does not REQUIRE the existence of a personal God for almost all explained aspects of the known universe.

 

[riddarhusetgal]

Actually, wait, what atheists yells "retard" when you quote science or logic? A scientist worth his degree would probably argue that currently understood scientific understanding does not REQUIRE the existence of a personal God for almost all explained aspects of the known universe.

I don't disagree here. My point is that emotionally-charged atheists like to behave as if science negates the existence of "God" as such. Actually I don't really like using that word because it is emotionally charged.

Being secularly-spiritual myself my favorite quote is by an ancient mystic who said

"If you can name it you haven't yet found it; once you've found it, you won't be able to name it..."

 

[turbolapp]

The fact of the matter is that no scientist worth his or her degree would argue that science confirms or negates the existence of a yet unknown force of nature (just like the strong force, weak force, electromagnetism, gravity, etc)....a yet unknown force of nature some people call "God".

Science can neither confirm nor negate flying purple unicorns either. What's your point again?

 

[riddarhusetgal]

Science can neither confirm nor negate flying purple unicorns either. What's your point again?

My point is that EVERYONE is emotionally-attached to their beliefs (I know I am, are you?) and one can't make any credible argument with regard to the discussion of beliefs that science is in their corner...

Actually that's why I love discussing religion with agnostics....they are super cool when it comes to having an open mind about such things.

My impression with a lot of rabid-atheists is that they were so fucking screwed as kids with people trying to shovel religion down their throat that it's just hard for them to have a rational, intellectually-stimulating debate when it comes to the discussion of religion.

In this respect I feel particularly lucky having been raised by secularly-spiritual scientists ( 3 masters + a PHD between them) who encouraged us around the dinner table to QUESTION EVERYTHING....whether it comes from the mouth of a preacher or scientist...

I've probably mentioned this before

 

[MadMaxNine]

Southpark figured this out years back

Hell Director: Hello, newcomers and welcome. Can everybody hear me? Hello?
[taps microphone]
Hell Director: Can everybody... ok. Um, I am the Hell Director. Uh, it looks like we have 8,615 of you newbies today. And for those of you who were little confused: uh, you are dead; and this is Hell. So abbandon all hope and yadda-yadda-yadda. Uh, we are now going to start the orientation PROcess which will last about...
Protestant: Hey, wait a minute. I shouldn't be here, I was a totally strick and devout Protestant. I thought we went to heaven.
Hell Director: Yes, well, I'm afraid you are wrong.
Soldier: I was a practicing Jehovah's Witness.
Hell Director: Uh, you picked the wrong religion as well.
Man from Crowd: Well who was right? Who gets in to Heaven?
Hell Director: I'm afraid it was the Mormons. Yes, the Mormons were the correct answer.
The Damned: Awwww...

 

[-God-]

I don't disagree here. My point is that emotionally-charged atheists like to behave as if science negates the existence of "God" as such. Actually I don't really like using that word because it is emotionally charged.

Being secularly-spiritual myself my favorite quote is by an ancient mystic who said

"If you can name it you haven't yet found it; once you've found it, you won't be able to name it..."

Most of your conceited tone, in this and other posts of yours within this thread, points towards a dislike of atheists.

I'm an atheist. I've said it before in this thread and others. Atheism, for me, is not a belief in science, it's a disbelief in a sky fairy or far-fetched religion based superstition, which is utterly implausible and even laughable.

Many, like you it seems, like to badge something beyond our current knowledge, as god. This is no different from the deluded views of the devout. (If you can't prove it, it's god...)

Despite your grandiose tone, what you say isn't far off the brain-dead doctrine spewed by the religious establishment. Being unable to disprove something does not prove it exists. You act intelligent, but surely you can see how stupid that argument is?! Flying Spaghetti Monster anyone? Bertrand's Teapot?

Oh and your quote by the "ancient mystic" (is this said to add weight to an absurd statement?) is, uhmmm, retarded. (Yes, I used that word on purpose!) It says and means nothing. Think about it.

And to add one last point of inanity, agnostics are the worst. They're flakey people who lack the balls to commit in either direction. Like "realists"; too negative to be an optimist, yet too flakey and weak to actually commit to being a true pessimist!

 

[ii silver ii]

The fact of the matter is that no scientist worth his or her degree would argue that science confirms or negates the existence of a yet unknown force of nature (just like the strong force, weak force, electromagnetism, gravity, etc)....a yet unknown force of nature some people call "God".

Is that why scientists don't know the Higgs Boson particle exists yet they have proved it does with physics?

What exactly is the Higgs boson? Have physicists proved that it really exists? : Scientific American

 

[NightG]

Just an observation. I try not to get into religious debates because they really don't matter, but I always find it odd how often people use phrases like "man in the clouds", "sky fairy", etc what have you. These are such blatant straw man attacks that I'm surprised that the people who use them (who generally bash religious people for wordplay and logical fallacies) aren't embarrassed.

 

[Rusky]

What about DNA. How do you explain the origins or these complex assembly instructions. Seems like everything depends of information to function.


Away from DNA for a second.

Heres your Purple Cow in the sky or Men in the Clouds.
"By the middle of the 19th century, the theory of biogenesis had accumulated so much evidential support, due to the work of Louis Pasteur and others, that the alternative theory of spontaneous generation had been effectively disproven. Pasteur himself remarked, after a definitive finding in 1864, "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."[13] The collapse of spontaneous generation, however, left a vacuum of scientific thought on the question of how life had first arisen.

From your Bible my atheist friend.
In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871,[14] Charles Darwin addressed the question, suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."[15] In other words, the presence of life itself makes the search for the origin of life dependent on the sterile conditions of the laboratory."


Have atheists ever treasured the fact that out of billions and billions of people that come and gone. Were all truly unique individuals (not slightly different). You probably wont get this. So go hang yourself, it wont matter anyways.

 

[JoseArmando]

Just an observation. I try not to get into religious debates because they really don't matter, but I always find it odd how often people use phrases like "man in the clouds", "sky fairy", etc what have you. These are such blatant straw man attacks that I'm surprised that the people who use them (who generally bash religious people for wordplay and logical fallacies) aren't embarrassed.

O really?

You know, each of us has a model of reality. It's tough to argue with people who have strong beliefs because they're very sure in their reality.

However, one way to make a point is through metaphors. Saying "sky fairy" helps the other person understand atheist point of view on God because it dissociates them from their current understanding and gives them another point of reference and a new perspective on the matter at hand.

So just because you can classify something it doesn't necessarily mean you can discard it without understanding the linguistic and logical dynamics behind it - because in this case right here you're the one who should be embarrassed since you're using an argument you clearly have a very poor understanding of.

Okay?

 

[NightG]

When have you ever seen someone re-evaluate their beliefs after mentioning the spaghetti monster? Creating a caricature of their deity does nothing but instigate some petty argument (similar to the one you want to start with me for some reason).

 

[Moxie]

Science can neither confirm nor negate flying purple unicorns either.

The ridiculous can come to look more probable over time though, even if you still can't confirm it. For example, with the current knowledge about the vast size of the universe, along with theories of multiple universes - the known likelihood of a flying purple unicorn existing somewhere out there is higher than ever before.

, agnostics are the worst. They're flakey people who lack the balls to commit in either direction.

"God may exist..." - Hawking

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AdKEHzmqxA"]YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCoTGTRfDy0"]YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIttENo2eOM"]YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]


And I'm not going to watch the whole thing again right now, but from what I remember, the guy who Hawking co-wrote the book with also seemed open to agnosticism, if that makes sense.

It's worth watching as everyone involved in the discussion came across well, even if they were disagreeing on certain things.

 

[ii silver ii]

Actually that's a point, what about atoms... noones ever seen a single atom yet scientists base the whole universe on them? So technically they do back their beliefs without solid proof.

 

[zdmyn]

Actually that's a point, what about atoms... noones ever seen a single atom yet scientists base the whole universe on them? So technically they do back their beliefs without solid proof.

You can't see microwaves either. So is it a leap of faith every time you nuke a bag of popcorn? Could it be that the kernels are just suffering a claustrophobia induced nervous reaction which makes their insides explode?

Atoms are based on properties and characteristics. Scientists don't need to see them to know that they're there. If you and I were both blind and you walked into a brick wall, could I tell you that the wall didn't exist? You could show me with sense of feel that there was indeed a brick wall there. It would have all of the properties and characteristics of one. I would be a fool to doubt you.

Look up Scanning Tunneling Microscopes.

 

[Chianti]

> Actually that's a point, what about atoms... noones ever seen a single atom yet

True, but here's the first ever image of a molecule...

There is a reason that this molecule looks just like the plastic models we built in chemistry class. It's because the 'atomic model' mirrors reality so well; it wasn't just pulled out of someone's arse like religious beliefs were.

Hundreds of thousands of people spend years working on and developing scientific models and theories, and they usually have to justify their conclusions and claims nearly every step of the way. Whereas, it only takes one crazy fucker to spend 40 nights in a cave to come back with some divine delusion based on nothing more than a shroom-induced hallucination.

The scientific method works like this: There are at first many, many explanations for something ('hypotheses'). Eventually the ideas are whittled down in a very brutal process of elimination. The strongest ideas left standing (ie. the ones that seem to fit reality the best and gain the most evidence) are called 'theories' rather than 'truth', because even they can be further refined.

Religion is the complete opposite: One 'prophet' invents some complete shit and convinces the mindless and ignorant to accept it. People along the way add their own ideas and superstitions to the original and before you know it we end up with dozens of main denominations and 30,000 sub-denominations of a religion, each with slightly differing explanations of the universe and none of which even match observations of reality, simply relying instead on 'magic'. And every single one of these fuckers has the gall to claim their baseless belief is an 'absolute truth'.

When someone like Hawkings puts forward a hypothesis that the universe is probably at a zero energy state, or someone else claims that atoms may be vibrating like strings, you can be sure that there are good theoretical reasons for the suggestions. They aren't just pulling this stuff from nowhere on a whim, like our ancient, ignorant ancestors did.

Unfortunately laymen like us probably can't even begin to understand the maths, physics and chemistry behind most modern scientific claims, but that is the worst reason to dismiss a hypothesis or theory, especially if you're just going to replace it with magic.

 

[ii silver ii]

You can't see microwaves either. So is it a leap of faith every time you nuke a bag of popcorn? Could it be that the kernels are just suffering a claustrophobia induced nervous reaction which makes their insides explode?

Atoms are based on properties and characteristics. Scientists don't need to see them to know that they're there. If you and I were both blind and you walked into a brick wall, could I tell you that the wall didn't exist? You could show me with sense of feel that there was indeed a brick wall there. It would have all of the properties and characteristics of one. I would be a fool to doubt you.

Look up Scanning Tunneling Microscopes.

But what if there not atoms there actually something else with different physical structures and properties..

If you want a complete mind fuck imagine the galaxies are atoms for something even bigger or it's actually one big loop where atoms are actually galaxies

 

[Chianti]

> If you want a complete mind fuck imagine the galaxies are atoms for something even
> bigger or it's actually one big loop where atoms are actually galaxies

Religion uses only imagination only. A ten year old could imagine what Moses invented when he came down from the mountain. Someone who claims out of nowhere that the universe was defecated into existence by a giant unicorn is doing exactly what our ancient ancestors did when they invented their religious explanations of the universe.

These religious ancestors got away with it because no-one knew any better.

But no piece of human knowledge has been invented in that way for over four hundred years. You can imagine all you want, but when it comes to making a claim, such as super strings or zero energy universe, you have to go to the table with a shitload more than your imagination.