News Science Stephen Hawking Stephen Hawking: 'There is no heaven, it's a fairy story'

[babsbunny]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/may/15/stephen-hawking-interview-there-is-no-heaven

In an exclusive interview with the Guardian the cosmologist shares his thoughts on death, M-theory, human purpose and our chance existence

Ian Sample, science correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 15 May 2011 22.00 BST

A belief that heaven or an afterlife awaits us is a "fairy story" for people afraid of death, Stephen Hawking has said.

In a dismissal that underlines his firm rejection of religious comforts, Britain's most eminent scientist said there was nothing beyond the moment when the brain flickers for the final time.

Hawking, who was diagnosed with motor neurone disease at the age of 21, shares his thoughts on death, human purpose and our chance existence in an exclusive interview with the Guardian today.

The incurable illness was expected to kill Hawking within a few years of its symptoms arising, an outlook that turned the young scientist to Wagner, but ultimately led him to enjoy life more, he has said, despite the cloud hanging over his future.

[sasha031]

1. what a sad thought

I would like to believe we have a soul and move on.

[physioex]

2. Isnt it though....

I like to think of the Aerosmith song when it says "Life is a journey not a destination".

[johnnyplankton]

173. I'm Pretty Sure that's not an original Aerosmith thought

[RandomKoolzip]

7. I think just the opposite. I don't think the lack of a soul or an afterlife is sad at all.

I see it as a thrilling challenge: how much can I get done in this allotment of years? What can I achieve? How can I make this life - and the lives of others - as good as it can be? Because no one here is getting a do-over.

[rurallib]

79. I am with you on that. Plus someone screws someone else over

they need to be punished in this life. There is no after life for punishment.

Hear that Bush?

[tabasco]

88. You said that very well and I agree.

Let's try to make the world a better place, even if just so slightly, while we are here.

[roguevalley]

98. in your opinion. I don't care what people believe, life after or not.

I believe it. I don't care what Hawkings says. He's one voice with an opinion. Doesn't make him anymore right than me. The only way to know is to die. I had a near death experience and I believe it. Take it for what its worth.

[RandomKoolzip]

117. Well, I don't believe in an afterlife.

It really feels like so much afterlife yearning springs from an overweening fear of death. I know, because through a lot of my childhood I was plagued by depression springing from a realization of my own mortality, when I was around 5 or 6. I finally made peace with the fact that I have an expiration date - and when it happens, that's it - around 24 or so. Now I'm comfortable with ambiguity, and I'm comfortable with the lack of "options" re: death.

Like I said, now I prefer to know death is coming. That realization effects every decision, and imbues my daily life with a lot more urgency, magnanimity, and a greater wish to help others.

[NashVegas]

122. I Think It Depends on Your Definition of "Life"

If electromagnetic impulses count, there very well may be. Matter, energy, ok. How much consciousness does there need to be to satisfy the requirements?

[Phlem]

180. Agreed

but to you and #98,...

We're a speck in the timeline.
Can we agree we don't know shit and that the struggle for enlightenment is the lifetime.
Many lifetimes...
..then maybe we might have a slight understanding.

I'm pretty sure how we're going about it right now will not lead to "heaven on earth".

just a thought.

-p

[spooked911]

271. I went through a similar process... though the timing was different

[arikara]

189. Exactly

I guess he never had an NDE, like you I had one too and having been there I have no fear of the next plane of existence. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, the truth will come out sooner or later.

[K8-EEE]

205. There's zero proof of after life.

There's a difference between "what I would like to believe" and "what is true." The problem I have with the afterlife thing? It justifies bad behavior/atrocities in this life with the reasoning everything will magically work out in death.

[druidity33]

214. What about NDEs?

What about the science of Noetics?

Just because Science doesn't have proof something exists, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Stephen Hawking doesn't know any more about this than you or I do. Period. The reason it's a mystery fer cryin' out load is because NO ONE WILL EVER KNOW.

:shrug:

[Warren Stupidity]

223. There is no 'science' of Noetics.

There is only woo.

[Atypical Liberal]

296. You can claim anything is real then.

Just because Science doesn't have proof something exists, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

But the world does not work that way. You can't claim something is true just because there is no evidence that it is not true.

In order to claim a thing is true, there has be some evidence leading to the possibility that that thing is, in fact, true.

[druidity33]

366. THOUSANDS of people

have had similar NDEs. Is that not "some evidence"? Did gravity not exist before Newton because we couldn't "prove" it existed? And i didn't claim "Truth", i'm just unwilling to invalidate legitimate experiences based on my own beliefs.
BTW, you have not disproven the statement "Just because Science doesn't have proof something exists, doesn't mean it doesn't exist" by saying "that's not the way the world works"...


:eyes:

[dmallind]

500. NEAR death expriences

We know that the brain can easily be made to generate images of things that are not there, and sensations for things not there. We know it does it itself in response to perfectly mundane stimuli. Who knows what it does when it senses a serious lisk of shutting down? Thousands of amputees feel pain from limbs that no longer are attached to them. They should not take subjective sensation as evidence of existence of phenomena, and neither should NDE folks. NDE tells us nothing whatsoever about POST death experience, any more than living close to a power-plant teaches us about nuclear physics.

[snooper2]

256. How come nobody's ever come back and proved it?

Yo Dave, I'm going to kill myself on Friday...

From Saturday on, watch that lamp right there for 14 days..I'm going to try to move it or turn it on. Then you'll know if there is something after death. :P

[Qutzupalotl]

310. If they didn't exhibit PK ability in life,

why would you expect them to after death?

[snooper2]

312. ROFL

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Thank you, I needed that

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[truebrit71]

325. Wait, that was you? Shit...I thought it was a faulty light bulb...

:evilgrin:

[BlancheSplanchnik]

361. actually, there are loads of people who HAVE had such experiences

I have and I know many others who also have.

So, I don't know for CERTAIN but I know in which direction experiences I have had myself and heard about cause me to lean

[Rainbowreflect]

328. I think that we cannot know.

I am annoyed by those who are too damn sure on either side.
I know what I believe, at least today, but that is my own truth and no one else's.

[reggie the dog]

352. one life is rough enough

i dont need another one after i die

[Rozlee]

360. I had a near death experience too.

I saw my deceased mother smiling at me as she led me toward a glowing figure. I was filled with an incredibly euphoric feeling that I still have flashbacks of to this very day. But, guess what? NDEs can be stimulated by electrical impulses to certain areas of the brain. Science has proven that stimulating these areas can cause hallucinations ranging from seeing the Virgin Mary to alien grays. My NDE wasn't even caused by being near death. It was caused by a seizure that doubtlessly arose from neural activity to that area of the brain. Hate to be a wet blanket, but after experiencing that event, I did some research and came up that explanation. I miss my mother desperately. But, I won't let the overpowering desire of being with her again lead me down a path of illogic.

[cleanhippie]

421. While yes, everyone does have an opinion, some are MORE valid than others.

And on the subject of science and what does and does not actually exist, I think most would agree that Hawkings' "opinion" on the matter is just a tad bit more informed than yours.

[eridani]

127. Souls are what you get when matter is sufficiently comples. They can't exist independent of

--matter, any more than computer programs can run without computers.

[ensho]

252. agree

nt

[NeedleCast]

269. I agree

I feel sorry for the fundamentalists out there who live their lives by a set of rules that ultmatly don't mean anything and who waste their time in this life becasue they think paradise awaits in the next.

[OwnedByFerrets]

293. And when a child dies? Oh well?

I do not believe in heaven or hell, but I am naive enough to believe in a soul that lives on in some form after this body is gone?

[RandomKoolzip]

337. I could be callous and say, "Yeah, pretty much."

I won't, but look: life is not fair. Bad shit happens to good people, people who don't deserve it. If your religion mitigates the hurt that comes along with life not being fair, then more power to you.

[OwnedByFerrets]

371. Talking about religion to the wrong person. I dont believe in GOD

However, that isnt what I was discussing. Believing there is a soul or SOMETHING besides this body has nothing to do with religion...at least to me. The interesting thing is....none of us knows for sure.

[Trajan]

11. Even as an Atheist ....

I believe in a human 'soul' .... Which I believe is the totality of our essence, personality and character .... But it is something that will pass on when I do ...

Humans have a spirit that is derived from our existence as a live being .... It will extinguish (metaphorically) when we die, I believe ...

[Name removed]

151. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Trajan]

170. Something I have thought of ...

Our material is 'recycled' on a continuous basis, but yet we are still 'us', 'me' and 'you' ....

As our genetic material is recycled, it is copied, and the copied genetic 'code' material is what regenerates and reforms the replacement tissues ...

I am sure we can look at aging as the introduction of minute errors in the copying process, which degrades the fidelity of the regenerated tissue to the original 'template', and which, over time, is reflected as 'aging' .... We still look somewhat like we used to, with the same twinkle in our eyes, but ..... our genes rust ... The physical pieces are still 'new' material, but the template mutates until at last, it is unable to recreate viable tissues in some part of the body.

I presume that the intellectual capacity of a sentient being - the specific structures of our minds; first imprinted by genetics, and eventually molded and developed by study and exposure to elements in the environment ... Those same brain structures also degrade due to the natural process of aging, and perhaps alter the structures that mold personality ... the inter-cranial tissues that make us 'us'.

Consciousness and memory are consequences of a functional cerebral cortex, and are founded on the proper functioning of those tissues ALONE ....

Once those tissues degrade beyond functionality, then consciousness and memory ceases .... The 'self' .. your 'human soul' .. is lost ....

I do not believe in a transmigrating soul or the self as an incorporeal entity .... It is based strictly on a functional, material organization of tissues that form a mammalian brain.

In that vein, I believe other mammals have 'selves' and can interrelate with other beings in a similar manner was we do ...

[Uncle Joe]

522. What about the memory that's retained in the DNA to defend the body against

billions of years old viruses, of which that particular body never had to meet during its' brief life-span?

This memory being passed down through the ages.

Would that be a form of consciousness albeit on a more ancient, primitive level?

[Snoutport]

18. I firmly believe we do...

maybe not a soul like the bible says but the energy that runs through every living thing at least.

[Odin2005]

28. LOL, just because you believe it doesn't make it true.

The Universe dose not give a damn what you like to believe.

[KittyWampus]

93. True, but the Consciousness within the Universe does care that you eventually evolve

past Materialism.

[Odin2005]

137. Right, and you think you can read this Great Consciousness's thoughts?

:P

[darkstar3]

194. It thinks just like her.

[Odin2005]

198. Same with everyone who thinks Gawd talks to them.

[Arugula Latte]

320. Quelle concidence!

:)

[snooper2]

259. Do you know how much a tablespoon of matter within a white dwarf weighs?

:rofl:

I don't think people really grasp the size of the universe...

[cleanhippie]

422. What is "Consciousness within the Universe" and how do you know it exists?

Please, elaborate.

[demwing]

190. How do you know what the Universe gives a damn about?

Assuming the Universe give a damn about anything at all, the same could be said of whether it gives a damn about Stephen Hawking, or you...

Your post is an excellent example of why many Religious/Spiritual DUers say they experience intolerance here. Your post also shows the hollowness of the claim that DUers of faith somehow bring this behavior on themselves.

[Odin2005]

191. I was being metaphorical.

Of course the universe cannot give a damn about anything at all.

[demwing]

196. But you still took the opportunity to get a dig in... /nt

[rpannier]

203. LOL, just because you believe it doesn't make it true.

I was curious if making conceited, obnoxious posts was all that fun.

The answer is NO. It just makes you a conceited, obnoxious ass.

For the comment you made above I decided to unrec your post

[Warren DeMontague]

52. you come from nothing, you're going back to nothing... whaddaya lost? NOTHING!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1loyjm4SOa0

[immoderate]

75. What we think of as a soul is a collection of information.

When we're gone, it disassembles.

--imm

[KittyWampus]

92. and yet the CONSCIOUSNESS that organized that information is eternal. Reductionists-

philosophically illiterate, for the most part.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

128. ''philosophically illiterate''

:eyes:

[Odin2005]

138. Wittgenstein would like a word with you!

:evilgrin:

[immoderate]

142. Turtles all the way down, eh?

--imm

[RaleighNCDUer]

206. Prove it.

[JackRiddler]

136. What a liberating thought. Or do you prefer Judgement Day and near-certain hell?

[Generic Brad]

153. Why is the thought of no afterlife sad?

That idea spurs me on to make the most of my life. I actually find the idea liberating.

[sofa king]

216. I agree. Make the world a better place now.

Because now is the only chance you have. That's essentially what most religions preach anyway, without the authoritarianism, exclusivity, flawed logic, and ten-percent Jeebus tax.

I'm still a big cheerleader for the bipedal monkey team. The honor of having existed at all and being dimly self-aware is a heaven's reward all by itself, and our universe is an endless treasure trove of wonders.

I think it also increases my empathy for others because I cannot write off the suffering of others by saying they'll get their reward when they're dead. In my mind, they're being denied their one shot at having a good life, and there is a sense of urgency in rectifying that.

[tinrobot]

183. Your atoms move on

The physical matter which was once you gets taken up by other life and you live on in those forms.

[Whisp]

199. something sure flickers, but it's not the fucking Catholic church upbringing

that saves you or not.

we are all the same.

whatever happens happens to us all, equally.

and I do believe there is something more to us that this miserable life we lead here.

[truebrit71]

324. I would dearly love that to be the case...

...I used to imagine it being some sort of amorphous presence just floating through the universe having attained all the answers to life's impossible questions until I realized that was just pie-in-the-sky bullshit too...

We're born, we live, we die. It's HOW you live that's important.

[liberation]

204. What is sad is that most people don't pay attention to more than 0.00000000001%

of the beautiful, amazing, incredibly improbable and spectacular physical reality in which we exist, because they rather wait for afterlife for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Thus completely missing the beauty and potential of the current picture.

Our universe so large and unexplored... but apparently it is not "big" enough for those with the least intellectual curiosity, who apparently know there is something "better." How messed is that. Those who could not even get the very basics right, like how the earth is not flat or the center of the universe for example. How egregious is for that very same people to claim they know something about a subject orders of magnitude more complex like the supposed supernatural. Would you bet your life savings on an accountant who can't add 2+2. Then why do people keep betting their existence on the nonsense of people who keep being proven wrong over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

The whole concept of an afterlife, which may or may not exist, is for the most part a silly exercise in human projection. It is also a very nice way to control people. What if this was really it, what if these few years on earth is what we get to experience as a self aware collection of atom,s which have traveled through time and space for billions and billions of years in order to get in an organized collection which makes your very being. How amazing that is by itself, if you really really think about the improbability of each of us and our specific existence.

I assume it would be far harder to convince people to waste their lives in doing something which in the very big scheme of things matters little... if people had that sense of wonder. Maybe most people would *gasp* want to do something, with their limited time, other than do the bidding of other people who are having a very nice ride already and who don't give two shits about the quality of their existence.

[atomic-fly]

224. well said

[PerpetuallyDazed]

237. If we are the reality we create, then why not be able to create an afterlife?

It makes sense to me. But if you were to disagree that we aren't the creators, then there must be a Creator which may give validity to some religion.

[liberation]

327. "Creator" is a human term. An abstract one at that.

Your logic is flawed, because you are injecting your own human projection into it.

It is not that "you are the reality you create," but rather "what you create is dictated by the reality you live in." There are natural rules, laws, etc, we live under. I.e. if I jump off a building, it matters little what "lift" I pretend I create, gravity will bring my ass down to the ground rather rapidly. Just because you are not the creator, it does not mean that "there must be a creator." That is a false dichotomy. There could very well be no creator at all. In fact, there is zero evidence to the existence of any sort of deity and yet the world keeps working just fine: the earth revolves around the sun, the sun moves along its galactic plane, our galaxy of millions of starts keeps chugging along the inter-sideral space, etc... etc... all without having an invisible guy with lots of strings pulling them, apparently.


You need to realize that we can only claim to know that for which we have evidence, not knowing or having no evidence does not imply existence of something else. It simply means that we don't know, and that is as much as we can claim.

[Silent3]

347. You're deliberately blurring making choices with "creating" reality

There's no contradiction in the idea that we simply have partial and limited control over what happens in our lives, no reasonable impetus for acting as if there must be a black-and-white choice between totally "creating" our reality and some deity doing it for us.

[Faith No More]

228. Sad, maybe,

but this is why people should live their life to the fullest now. This is not some rehearsal for another life, this is all you've got and it you piss it away chasing some unfounded fantasy, you've wasted it. There is no evidence to support any of the religious that are forced upon us on a daily basis. None.

[Heidi]

253. Can you explain why you Mr. Hawkings' viewpoint sad? (nt)

[snooper2]

255. your atoms live on, 8 billion years from now some of your atoms

will be part of some carbon swirling to make a new planet....

Much better than the fairy tales you feel a need to believe in

[sasquuatch55]

263. A soul is a religious manifestation; originally it meant a persons ghost; purely supernatural! nt

nt

[ChairmanAgnostic]

292. why? Is reality that horrific for you, that

you must make up an imaginary place once your time is up?

[Deep13]

294. I would like to believe that too.

But I can't because it isn't true.

Anyway, I don't find it sad. Death is a necessary part of life and without it, we would not have evolved. None of us is so important and so central to existence that the Universe cannot get by without him or her. Being gone is not harder than not having been born yet. It was not difficult not to exist for all those countless centuries before we were born. I will not be difficult not to exist. I feel bad for friends and relatives who miss those who are gone. I naturally feel bad for those lost when they were young or by avoidable means. But this is a subjective sense of loss that in the long run means nothing.

[buddysmellgood]

359. Well, that's all it is, a thought. No one can says for sure until we get there.

[Goblinmonger]

374. I would like to believe I am going to win the lottery

but it ain't going to happen.

Personally, I think the reality that this is the only go around we have makes it more precious. There's no eternity for "greatness." You need to make it count here.

[cleanhippie]

420. You can continue to believe that if you wish.

No one says you cannot.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

3. he has proof?

unrec.

[physioex]

6. Where is the proof there is? EOM

[Tuesday Afternoon]

12. who said there was?

I know I didn't.

[Curmudgeoness]

9. Really, you unrec an OP because you don't like what Hawking

has to say? It is an article about an interview with him.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

13. really, you are putting words in my mouth.

why do you un-rec?

[Curmudgeoness]

16. I don't. If I think an OP sucks, I just move on.

I don't rec and I don't kick. But if I were to unrec, it would be for an OP that was unreadable and poorly thought out. It would not be just because I personally did not like the opinion.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

17. I just don't think this is greatest page material --

and personally think it belongs in R?T but, that's just me.

I rec. I kick. I un-rec. no biggie to me.

[Curmudgeoness]

39. Yes, it probably should have posted in R/T. And yes,

it is not greatest page material. With that said, I found it interesting.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

51. yeah, interesting ... agree with that.

:thumbsup:

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Trajan]

15. It was a logical retort ...

A parallel with gross imagery ... I apologize for that ....

No where did I imply they were my turds ... They were generic turds ....

[Tuesday Afternoon]

19. it was a disgusting retort and you know it. apology accepted.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

25. says someone with no profile.

:eyes:

I am attacked with a disgusting remark. I defend myself in the same manner and yet I am the one you don't like. whatever.

[Marr]

34. Are you telling me you actually went directly to my profile to look for some

delicate part you might tweak in your comeback? Do you even realize how weird that is? I don't think I've ever once looked up anyone's profile here-- and certainly not to just rummage around for good insult material.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Marr]

43. I love you, too, sunshine.

:)

[Tuesday Afternoon]

46. backatcha babe

:*

[jpak]

63. creepy - yup

:wow:

[Tuesday Afternoon]

70. where's your Billy Yank now? jpak! my buddy. my pal.

and you know damn well I didn't go anywhere. Don't play dumb.

[roguevalley]

103. actually, people look for trolls that way. :)

[pintobean]

40. I like her

Quite a bit.

[Marr]

48. Great! Maybe she's a ray of sweetness and light at other times.

I saw only a rapid barrage of what I consider to be the crudest sorts of comments. A silly demand for proof of a negative combined with a snarky unrec, etc.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

54. did you read what was said to me? I did not start that trash but, I ended it

the same way it got started. Maybe, I should have been nicer but, when someone tries to sell me a shit sandwich I tend to take umbrage. my bad.

[Marr]

58. No, I understand. And frankly, I misread one post.

The one that really smacked me upside the head, to be perfectly honest, was the "apology accepted" line. I skimmed the post you were responding to and assumed there was an apology in there since you mentioned one in your response. So I took it as a snarky response to an apology. But that's not what happened.

Anyway, I apologize. I think I was more offensive than you.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

69. is OK ... I knew when I put it in the subject line that it would be

eye catching...just like the other poster knew to hide his in the body of the message.

no harm. no foul.

[pintobean]

60. self delete

[Tuesday Afternoon]

49. thanks, pinto

:hug:

[Odin2005]

29. The burden of proof is on the folks claiming there is an afterlife and a soul.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

33. well then, I await their proof.

burden, btw

[jpak]

66. I await proof the Bigfoot, Skunk Apes, Unicorns and UFOs exist

until then I will stick to my (((((((delusions))))))))

yup

[Tuesday Afternoon]

71. breaking news

jpak admits to being delusional. :*

[jpak]

80. There is no heaven

and there is no beer there either

yup

[madinmaryland]

118. I can say they do have beer in Hell and I did make it back...

At the Helen Back Cafe!!

http://www.helenbackcafe.com/

:P

[boppers]

121. Okay, I can deal with no heaven... but no beer?

That's just mean.

[Enthusiast]

231. PLUS ONE...............nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

207. The fact that there is no beer in heaven is defacto proof that there is no heaven. nt

[boppers]

209. I found a solution.

Beer volcanoes.

http://www.google.com/search?q=beer+volcanoes

[WinkyDink]

42. If there were "proof", not ONLY would we not call it "faith," but one would be a MORON then

NOT to believe! Because THEN it would be.......

SCIENCE.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

59. exactly... I find it odd that Hawking feels the need to discuss it, must be

his own mortatlity is starting to get to him.

:shrug:

[muriel_volestrangler]

95. He was asked a question about it, in the interview

"You had a health scare and spent time in hospital in 2009. What, if anything, do you fear about death?"

It would have been rude to not answer it. Actually, he's been faced with his own mortality more than almost anyone else - he's outlived his medically predicted lifespan by about 40 years. It seems strange to say "his own mortality is starting to get to him" when what he says is that it doesn't 'get to him'.

:shrug:

[Tuesday Afternoon]

99. it seems odd to me that, as a scientist, he made such a statement.

He could have answered differently, He chose this answer. I think he put some thought into his answer.

[AtheistCrusader]

383. It's the only responsible statement a Scientist could make.

There being no proof, let alone evidence of post-death experiences/supernatural occurances/gods/etc.

[humblebum]

448. The only honest statement a scientist can make is "I don't know",

because the evidence will allow him to go no further than that. Anything beyond is unsupported conjecture and hypothesis.

[laconicsax]

450. BWAHAHAHAHA!

Because unproven, unsupported positive claims can't be denied, right?

[darkstar3]

451. You have gotta be kidding.

So you actually fall for the fallacious thought that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?

[laconicsax]

452. "Where you see contradiction, I see confirmation."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=273296&mesg_id=273348

[humblebum]

453. I sorely hate to tell you, but anything beyond what can be observed

can only be hypothesized. He can believe anything he wants but rules is rules, bubba. His admonitions about origins are NO more valid than the case for a creator. Martin Rees was quite right in his assessment of Hawking.

[darkstar3]

454. And Hawking isn't making a hypothesis. You are.

Rules ARE rules, bubba. "Nothing" is not a hypothesis.

[humblebum]

457. If he is so bold as to claim that something came from nothing

or that something created itself, or even to say that some force or inert object always existed and simply moved on its own, then that is certainly unsupported hypothesis and totally unobservable in the natural world.

[darkstar3]

458. Yeah, that's a BIG if.

Of course, you offer nothing to show that he's done such a thing, so your post is so much waste of bandwidth.

[humblebum]

459. Surely you read the article and surely you have read Hawking.

"Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing. It is a matter of chance which we are in," he said.

[laconicsax]

461. Yes it does, your inability to acknowledge that fact is adorable. n/t

[darkstar3]

462. See #460, and furthermore,

don't assume that when Hawking, who chooses his words carefully for many reasons, uses the word "nothing" while talking to laymen that he actually means the "nothing" you think he does. You see, Hawking understands that what most non-scientists, like yourself, label "nothing" is actually "something." #460 scratches the surface of that.

Get back to me when Hawking claims that actual, scientific nothing, null, nada, is capable of creating something. I'll be waiting for it, because it should be shortly after purple dragons fly out of my ass.

[sudopod]

466. *shakes hand*

manly tears are shed.

[laconicsax]

460. Sorry, wrong.

"Empty" space isn't empty. Quantum fluctuations...observed and measured fluctuations fill space with continuous changes in energy. This can result in the creation of virtual particle/antiparticle pairs--something coming from nothing.

The prevailing model in cosmology is the Lambda-CDM model, which allows for the universe to emerge from these fluctuations.

So you see humblebum, it isn't an "unsupported hypothesis and totally unobservable in the natural world," but a well-supported model built on observations of the natural world.

Then again, since you see confirmation where there is contradiction, I have no doubts that you'll manage to interpret reality in a way that not only makes it meaningless, but lets you keep going on without admitting error.

[humblebum]

463. That is NOT the commonly held definition of "nothing"

"Ex nihilo nihil fit" still holds. And that is why people like Rees chide Hawking and others. Something is not nothing.

[laconicsax]

464. Sorry, still wrong.

As I explained previously, the nature of quantum mechanics makes it so that something can spontaneously arise from nothing.

Take a volume of nothing. Out of that nothing, something will spontaneously arise due to the nature of quantum mechanics. That something will typically only exist for a brief instant, then disappear again.

Semantic games won't help you here.

[humblebum]

465. Still positivist theory and nothing more. And therein lies the conundrum. nt

[laconicsax]

497. You mean the conundrum of how you see confirmation in contradiction?

I have my hypotheses about that.

[humblebum]

502. By all means proceed. There is a huge difference in the way

some others perceive the concept of "nothingness" and that which you have described. Your description of something popping briefly into existence from nothing isn't really what it appears to be, as that brief something is actually the result of a very physical contact with a parallel existence. That is the positivist POV of which Hawking claims to hold.

True "nothingness", as some consider the concept to be, is devoid of all physical attributes. You described a void of empty space as your concept of "nothing", and space implies distance or expanse, even though there is nothing contained within it. True "nothingness" cannot have any physical attributes - neither time, nor distance exist in such a concept. Much different from yours, which has the element of "space" attached to it, into which something briefly pops into existence.

[laconicsax]

503. Nope, still wrong.

"True" nothingness doesn't exist, and can't logically exist as you define it. Let's rename your "true" nothingness "Bob" for brevity's sake:

Bob's being devoid of physical attributes is a physical attribute in itself. If Bob is somewhere in real space (by which I mean Minkowski spacetime), then it has a location and a measurable size, both of which are physical attributes. If it doesn't exist in real space, that is a physical attribute. In fact, if Bob exists, its existence is a physical attribute.

No matter what you try, Bob is a logical contradiction and cannot exist as anything more than a philosophical wank flannel.

Oh, and it doesn't matter whether other people believe in Bob's existence, because reality isn't contingent on the beliefs of others.

[humblebum]

504. "can't logically exist as you define it" - so am I to understand that

if you do not understand something then it cannot exist? In fact, that perception of nothingness does exist in the minds of many. Again, you are using the positivist's POV, which is limited to the senses and anything beyond that does not, or cannot, or probably doesn't exist. Regardless, it is certainly a concept. Whether you agree with such a concept or not is irrelevant. And that is exactly the dilemma that exists between competing epistemologies.

[laconicsax]

506. Nope, but you're correct in stating that you don't understand.

I'll repeat the last sentence of my previous post:

Oh, and it doesn't matter whether other people believe in Bob's existence, because reality isn't contingent on the beliefs of others.

Now, the 2nd sentence of your reply:

In fact, that perception of nothingness does exist in the minds of many.

:rofl:

[humblebum]

507. That's what I thought. So then, is the often referenced idea of

more than three dimensions, say as many as eleven, logical? And if so, then why is zero dimensions not logical?
I think Bob is probably the one laughing.

[laconicsax]

508. Ooh! A straw man of your own argument! What fun.

Zero dimensional is a physical attribute. Are you saying that your "true" nothingness (AKA "Bob") is zero dimensional? If so, you've assigned a physical attribute to something you declared has no physical attributes! :rofl:

[humblebum]

540. You have already shown that your idea of "nothingness" is a sham

when you said "'True' nothingness doesn't exist." And yet you continue to say that "nothingness" does exist. Pure deception and dishonesty.

And where you got this gem, "you've assigned a physical attribute to something you declared has no physical attributes!", I have no idea.

[laconicsax]

542. Maybe if you tried following the discussion you understand what's being said.

-I explained how you can get something from nothing.
-You countered with a imaginary version of nothing that has no bearing on the discussion.
-I explained how your imaginary version of nothing is both a contradiction in terms and can't exist as described.
-You offered a straw man of your own argument.
-I laughed at how ridiculous you'd become

As for how you've assigned a physical attribute to something you declared has no physical attributes. You said that your fantasy "true nothingness" has no physical attributes, an attribute in itself, then implied that is zero dimensional--another physical attribute.

It's not my fault if you can't keep track of your own arguments.

[humblebum]

543. You explained how you can get something from an "untrue" nothing.

It's not a "true" nothing as you, yes you, said. But we'll just call it that. It sounds better. Oky doky? It doesn't get more dishonest than that. What you have confirmed is that you really can't get something from nothing. But you are trying wildly to manipulate the truth.

As for your invectives, those are things out your own head. Nothing but vacuous.

[laconicsax]

544. The "true" nothing was your invention.

I'm not surprised you forgot that you initially argued that the "nothing" that Hawking uses and I referenced isn't "true nothingness." You do have trouble keeping track of which posts are yours.

[humblebum]

545. No, actually nothing has been understood for thousands of years.

"Ex nihilo nihil fit" has been around for awhile, but some have seen fit to change its meaning to justify their ideas. Again, positivism is a man-made ideal with severe limitations. That is why so many have abandoned it.

And the term "true" nothing was your designation. You said,"'True' nothingness doesn't exist." And I thought to myself, "My what a brilliant statement (cough)" - kinda hard to debate that one.

[laconicsax]

546. ...and we're back to where we started.

This nothingness that's been around for so long is inconsistent, contradictory, and doesn't even come close to describing reality. Hawking was describing reality, and if it doesn't square with what you imagine to be true, sorry.

[humblebum]

551. Hardly inconsistent and contradictory. LOL

"Hawking was describing reality, and if it doesn't square with what you imagine to be true, sorry." Wrong! That is the "new" reality that was defined fairly recently in history in order to satisfy human perceptions. It's called positivism and it is a very human construct. Purposely given limitations. Group think. That's reality!

[laconicsax]

553. Tell me then how something can be "zero dimensional" while still having "no physical attributes."

We'll set aside the fact that "no physical attributes" is an attribute in itself for the time being.

[humblebum]

554. That was purely your statement, not mine. Pure blather.

Kinda like when you said that "true" nothingness wasn't the type of nothingness that you are considering.

[laconicsax]

555. Umm...am I humblebum now?

Here's the first description of a true nothingness: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=280416&mesg_id=281260

Notice how that comment was posted by DU user "humblebum" and uses the words "true," "nothingness," "devoid," "of," "all," "physical," and "attributes" in that exact order. Also notice humblebum (that's me now, is it?), immediately explained how this "true nothingness" is quite different from what laconicsax described.

Here's the first mention of something being zero dimensional: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=280416&mesg_id=281334

That's humblebum again.

Looks like the only way for you to be right is for you to be me and for me to be you. That's probably exactly the kind of contradiction you see as confirmation, right?

[humblebum]

557. I should expect these kinds of answers from someone who thinks

nothing is something. So, would you care to define what zero of something looks like? And yes i would agree that "true" nothingness is indeed devoid of all physical attributes, even though your nothing is not a "true" nothing and does have physical attributes, i.e. distance (infinite height and depth and width).

[laconicsax]

558. I don't think that "nothing is something." I accept reality.

This "true" nothingness you keep prattling on about is a logical contradiction. Being "devoid of all physical attributes" is a physical attribute in itself. If it exists, it must have a location (another physical attribute) because if it didn't, it wouldn't exist anywhere. If it exists 'outside of space and time' as the expression goes, its being 'outside space and time' is a physical attribute.

So, since it's impossible to be "devoid of all physical characteristics," it becomes apparent that your "true" nothingness is little more than a philosophical toss pot, we're left with reality, the quantum mechanical properties of which allow for something to come from nothing.

[humblebum]

559. "Being 'devoid of all physical attributes' is a physical attribute in itself "

We have now hit the heart of the issue. So what you are telling me is that if it defies your perceptions then it
cannot exist. The reality is that your "somethingness" is masquerading as "nothingness" and therefore something can come from it because something can only come from something. ex nihilo nihil fit still holds.

[laconicsax]

560. No, still wrong.

Do you fail to grasp the fact that your "true" nothingness doesn't exist and is a logical impossibility? You've spent considerable time trying to prove me wrong with semantics, probably because you don't have reality on your side.

Ex nihilo nihil fit may be a nice philosophical sound bite, but it isn't universally true.

[humblebum]

561. " 'Ex nihilo nihil fit" may be a nice philosophical sound bite, but it isn't universally true."

Tell me now, are you familiar with the concept of zero? The problem is that you and others like you need to stop claiming that something comes from nothing. That IS illogical!

[laconicsax]

562. Funny you should mention zero--it's what allows you to get something from nothing.

Since details seem to only confuse you and throw you into fits, I'll summarize it in one tidy equation:

1+(-1)=0

Now if you're a sufficiently talented mathematician, you should be able to deduce the rest.

[humblebum]

563. You just confused yourself. Zero is still Zero.

When you subtract something from it's entirety, nothing remains.

[laconicsax]

564. So close, but still so far away.

Let's say that "1" is a virtual electron and "-1" is a virtual positron (or any other virtual particle/anti-particle pair).

[humblebum]

565. The problem here is that you are still dealing with mass, which

equates to something.

[laconicsax]

566. Nope, just energy fluctuations owing to the uncertainty principle. n/t

[humblebum]

567. Even if you are only left with photons, you still have dimension since

they can be sensed and measured. Even if they are only a nanometer, they still exist. That is something, not nothing. You are operating TOTALLY in the mindset of a logical positivist, which is by its own definition is limited to only that which can be sensed. Hawking calls himself a positivist, therefore that is his sole orientation.

[laconicsax]

568. And you were doing so well too.

Is it really so hard to understand that the nature of quantum mechanics guarantees that something will always arise from nothing?

[humblebum]

569. Only if your version of nothing is confined to the limitations that

your positivist orientation places upon it. Are you telling me that the collision you just described does not result in a measureable release of energy?

[laconicsax]

570. Start earlier.

Where did those virtual particles come from? Nothing. They came from nothing. That's the point--there's going to be inherent uncertainty in any system and that uncertainty results in these virtual particle/antiparticle pairs.

[darkstar3]

571. There is no earlier in a circle,

and this rabbit only knows one circle to run in.

[humblebum]

572. We are both approaching this problem from different POV's or

epistemological differences (for lack of a better term) and that is the cause of disagreement. From my POV you have 2 or 3 conditions that are present BEFORE your virtual particle/antiparticle pairs, which would be necessary to produce them - gravity, momentum, and space.

Peace.

[laconicsax]

573. I'd hardly call reality an epistemology

Maybe you could offer up a non-contradictory description of your starting point and what it has to do with the question of how the universe began. If you can't do that, maybe you should come up with something that actually has something to do with Hawking's description of a cosmological model or maybe something that has to do with the OP.

Your substance-free distractions have run their course. Time to put up or shut up as the saying goes.

[humblebum]

574. I hate to tell you, but epistemology is exactly what Hawking uses

to define what you call reality. It is still nothing more than an educated guess and is by no means that which is held universally. And BTW, yours does not address origin if something is present before the event that caused it to occur. Nice and tidy but doubtful.

Your explanation is a non-explanation if you can't at least acknowledge other questions. Kinda like explaining how a bell rings and answering that it is the little clacker thingy inside that causes it to ring. But...but...but...what caused it to move to start the clacker?

Answer:"Maybe you could offer up a non-contradictory description of your starting point and what it has to do with the question" of how a bell rings.

[laconicsax]

575. So you insist on a prime mover.

Hate to break it to you, but if you have a prime mover kicking things off, you still don't have "true" nothingness and you've now added a new unknown to the mix. Where did your prime mover come from? If your contention is that ex nihilo is an unquestionable, universal truth, then you've introduced infinite regress--that prime mover had to come from something, which came from something, which came from something, etc. ad nauseum.

Hawking's description of how things got started eliminates the need for a prime mover and is consistent with reality as observed. I know it must trouble you to no end that science has developed a concise picture of where the universe came from without the need for your god, but it's happened. Get over it. Your god isn't needed to explain things anymore; he's become obsolete and made redundant.

Reality isn't an epistemology anymore than acceleration is a velocity.

[humblebum]

576. You are right. "True" nothingness does not exist. (As if that needs to be stated).

But that doesn't hide the fact that Hawking had to modify (as per the positivist POV) the definition of the term "nothing" in order to justify its use. And you are continuing to facilitate the sham. BTW. That "prime mover" you speak of would have possessed no physical attributes. "ex nihilo nihil fit"

"Reality isn't an epistemology anymore than acceleration is a velocity" - That's one of the most nonsensical statements from you to date. Who ever said it was?

[laconicsax]

577. Thank you for admitting that your entire argument is wholly without merit.

Your entire challenge to Hawking's description of an existing model was predicated on the notion that the nothing he uses isn't "true" nothingness. Now that you admit that "true" nothing doesn't exist, we're left with nothingness as it exists in reality. Nothingness, as it exists in reality allows for something to come from nothing. Ex nihilo nihil fit is not an axiomatic statement

It's really quite laughable how you throw out these self-contradictory arguments. Let's say for the moment that ex nihilo is universally true. That means that since there is something, there must have always been something, meaning that "nothing" can't exist and since you've given an identical description for your prime mover as you did for "true" nothingness (which you admit doesn't exist), it can only be concluded based on the premises of your argument that the prime mover can't exist either.

Also, you now admit that reality isn't an epistemology, meaning that a statement about what "is" in reality can't be an epistemology either. I'm glad you were able to finally admit that the problem here isn't different epistemologies.

So let's review, shall we?

-You challenged Hawking's description of the origin of the universe because of ex nihilo. That has been refuted.
-You challenged the refutation because it requires a deviation from "true" nothingness. You've now admitted that "true" nothingness is fiction.

Do you have anything left that you haven't already admitted to be false?

[humblebum]

578. Your ideal of nothingness is still a sham and I have by no means

changed the definition as you have and Hawking has not proven a thing. And the one thing that proves this is that he admittedly works within the confinements of logical positivism, by his own admission. Now, while there is nothing wrong with positivism, it was designed for a specific application, and has self-imposed limitations. You are propagating a sham.

[laconicsax]

579. *yawn*

I've been completely consistent this entire time. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly changed your argument and admitted that your premises are fictional.

Just curious...how is my "ideal" of nothingness (it isn't an ideal, but an observed fact) a sham despite being an observed phenomenon whereas you already admitted that your ideal of nothingness is fictional?

[Name removed]

580. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[laconicsax]

581. When did I say any of that?

Oh, that's right...I didn't.

Your definition of consistency is oddly consistent with your assertion that where there is contradiction, you see confirmation.

[Silent3]

550. Other than an attempt to tie up your opponent in semantic knots...

...and getting yourself all tangled up in the process, what do your questions about "something from nothing" get you? Tossing in a deity doesn't solve the "something from nothing" dilemma, so what's your point?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

100. hawks.

[AtheistCrusader]

382. Keep projecting.

Maybe we can all do shadow puppets off you.

[Warren DeMontague]

61. A lot of people don't believe in science & things -like evolution- for which there is lots of proof.

In short, 'proof' seems to be a piss-poor indicator of whether large numbers of humans will believe in something, or not.

[Odin2005]

62. IMO anyone who relies on blind faith in anything is a fool.

[pintobean]

85. The burden of proof is on anyone claiming to know, either way.

[pipoman]

86. I believe it

but could really care less if you or anyone else does. I owe nobody anything, certainly not proof. I strongly believe I am right....you should hope I'm not, eh?

[KittyWampus]

94. The burden is on Materialists and Reductionists to prove there is no Consciousness.

[NoodleyAppendage]

105. Neither deny the existence of consciousness.

They simply do not believe that consciousness is independent of physical substrates or action. Duh.

J

[KittyWampus]

159. Is an ocean dependent on an estuary? BTW, Reality is already proven to be non-local.

[Silent3]

348. You keep using that word, non-local.

[Odin2005]

140. Strawman argument.

Read something, anything, on the philosophy of mind by Dan Dennett. Or better yet, meditate and realize what he is taking about personally. Another good book is "Zen and the Art of Conciousness".

There is awareness and there are thoughts within that awareness, consciousness as the term is used in the west is strongly tied with the notion of an enduring self that "holds" that consciousness, but there is no such thing, which is the same thing Dennett argues in his book "Consciousness Explained" in his "multiple drafts" theory of conscious awareness.

[PVnRT]

398. That's idiotic

The burden of proof is on the people MAKING THE CLAIM, not on those who don't believe it.

Do you think the accused should have to "prove" that they're innocent?

How about you "prove" I'm not actually an invisible unicorn?

[roguevalley]

106. I disagree. The burden of proof is on both. One of them will be

wrong. Both need to offer the proof, not just one. Saying nothing is there is an opinion. Denying is an opinion. Put fact behind your negative OPINION. Because denying is an opinion without facts.

[Odin2005]

141. No, Atheism is the Null Hypothesis, the burden of proof is ALWAYS on...

...the person who wishes to refute the null hypothesis.

[pipoman]

163. I disagree

the burden of proof is on anyone claiming "truth". Belief or faith of an individual doesn't require proof. In this thread, it seems overwhelmingly, truth is being claimed by atheists even with no possibility of proof for their position.

[Odin2005]

169. I do not claim truth, I claim skepticism.

I don't "believe there is no god", I "don't believe in god". Lack of belief is not itself a belief.

[PerpetuallyDazed]

240. If you're claiming skepticism, doesn't that make you an agnostic?

[Odin2005]

331. Most Atheists ARE agnostics.

[NashVegas]

372. With All Due Respect

This is why taking the negative position is a lazy choice.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Logical]

123. Well, the burden of proof is on the "heaven exists" statement! n-t

[pintobean]

133. That's not logical.

There's no proof one way or the other. The only answer, that doesn't require faith or belief, is 'I don't know'.

[Logical]

148. No it is logical......

"Heaven" is a claim. Made by millions of people. So they need to prove it exists or it does not.

Just like I could claim to have a cure for cancer. Is it your job to prove I don't? Of course not. It is my job to prove I do. Until then, you saying I have no cure for cancer require no proof from you.

See logic. Pure and simple.

[pintobean]

168. Hawking made the claim.

It's his belief, which requires faith, and he's using his stature to try and push it off as fact. Your cure for cancer is provable, the existence or non-existence of heaven is not.
Faith may not seem logical, but refusing to recognize its existence is definitely not logical.

[Logical]

193. Hawkings did not make the claim of heaven. Churches do. He says...

They are wrong and does not exist. They need to prove him wrong. If not then the standard becomes there is no heaven!

[pintobean]

215. Hawking gets to set the standard on faith?

:rofl:

[Logical]

238. Believe in any made up stuff you want! It is your right! Good luck!

[pintobean]

243. I never said I believe in anything.

I was pointing out the difference between faith and fact. A concept that you appear unable to grasp. Everybody has a right to their faith. You have every right to say "I'm right, your wrong. Fuck you", but that just shows a complete lack of an effort to understand. It's fundamentalist atheism.

[PassingFair]

179. But if you "don't know" , then you have no BELIEF...

hence, you are an atheist and/or an agnostic.

[PerpetuallyDazed]

242. An atheist is a DISbeliever, opposite of a theist. It's in their name. n/t

[PassingFair]

246. a = without......dis = reversal or negation.

Not the same thing at all.

That's why the word is A-theist, not Dis-theist.

[AtheistCrusader]

384. Grammar. It's not for everyone.

[Silent3]

353. While flat-out denial of some things may technically require proof...

...let's not pretend that it makes no difference what's being denied.

Claim 1: There are invisible pink unicorns.
Claim 2: There are no invisible pink unicorns.

Neither claim can be absolutely proved, but a person making Claim 1 is completely nuts. A person making Claim 2 is simply and excusably not bothering with needlessly burdening their speech with absurd caveats and qualifications to account for the ridiculously improbable.

Let's add a third claim:

Claim 3: I don't know if there are invisible pink unicorns.

While Claim 3 is the safest, most neutral statement you can make from a technical standpoint, in most circumstances in human communication the fact that you'd bother to profess indecision on the matter of IPUs could likely to be taken as conferring way too much serious consideration upon a clearly crazy idea.

[pintobean]

393. There are no invisible pink unicorns.

Invisible objects cannot reflect light, therefore they have no color. Your unicorn is either pink, or it's invisible.

[Silent3]

394. They could be pink to the other invisible pink unicorns...

...who can magically see each other, and invisible to everyone and everything else. :)

Aside from that, good way to miss/evade the point. If you're out in the far reaches of hypothetical musing, pondering invisible unicorns of any color or non-color, you might as well question your own ability to correctly judge whether or not "pink" and "invisible" are truly mutually exclusive.

Further, even if you don't question that ability, then instead of taking a cheap way out of the issue which you know I'm trying to communicate, you should simply alter the IPCs to ICs or whatever else you think it takes to go from self-contradictory to "merely" highly improbable, then deal with that instead.

[pintobean]

395. I didn't miss or evade your point

I was being a smart-ass. I don't care about your reasoning on the afterlife any more than I care about a fundie's thoughts on the matter. Everyone has a right to their beliefs, whether you think it's logical, or not.

[Silent3]

402. Who challenged your right to your beliefs?

You have the right to believe anything you want, just as I have the right to challenge false equivalencies between saying a thing exists and saying that it doesn't. Challenging what you say is not the same thing as challenging your right to say it. Confusing those two things is olde-tyme favorite rhetorical tactic employed by people with weak arguments.

You also have the right to not care about my reasoning. Your not caring, however, does not turn evasion into non-evasion. You have (and probably will continue to) evade the point of my previous post. That is your right, just as it is my right to point out the evasion.

[pintobean]

403. Let me be clear

I don't care.

Is that simple enough for you, or will you continue to read things into it?

Jeez. It's like slamming the door in some fundie's face and they continue to ring the bell.

[Silent3]

404. Fine. If you don't care, don't keep bothering to respond.

I know you won't answer the real question here, because that would challenge your beloved "like a fundie" meme, your need to equate disbelief with belief. That false equivalency is too precious to you to give it up, no matter how blatant the flaws.

Further, a post on the internet is much less intrusive and much more easily ignored than someone ringing your doorbell over and over. Once again, unsurprisingly, you rely on false equivalency to defend a weak position.

[onager]

456. Wow! Now that's some Sophisticated Theology (tm) !

They could be pink to the other invisible pink unicorns who can magically see each other, and invisible to everyone and everything else.

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. And I would like your opinion on my 1,400 page manuscript dealing with ancient modes of unicorn-grazing and their applicability to modern life.

[AtheistCrusader]

143. Do you have proof there is no invisible, pink, firebreathing unicorn in my garage?

Do you need proof to dismiss the very idea?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

250. I couldn't care less what you do in your garage or with who.

What people do in their own garage is their business.

ask a simple question....sheesh.

you have no idea who or what I think on this subject. All I did was ask a simple question.

do you really care what I do or what I believe?

be honest.

why did you even post to me? you don't like me and you just want to start trouble.

[AtheistCrusader]

267. Ask a question, get an answer.

"he has proof?"

This is a non-sensical question. He requires no proof. He need not offer proof. He is not making a positive claim. He's dismissing a positive claim for which there is no evidence.

It would be completely fair, and require no proof on your part, to entirely, and without evidence, dismiss my above (facetious) claim of an invisible, pink, fire-breathing unicorn inhabiting my garage.


I have no opinion on whether I like or dislike you. I do not know you. I'm not prone to actively disliking people I don't know.

I do somewhat care what you believe, insofar as you have asked a non-sensical question in a public forum.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

275. You dodged the question.--

Calling it nonsense does not answer it. Easy question to answer too...one word...NO. he does not have proof nor does he need it.
You think I post nonsense and I think you post nonsense.
You are facetious.
I am not the only one who thinks this thread needs to be moved to R/T.

You are dismissed.

[AtheistCrusader]

283. I didn't dodge anything.

Your question was nonsense. I DID say he had no proof and none was required.

Did you even read my response?

[Deep13]

298. Are you kidding? He has spent his life studying the actual heavens.

And he is exceptionally good at it. Remember, sky and heaven used to be synonymous. It has only been since the true nature of the solar system has been understood that heaven became an abstract concept. Given Hawking's profound understanding of how the universe works, he is in an as good of a position as anyone to comment on this.

Anyway, since there are countless hypothetical truths that may be proposed, it is necessarily incumbent upon those proposing existence to bear the burden of proof. Nonexistence must be assumed until some affirmative evidence for the existence of an afterlife can be demonstrated. "That which may be claimed without evidence may be dismissed without evidence." (Hitchens)

I realize you object to conclusory statements based on nonevidence (although examining the observable universe in detail and finding nothing godly is evindence), nevertheless, it is a conclusion that is at the very least every bit as good as any pronouncement made by any religious proponent.

[Goblinmonger]

375. Burden of proof is on those that make the affirmative claim.

Heaven is the affirmative claim. Those that believe in it have the burden.

Can you prove there isn't an invisible, magical dragon living in my garage?

[Curmudgeoness]

4. I love his answer to the question

"So here we are. What should we do?"

"We should seek the greatest value of our action."

[Enthusiast]

233. Me too.............nt

[Deep13]

299. +1

[mmonk]

5. If there is no afterlife, we can still live on through this sentence,

"We should seek the greatest value of our action."

If that value was good enough, it will still live on beyond physical death.

[patrice]

20. A rose by any other name, would smell as sweet. nt

[Enthusiast]

234. Nice post. Thought provoking. nt

[mmonk]

365. Thanks.

[gateley]

8. He may be right -- but nobody knows for sure until we die. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

97. Why would we know then?

We don't know whether we're already in a heavenly afterlife. We don't know if the universe was created last Tuesday. You don't know if I'm just a figment of your imagination.

[gateley]

134. Can't disagree with a thing you say. Life is an illusion. nt

[patrice]

21. Words should not be mistaken for that to which they only refer and

vice versa.

Even Stephen Hawking knows that, as powerful as it is, Rationalism is not the whole story, no matter how mistaken some may be in the telling.

[Uncle Joe]

23. Self-delete due to error.

[patrice]

27. Thank you for sharing the beautiful mystery, Uncle Joe.

[Uncle Joe]

38. Peace to you, patrice.

:hi:

[Warren DeMontague]

57. "Rationalism is not the whole story" --- er, what, specificially does that MEAN?

I'm all for not mistaking words for what they represent, but... 'rationalism is not the whole story' sounds like nonsense.

[patrice]

76. Rationalism doesn't have anything to say about that which is beyond its own processes.

It does not claim to be a god and recognizes its own limited subject matter, i.e. that which is rational limits the nature of what we refer to as proof. It has nothing to say one way or the other, yes or no, about anything beyond itself. To do so would be a violation/contradiction of its own nature.

[Warren DeMontague]

77. Of course. But it is a remarkably effective tool for analyzing the physical universe

with a proven track record.

Do we know "what happens after we die"? No. Can we know? We might not even be able to know if we can know. Maybe "what happens after we die" is meaningless, because "happening" is a function of existing.

Furthermore, maybe existing is a function of existing, so all we can do is exist. This is sort of where I'm at. I figure if I (or, more precisely, "I") can pop out of the void once, why not over and over again?

We may not have a choice.

[patrice]

87. Yes it is. I love it for what it is and not for what it is not. What it is not may

or may not be subject to anything produced by our minds, but perhaps there are instances of synchronicity in which we can participate.

I know that's a dangerous thing to say, because, without rationalism, one doesn't "know" how valid an experience is and great falsehoods are possible (e.g. GWB's "higher power'), but there are examples of something like synchronicity in what we refer to as art and some even say that the person known as Jesus may be another such example, something called an "avatar" by some.

[Warren DeMontague]

187. Maybe. But I'd still like to think there are frameworks via which one can arrive at inherent rights

without recourse to supernatural beings or forces.

[KittyWampus]

160. And it's limited and insufficient when analyzing Consciousness. So you stick with your

tip of the iceberg while those of us who are interested in really exploring reality will delve beyond the surface.

[Warren DeMontague]

186. If that's really what you're doing, more power to ya.

If you're just coming up with new and creative-sounding ways to say "come to Jesus", er, no thanx.

[Silent3]

355. More like new and creative ways...

...to create an exciting, daring self-image as a deep thinker and intrepid explorer in the realms of the unknown, so sooooooo much more in touch with and in tune with the universe than those sad, blinkered rationalists, with new and creative ways to keep that self-image completely untouchable, beyond any possible challenge or contradiction.

[Uncle Joe]

24. Everything gets recycled in to the universal intelligence, so do we.

Thanks for the thread, babsbunny.

[Silent3]

356. Which "universal intelligence" would that be?

What evidence is there that the universe in any way acts as a coordinated intelligence?

Please, before you respond, the old "everything's connected" pablum doesn't cut it. Any reasonably model of intelligence needs more than just the barest anything-will-do kind of connection between disparate parts, more than interconnections like the vanishingly small tug of gravity from a rock sitting on a planet ten galaxies away. Intelligence requires clear and distinct channels for discrete and distinguishable bits of information.

If you find yourself warming up to employ another bit of tired old rhetoric like "intelligence as WE know it!" I should point out that "intelligence" is a human word, made by humans to describe human experience. While intelligence might be a difficult concept to define, even with contradictory definitions from different people, if you intend to take the word as being so flexible that there are no common core ideas we can pin down at all, then talking about "universal intelligence" becomes meaningless. You might as well talk about "universal qrwxcvpbueprsaak" and the idea would mean just as much.

[Uncle Joe]

405. I equate intelligence to the word intent, and evolution is evidence of intent.

The system of life adapting to circumstances by way of error is genius.

Everything is connected and it all comes from the same starting point, to my knowledge that being the Big Bang, only to be folded or recycled in to itself in a different shape or form.

[Silent3]

407. Evolution is not intentional

Evolution does not choose a goal and then intentionally move toward that goal. Evolution is simply the result of a tautology -- that which survives, survives. Evolution does not care and it does not choose if a species suddenly finding itself in an inhospitably cold climate evolves thicker fur, evolves an instinctual behavior to migrate to warmer climates, or simply dies off by failing to adapt at all.

I suppose, by a very poetic use of the word, there is a kind of "genius" in the fact that such a mindless process can produce the amazing diversity and complexity as we see in the natural world. Poetic and figurative use of language aside, however, there is no true intent without the ability to conceive of and plan for specific desired future outcomes. (We humans are now on the threshold of directed evolution, we've even made a few small steps via selective breeding and our first forays into genetic engineering, but that's a new and not at all inevitable chapter in the history of life on this planet.)

If you still insist on viewing evolution as a variety of intent, it would have to be considered a cruel intent. Every small bit of progress in the history of life is only made by means of vast suffering and death.

Further, I did not deny the idea that "everything is connected", I'm arguing against the excessive and misconstrued importance many people like to place on that idea. Most of those "connections" amount to nothing more than an essentially random background noise compared to the far more limited set of meaningful and decipherable influences of one physical body upon another. There is certainly not a scrap of evidence that the interconnections in the universe have the slightest thing to do with anything akin to emotional human "reasons" for things happening, like teaching us important lessons about life or bringing us together with our "true love".

[Uncle Joe]

409. I believe that life itself is evidence of a goal, the pursuit of life requires will.

anything alive that totally loses its' will to live, dies.

As for death being cruel, the only cruel part to the recipient is the relatively very temporary phase of dying.

If you don't believe in any conscious awareness after death, there can't be any suffering, and as that death furthers other forms of life, there is an ongoing connectivity dating back to the very first microbes; which formed in the early age of the Universe.

[Silent3]

412. You can believe whatever you wish, obviously, but you offer no proof.

Am I supposed to take it that "life itself is evidence of a goal" and "pursuit of life requires will" are somehow self-evident?

There is no scientific evidence for any such thing as a "will" being required to live. While humans may tend to die when they seem to lose their will to live, it's hardly inevitable that they do. People also die while wanting very much to live, making the connection between will and continued life tenuous at best.

Perhaps a similar weak connection between will and continued life exists in other animals, especially other mammals, but that would be, unless there are studies I don't know about, mere speculation. Further from human life, say plankton and petunias, there isn't the slightest evidence for anything one could reasonably call a "will" at all, never mind a connection between will and life.

From a scientific standpoint all that's needed for life to form and to persist is a source of energy and a supply of the right chemical elements. The fact that we don't know all the exact details of how energy and chemistry result in life is not, in and of itself, sufficient reason to (in the language of Occam's Razor) introduce a new entity called "will" into the equation.

If you're willing to consider "will" something that arises from energy and chemistry, then will is merely an emergent property of energy and chemistry, as is life itself. Since clearly definable will is not observed in anything other than intelligent species, it makes no sense to suppose that will must first emerge from energy and chemistry as a precondition to the further emergent phenomenon of life itself. The sequence:

energy + chemistry -> life -> will

...makes much more sense.

If you aren't even willing to consider "will" as something emerging from energy and chemistry, but further wish to assert that will is somehow it's own thing, some separate entity or force acting on or in the physical world to produce life, you're even further afield from anything with current scientific support. It would quite clearly be your burden of proof to demonstrate that this entity exists. At the very least, it would be your burden of proof to demonstrate conclusively that energy and chemistry are by themselves insufficient to explain the existence of life, thus creating a clear explanatory need for an additional entity.

As for death being cruel, the only cruel part to the recipient is the relatively very temporary phase of dying.

Maybe in a Disney-fied view of nature, but many deaths in the natural world are slow and terrifying and brutal. There's also quite a bit of suffering between birth and death for many creatures which contributes to eventual death, apart from any discrete clearly-defined act of death.

[Uncle Joe]

414. Have scientists been able to create life in the laboratory by combining energy and chemistry?

They do know the basic elements but still haven't been able to do it.

Mammals do die for lack of will and while will isn't the only determinant, it does play an integral part of life and I believe to date the ultimate and most observable manifestation of universal intent brought to its' highest level.

Life itself is evidence of a goal and when no life exists in the Universe, there will be no goal and no intent.

The keyword I used in describing the cruelty of death was "relatively" it doesn't take a scientist to realize the life of anything much less its' death no matter how prolonged is less than a nano-second when compared to the time-line of the Universe.

[Silent3]

417. That's essentially a "god of the gaps" argument.

I already made this point in another post. The fact that we don't know everything about how energy and chemistry turn into life, that we haven't yet managed to create life from scratch, is not at all a good reason to invoke some separate other force or entity to explain the parts that are unknown. That's like saying there has to be a thunder god that makes the sound of thunder because you haven't yet figured out how electrical discharges in air create that sound.

The rest of what you wrote about "life itself is evidence of a goal" is merely repeating a mantra and hoping that your sincere belief (and maybe clicking your heels together for good measure) is going to make it true. You haven't substantiated that supposed reasoning one bit, no matter how much you seem to believe it to be self-evidently true.

As for the cruelty bit... well, I don't believe in any force of will that exists to make life happen anyway, so my trying to characterize how cruel such a will would seem to me is awfully hypothetical anyway. If you wish to excuse away the methods your imaginary force of will employs to achieve its goals, knock yourself out.

[Uncle Joe]

418. To be honest even if they were able to create life in the laboratory and

they do already know the basics, that wouldn't eliminate my hypothesis, that would just separate the origins by a degree and perhaps form a new branch of human directed evolution.

Life itself isn't the only evidence of a goal, the mechanics of evolution are a strong clue as well, any computer programmer able to design software to adapt to changing circumstances by following the most advantageous replicated error would be hailed as a genius, simply put the system is too elegant to be nothing but a continuous accident.

The force of will is an observable phenomena, you have admitted as such at least in regards to mammals, I just take it a step further and believe if there was no will or motivation, there would be no life. Sometimes people with terminal diseases do die even if they have the will to live but if they don't have the will, they're most certainly doomed.

Furthermore I don't believe that life itself as we know it to be the end goal, the continuous universal recycling of our makeup and the process of evolution are leading us to the goal, whatever that is.

At this stage we can't be anymore aware of that, than we were as fetuses aware of our parents existences.

[Silent3]

419. Please define "will".

For me, "will" means deliberate intent. Deliberate intent requires a fairly complex view of the world: an understanding of how things are, an ability to imagine a different way things could be, desires and motivations necessary for choosing among different imagined futures. For deliberate intent to be more than idle wishful thinking it is further necessary to have the ability to formulate a workable plan for creating a desired future outcome, and an ability to act upon the environment to execute that plan.

Before life itself exists, how does will take form? Where does it reside? How is it organized? How does it function? If you can't answer those questions, or if you can only provide a non-answer answer like "God" or "universal consciousness" (which aren't really answers because they're just ways of sticking a label on something you can't explain) then you're not offering a real solution to the origins of life.

Your argument essentially comes down to: "Life seems too complicated to have come about all by itself. My solution to that problem is 'will', which is yet another thing at least as complicated as life about which I also can't explain its functioning or origin."

For some separate entity called "will" to have sprung out of non-existence before life first came along, the most likely solution would be a pre-existing simple system which was capable, without the willful direction that did not yet exist, to develop spontaneous organization and complexity. If one is going to propose such a solution, why not start with known, proven-to-exist things like energy and chemistry as the system which is capable of creating that complexity, then go directly to life itself, cutting out an unnecessary extra step of pre-existing will, which provides no useful new insights or explanatory power?

[Uncle Joe]

428. The questions that you asked

which I can't answer you ascribe to wishful thinking with no real solution.

"Before life itself exists, how does will take form? Where does it reside? How is it organized? How does it function? If you can't answer those questions, or if you can only provide a non-answer answer like "God" or "universal consciousness" (which aren't really answers because they're just ways of sticking a label on something you can't explain) then you're not offering a real solution to the origins of life."

You acknowledge that "will" or "deliberate intent" exists and would place this dynamic solely on a complex view of the world, I contend it exists beyond that on a universal scale and our "complex view of the world" is too primitive to discern it beyond the narrow scope of ourselves and our most like-kind species. In short we're not so complex as we think we are.

I can't answer your questions anymore than you can create life in a laboratory in spite of "knowing energy and chemical reaction" = life.

Again I'm not contending that life seems too complicated to have come about by itself but that the process of life developing is deliberate from the most primitive to the most complex.

[Silent3]

432. You're doing an awful lot of baseless "contending" there.

You contend this, you contend that, you believe such and such... that seems to be all you've got, with no substance to back it up.

You acknowledge that "will" or "deliberate intent" exists and would place this dynamic solely on a complex view of the world...

I offered a definition of "will", I did not "acknowledged (it) exists". Starting from that definition I would say that there do exist phenomena that fit that definition, but there's an important difference is starting point that you're glossing over.

You're free to offer your own definition of "will", but I doubt you can form a coherent definition which supports anything you claim. It's beginning look like "will" is whatever magical thing you need it to be, with wiggle room provided by saying it's something we're "too primitive to discern".

If we're too primitive to discern this "will" of yours, then we're too primitive to recognize it and too primitive to make assertions about what needs or doesn't need it.

[Uncle Joe]

435. My definition of will

is a a deliberate intent, an urge, desire.

I never said we were too primitive to recognize will or deliberate intent as part of the human and mammal makeup, my contention is this makeup is universal in life as a whole but we haven't mastered the ability to measure or recognize it in primitive or lower life forms we just denigrate it to just being a "survival instinct" with lower more primitive life forms.

At one time we thought humans were the only species that made or used tools, now we know different, the same holds true for grieving until recorded evidence of this took place.

Every living thing needs to eat and reproduce to survive, that's the most basic level of will.

[Silent3]

436. "Urge" and "desire" are practically just synonyms for "will".

You aren't delving deep enough into the concept. What is a desire? What is an urge?

And while there may often be a too-casual denigration of the capabilities and attributes of so-called "lower" forms, I think it's certainly possible to err too far on the side of excessive anthropomorphization.

When I drive home tonight and click my garage door opener, will the door opener feel an "urge" to open the door for me? Will the opening of the door be an expression of "intent" by the door opener to let me into the garage? If I flip on a light once I enter the house, is the light bulb willfully illuminating the room for me?

Any definitions of "will", "urge", "intent" or "desire" broad enough to apply to the functioning of the garage door opener or a simple lighting fixture are far too broad to be very interesting. Used that way those words would simply become overly-florid ways to describe simple results of known physical laws.

At the level of the most primitive life, even though there's still a lot of the biochemistry of life that we don't understand, most of what happens there is going to be a lot closer to a complicated garage door opener than to anything we'd call willful action in a human or other "higher" animal.

[Uncle Joe]

438. Is your garage door or light bulb alive? Do they eat or reproduce?

:shrug:

[Silent3]

443. What does that have to do with what's willful or not?

Since you're the one postulating that "will", whatever it means to you, is necessary in order for there to be life, then "will" would have to exist in lifeless situations in order to get the first life going.

Eating and reproduction are totally irrelevant. Are you trying to define "will" and "life" to be almost the same thing? You seem to be blurring different meanings of the word, but acting as if conclusions reached under one definition of "will" then apply to situations where "will" has a different meaning.

[Uncle Joe]

445. As I stated on post 409

I believe that life itself is evidence of a goal, the pursuit of life requires will, anything alive that totally loses its' will to live, dies.

The Universal Matrix produces life via chemistry, energy and evolution, so there is an underlying will or intent, that's my contention, living and dead mix together to reform the basis of new life and this recycling is a form of feeding or eating.

Even if will existed in lifeless situations, without the other components there would be no life, I never said that will was the only requirement for life to exist but it is a necessary one.

[Silent3]

447. I know what you said before, and you're going in circles with...

...circular definitions, to the extent, that is, that you've defined anything as opposed to repeating mantras. It's pretty hopeless at this point that you'll ever get around to evidence or good supportive reasoning.

[Uncle Joe]

470. Ok let's put it another way,

does your garage door opener or light bulb contain every chemical and energy form in the Universe?

If they don't, does that mean those chemicals and forms of energy don't exist?

The process of evolution has allowed life to adapt to an ever changing universe with multiple forms of hostile environments over billions of years in trillions of individual reproductive error actions.

Your contention seems to be it's all just one colossal, clumsy accident, sort of like Gerald Ford tripping down stairs for all eternity and that life is nothing but chemicals and energy.

My contention is, nothing is that clumsy, there is a method behind the madness, the overall underlying message of that perceived insanity is that at all costs regardless of the overall circumstances, life must exist in one form or another, somewhere in the universe. That is the ultimate intent or will as expressed by the process of evolution and on display in every form as life as it strives to survive.

To what end I don't know, but I do believe as the universe grows even more hostile toward the end of it's lifespan, life will adapt to those circumstances, changing its' mass based form and possibly changing the universe as a result.

[Silent3]

491. I am contending nothing other than restraint in guesswork.

I'm advocating not overstating what we know, not inventing answers that really don't really solve anything but a psychological need to have an answer.

The fact that you have a hard time imagining that "it's all one colossal, clumsy accident" doesn't mean that it can't happen that way. If the origin of life seems unlikely to you, unlikely compared to what? You can't use your small-scale human sense of the probability of events to judge an existential question about life and the origin of the universe itself which had to, some way or another, come into existence before you could even think about these questions.

Besides that, "clumsy accident" is a mischaracterization of the evolution of life, or pre-life evolution from living to non-living matter. Evolution is a "bounded stochastic process", the key word there being "bounded", which makes the process far from "clumsy". (See Richard Dawkins book, "Climbing Mount Improbable".)

Could there be some sort of willful, creative and/or intelligent force responsible for life as we know it? Sure, that's possible. But it's not as self-evident as you seem to think it is. If you postulate that there is such a thing, all you get is a new mystery to explain -- how that "force" came to be in the first place. That mystery is even further away from our ability to explore and study it, and if we had to take a guess at how that force came to be, the something akin to an evolutionary process is once again the best explanation.

To what end I don't know, but I do believe as the universe grows even more hostile toward the end of it's lifespan, life will adapt to those circumstances, changing its' mass based form and possibly changing the universe as a result.

That sounds a whole lot like wishful thinking than a solid, defensible conclusion based on evidence.

Ok let's put it another way, does your garage door opener or light bulb contain every chemical and energy form in the Universe?

If they don't, does that mean those chemicals and forms of energy don't exist?

All I can say in response to that is "huh?" The question reads like "how big is green?" to me. I can't make heads or tails of it.

[Uncle Joe]

520. That's not wishful thinking, the evidence over billions of years has demonstrated that given enough

time life in one form or another has adapted to changing circumstances from one extreme hostile environment to another.

Logic suggests that whether the universe ultimately turns cold or hot, if stretched out long enough, life will adapt to those circumstances, of course as they say past results is no guarantee of future results, but I don't equate that to wishful thinking.

[Silent3]

523. Those adaptations so far have taken place during a relatively stable...

...period in the history of our planet, with a few close calls along the way. Not only, as you admit, are "past results... no guarantee of future results", but past results shouldn't be generalized beyond the conditions under which those past results were obtained. There are a great variety of challenges to survival. Success at any number of those challenges, even if diverse, can't be generalized to very different future challenges. It's like confidently predicting that someone who has done well playing tennis and golf is going to do just as well playing chess.

Since we have no idea yet how rare or how common life is in our universe, we have no idea how lucky we are to be on a planet full of life. Maybe life elsewhere as also survived billions of years after facing numerous challenges, but perhaps life seldom arises at all, and when it does arise perhaps it's often snuffed out relatively quickly by natural disasters or by evolution taking too many wrong turns. We could be here to ask these questions about the nature of life and the future of life only because we're on one of the rare one-out-of-a-quadrillion planets where life manages to reach the necessary degree of complexity.

Our own human intelligence has turned out to be a mixed bag for survival. While I doubt we humans currently put all life on Earth at risk, we're certainly a real threat to our own species and many others. I can easily see humanity causing massive extinctions which reduce biodiversity to bacteria, some hardy lichens, and maybe a few bugs. On the other hand, we humans are also the best bet this planet has ever had for diverting a deadly asteroid, and someday spreading life from Earth out among the stars.

Suppose a massive asteroid, much bigger than the one likely to have caused the extinction of the dinosaurs, is on its way right now, big enough so that the impact energy will liquify the entire crust of the planet. While hypothetical, this is not at all impossible. Do you think it's scientific to imagine that "life" in general or some force of "will" already knows about this impending disaster even if we, as humans, don't know? That this force has already got a solution mapped out? Do you imagine that the asteroid itself is a part of the life/will force, so it simply can't or won't hit the Earth unless that's part of the "plan"? Do you imagine an automatic sudden burst of evolution guaranteed to produce life that survives swimming in lava?

What you're professing belief in is some sort of essentially magical power that foresees problems and plans solutions, and this power is somehow so damned good at survival that it essentially can't fail. Your generalized sense of past success, however, is not at all the equal of hard evidence. Only hard evidence, not vague generalizations, would be good enough to reasonably support such an extraordinary claim.

[Uncle Joe]

530. Yes, but life has its' foothold now and I don't believe any of the predictions re:

the demise of the Universe predict it happening as switching off a light switch, but taking place over a pro-longed period of time.

You seem to be an objective, logical, person, taking into consideration the unified starting point and general commonality of the Universe prior to and following the Big Bang, the infinite number of stars, planets, solar systems and galaxies, how could life not be common throughout the Universe?

To my way of thinking anyone believing that Earth is the exception and that life is exclusive to our tiny blue marble must be either taking a giant leap of faith or is being blinded by their own human-centric arrogance.

I believe that even if all life from the Blue Whale to the tiniest bacteria on Earth were extinguished by such a catastrophe, that life would still be common throughout the Universe, the odds are simply too great for it not to be.

[Silent3]

536. I'm not arguing against life being common...

...but if life is common, then "will", or any sort of universal intelligence, is then no longer necessary in order for life to manage to adapt to and survive all sorts of conditions. A wide-spread abundance of life would simply provide many more opportunities for chance survival of life beyond all sorts of local catastrophes and local evolutionary missteps.

"Common", of course, is relative term. Life could fail to start, or fail to thrive very long, on all but one in a million Earth-like planets and that would still mean thousands of life-filled planets in our own galaxy, and likely billions throughout the known universe. Cut the odds down to one in a billion or trillion, and that's still many opportunities on a universe-sized scale for life to appear and have a chance at surviving unknown future challenges to survival -- but all without the need to imagine a "will" or intelligence having to plan for life to continue in some imagined grander scheme of things.

My point in bringing up the life-is-possibly-very-rare concept is to cover the bases:

1) Life is abundant in the universe, and that abundance in and of itself, without any need to invoke "will", provides all the survivability life needs to survive many challenges. (No guarantees, however, just better odds. And no, I'm not buying it if you try to claim abundance of life would itself be evidence of "will".)

2) Life isn't abundant, then there are no guarantees of continued survival of life, and there's no evidence of any "will" or universal intelligence out there to magically save the day.

By the way, while I tend to think that life probably is common, the Fermi Paradox does gives me some pause. All any of us can do without evidence of life on other planets at this point is play guessing games based on very limited data. Neither strong belief nor strong disbelief in life on other planets is warranted. Even if we find life on Mars, for instance, while very heartening for the case that life may be common in our universe, we'd still have to consider that life on our two planets might have come about through a very localized version of "panspermia".

[Uncle Joe]

537. I don't believe that life being common eliminates the necessity of will

to survive.

As you've acknowledged on your previous post, the Universe was a most inhospitable place for billions of years before life developed, thus I believe will in some primitive form would've been a requirement for the most simple of bacteria to survive and these simple life forms seeded the Universe.

There are life forms that live in the most extreme conditions, heat, cold, pressure, arid, and obviously if we believe in Panspermia, the vacuum of space.

We've acknowledged that at least some concept of will is present in the higher mammal species, it seems logical to me those most primitive species living under far more adverse conditions would pass this on trait on via evolution to a less common and presumably more advanced species.

As for the Fermi Paradox, I have two observations.

1. In nature; in most instances eggs hatch around the same time, therefor viable planets closest to Earth would also be closest to experiencing the same conditions and most likely be comparable in terms of advancement, that being the case if they went down the same path of species and societal development.

2. We're not advanced, only in the past fifty years have we gained the ability to crawl off the planet, so if my first observation is correct the same holds true for those other nearby viable planets. Only in the past decade or so have we been able to spot other planets, just like a baby's developing vision, only able to make out the most nearby faces so we've barely scratched the surface in regards to discovery.

[Silent3]

541. You may not believe it, but you've yet to offer any good evidence...

...other than apparently thinking it's somehow self-evident that "will" is necessary for anything at all. (Extrapolations from the sometimes-there connection between life and human longevity, which perhaps also exists in some other mammals, doesn't come close to good evidence. That extrapolation is at best a not very promising beginning for an inquiry into the idea.)

You have yet to explain what exactly pre-life "will" is, how it would come to be before life itself, and how it would manage to manipulate the physical environment to achieve results.

We've acknowledged that at least some concept of will is present in the higher mammal species, it seems logical to me those most primitive species living under far more adverse conditions would pass this on trait on via evolution to a less common and presumably more advanced species.

It makes much more sense that will is an emergent property of complex life forms than something inherited from more primitive life, and much much more sense as emergent property of life than a pre-life force, power, or whatever you'd want to call some sort of disembodied will. I know you've tried to argue for some simpler, less complex form of will that would be the predecessor of a more advanced form, but you'd have to devalue the word "will" to a completely worthless state to make it describe the survival mechanisms of primitive life, or anything that could possibly exist before life.

Either that, or your version of "will" might as well be called ghosts or spirits or sprites or demons for all of the scientific value of the concept.

This isn't a question about what we know, what we've learned about so far, human limitations of understanding, etc. "Will" is a human word, we humans define what the word means. "Will" is not a thing to be discovered that we attach the word to, it's a thing we apply the word to when that thing matches certain criteria. New discoveries can lead to a decision to expand the meaning of a word to cover more things than that word used to cover, but it only makes sense to do that when there's sufficient similarity between the old meaning of a word and the new things covered by that word.

I'll reiterate what I consider to be minimum requirements for will: awareness of an environment, an ability to be either satisfied or dissatisfied with the condition of that environment, an ability to imagine alternative different futures for that environment, and an ability and desire to select from among those alternatives. Further, such "will" will be entirely hypothetical with the ability formulate plans to achieve the desired outcome, and the physical means to enact those plans.

Anything less simply doesn't deserve to be called "will". Anything more primitive than that and it's simply not worth calling "will" anymore.

1. In nature; in most instances eggs hatch around the same time...

Going from eggs to planets is WAY too much extrapolation. There might be some rough parallels, but not anywhere near enough to address the Fermi Paradox. Our immediate celestial neighborhood has a very wide range and variety of stellar development, and there's not the slightest evidence or even reason to suspect a mechanism that would synchronize development of life on disparate planets. Move our own planet just a bit further from the Sun and the reduced warm land area would probably would have slowed down the evolution of complex life by millions of years.

2. We're not advanced, only in the past fifty years have we gained the ability to crawl off the planet...

That's exactly the point of the Fermi Paradox, and it argues against, not for, life being a common thing. Since we aren't all that advanced, since on a geological and cosmological time scale intelligent life on this planet has just barely arrived on the scene, the odds are that any other intelligent life out there has been around for millions of years, more than enough time, even if limited by the speed of light, to have spread throughout the galaxy.

There are possible reasons we wouldn't know about that life even if it's there, but I think they're weak excuses: (1) It's out there, but observing some sort of "prime directive", deliberately hiding from us, (2) interplanetary space travel is simply way harder than we imagine, so even million-year-old technological civilizations don't do it, not even by robotic probes, (3) Roswell conspiracy kind of stuff.

[Uncle Joe]

547. Hunger is a human word, does that mean animals don't experience it?

Jealousy and anger is a human word, do animals not get angry or jealous?

You said that if life in the universe were common, will wouldn't be necessary, what do base that judgment on, human experience?

The Fermia Paradox bases its' best argument against relatively close planets, so my rebuttal is aimed at precisely that, the Universal time span for distant galaxies, solar systems and planets would most likely have greater differentiation in development, and the closer they are the more likely that our that relative developmental times spans would condense, so the egg analogy was most appropriate.

The fact that we're not well developed does no such thing, no doubt there is some differentiation in development, some planets may still have dinosaurs running around, or wiped themselves out with WWIII.

Planets that are farther away with greater chances of advancement would have far greater distances to travel and would be less likely to be discovered by us at such an early stage.

Having said all that I don't totally discount your possibilities as well, although the Fermi-Paradox specifies even "slow" travel, in its' consideration.

[Silent3]

548. That question shows you're totally missing the point

Do you really think that I meant that human-defined words really only apply to human experiences? "Dog" is a human word. "Moult" is a human word too. Did you honestly take me the way your question implies, or deliberately misconstrue me to play a rhetorical game?

If you can't even work your way through that, I'm wasting my time. It's like we're not even talking the same language.

[Uncle Joe]

552. You didn't answer my third question either, nor address my rebuttal re: the Fermi Paradox

so I guess we aren't speaking the same language.

[ZombieHorde]

437. "simply put the system is too elegant to be nothing but a continuous accident."

I am glad you are so impressed with yourself! (joke)

Kidding aside, nothing is really elegant. Elegance is a reaction to an object, event, situation, etc.; it is not a quality something can actually have.

The fact people become impressed is completely meaningless. Beautiful women are not really beautiful, sweet children are not really sweet (unless you cook them in sugar), great movies are not really great, and a comfy pillow is not really comfy.

Some qualities do seem to be inherent; such as solid, liquid, combustible, toxic to human life, etc.

I just take it a step further and believe if there was no will or motivation, there would be no life.

I can see this with animals; a dog who looses the will to live may stop eating. But do plants have will? I doubt it, but how could we know? I don't think we have the technology to figure this out. I guess we would have to start with a specific definition for the word "will."

[Uncle Joe]

439. If plants eat and reproduce, they have will.

You may not view evolution as elegant but can you name any human created, self-sustaining system, that adapts to changing circumstances by taking advantage of errors in reproduction?

[ZombieHorde]

446. Humans are human created. Lots of animal breeds are human created.

If plants eat and reproduce, they have will.

If something becomes sterile, does it loose its will? How are you defining will?

[Uncle Joe]

472. It all springs from life, an individual losing the process to reproduce still has will.

They eat, breathe and drink, if they didn't have will, they wouldn't survive.

All life has will.

[darkstar3]

474. So amoeba have will?

[Uncle Joe]

475. The will to survive.

[darkstar3]

476. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Edit: How can a one-celled organism with clearly NO cognitive function possess "will"??

[Uncle Joe]

477. Just because our ability to detect cognition is limited doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Can an amoeba defend itself if placed in a hostile environment?

The answer is yes.

[darkstar3]

478. So you believe that amoeba have cognition because their cell walls avoid damage if possible?

[Uncle Joe]

480. At some basic, primitive level, yes.

At least enough cognition to knowingly act for the survival of the organism.

[darkstar3]

483. Every biologist and every textbook they study would disagree with you.

You're personifying. You are assigning human traits and motives to organisms which have neither the cellular structure nor complexity required to exhibit any of those traits, let alone motives. The ability of a cell to react to hostility with retreat does not in any way mean that the cell possesses intelligence or the capacity for cognition.

[Uncle Joe]

484. It means that cell possesses enough instinct to work for its' survival.

I never said that simple cell organisms were the Einsteins of cognition but at some basic, primitive level there is a will to survive, the fact that current science hasn't been able to detect, measure, and acknowledge that is not disputed by me.

[darkstar3]

485. No, no instinct is required for a cell to avoid damage.

At a very basic level they are called feedback systems. "Instinct" implies that some cognitive process is taking place, but feedback systems in no way require such cognition. If you want further proof of this, just look at viruses. A virus is not a living thing, yet it avoids damage when possible, works to reproduce itself, and fucks up your plans in the process. Your own definition of "will" from earlier, where you say that "all living things" have will, doesn't apply to viruses. Do they have will? Do they have instinct? Of course not, yet they exhibit the same avoidance and reproduction traits as an amoeba.

No instinct is required for preservation.

Amoeba have no "will", no "instinct", no cognition. You are still personifying things which have absolutely no similarity to humans. You are, in this case, simply incorrect, and a cursory study of any cell biology textbook found in any college bookstore will show you that, as well as much, much more. "Take a look, it's in a book..."

[Uncle Joe]

486. Would feedback systems be an early evolutionary form of instinct? n/t

[darkstar3]

487. No, it would not be fair to categorize them as such. Why?

Becuase instinct requires a nervous system, and a nervous system is so far removed from a simple feedback system as to make comparing the two, even as parent and progeny, ridiculous. A feedback system is to a nervous system what your eyes are to your car's steering wheel: Barely and not often related.

[Uncle Joe]

488. It seems logical to me, a nervous system is all about sensory feedback, hot, cold,

hard, soft etc. etc.

[darkstar3]

489. All nervous systems are feeback systems. Not remotely all feedback systems are nervous systems.

Not even if you stick strictly to biology or evolution. And nervous systems are not instinct. They are simply required for it.

You're trying to take step, let's say 40, in the evolutionary process of every higher-order organism on this planet and say that it's a direct precursor to step 4,068 (instinct) in human evolutionary development, and further say that step 40 will always lead to step 4,068 in every organism. It doesn't work that way.

It is, plain and simple, inapt to state that feedback systems are an early form of instinct.

BTW, you entirely skipped over the virus conundrum above.

[Uncle Joe]

492. I'm not suggesting every feedback system evolved in to a nervous system and

I never suggested that nervous systems or feedback systems were extinct?

But there is a commonality and no doubt some of them did evolve, if in some cases feedback systems eventually evolved to nervous systems and other times it didn't doesn't take away from the commonality between the two, they both essentially serve the same purpose in fundamental ways.

I seem to be taking care of a fair amount of posts at this end of the thread, but I may address the virus conundrum tomorrow, my time is limited today.

[darkstar3]

493. The point is that you cannot say that amoeba have instinct simply because there is feedback.

The two are so vastly different as to make the comparison pointless.

[Uncle Joe]

495. My point is, it's just a matter of scale and not differentiation.

Now I'm gone for the evening, peace to you.

[darkstar3]

498. And that's wrong.

There is...a vast amount of differentiation. Don't take my word for it. Go pick up a book on cell bio.

[Uncle Joe]

519. I was in a rush yesterday when I made my last post, so to clarify my position.

My point is, it's more a matter of scale than differentiation in regards to the will needed to operate a primitive system than that of operating an advanced one.

As for the current state of biology books, to my knowledge, they don't acknowledge the existence of will, something to which, I've already alluded to up-thread.

[darkstar3]

524. That's because will is not biological, but psychological,

which means you need a higher order nervous system as well as a developed brain in order to get will. I.E., all life does NOT have will.

[Uncle Joe]

531. Or as I contend it operates at a more primitive base level as well and

we just haven't been able to detect or measure it with our current level of science and understanding.

[darkstar3]

532. Get back to me when that contention is any more believable, testable, or provable than TK.

[Uncle Joe]

533. What is TK?

[darkstar3]

534. Telekinesis.

[Uncle Joe]

535. Damn it, I had my money on Thy Knowledge!

Oh well, peace to you anyway.

[ZombieHorde]

481. What is will? nt

[Uncle Joe]

482. Intent, motivation to action, instinct to survive are a few examples. n/t

[PassingFair]

431. "the relatively very temporary phase of dying."

Wow.

You DO realize we're talking about the life of Stephen HAWKING here, right?

50 YEARS with ALS.

[Uncle Joe]

434. You should have read down to post 414, I will repost the relevant sentence for your

reading convenience.

"The keyword I used in describing the cruelty of death was "relatively" it doesn't take a scientist to realize the life of anything much less its' death no matter how prolonged is less than a nano-second when compared to the time-line of the Universe."

I thought about this last night and would've changed nano-second to micro-second but the point is the same.

We were discussing the issue of supposed cruelty of a potential universal entity based on individual human suffering.

[cherish44]

26. I think there are just things that are beyond what our human brains can comprehend

and saying conclusivly that anything that can't be proven with our human knowledge and understand can't possibly exist is arrogant.

[patrice]

32. and honest Rationalism does not do that.

[roguevalley]

107. agreed. +1000%

[Trajan]

172. What is arrogant ...

Is insisting that another human being cannot have their own opinion, if it differentiates from yours ...

THAT is arrogance ....

I do not recall Mr. Hawking insisting you believe as he does ....

Perhaps it is your own shame that is offending you .... Shame in knowing one of the world's most intelligent men disagrees with you ....

[Logical]

195. Then you must fall for anything. Like ESP, ghosts, voodoo, witches, astrology. n-t

[Buzz Clik]

30. How does this shit keep making its way into GD?

Are we that unaware of the theological mud wrestling pit that already exists at DU?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

35. thank you!

[patrice]

64. Maybe because OP denies the very subject of Religion & Theology?

:shrug:

[Name removed]

217. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Logical]

197. People talk cute animal shit all the time. I would rather have intelligent topics like this!

[Buzz Clik]

218. We have topic forums to host topics. As to the intelligence of the conversation, ...

... have you looked at the high percentage of deleted posts?

This is why we don't post this junk here.

[Odin2005]

31. Wow, the DU Theists are putting the hate on Hawking, now?

[patrice]

37. hate? That seems a somewhat in-accurate characterization.

Why do so many people here seem to assume that difference, or disagreement, necessitates hate?

[cherish44]

41. I'm not a theist reallly, I'm agnostic

I just don't rule out the possiblity that there may be things that the super-intellectuals of the world can't understand. You can't tell THEM that of course because they're just OH SO SMART

[Buzz Clik]

50. Just for the record, Richard Dawkins thinks your a coward.

And he thinks I'm one, too. He's not fond of agnostics.

[Odin2005]

65. Oh, most Atheists ARE agnostics.

Very few Atheists directly "believe there is no god", most of us simply "do not believe in a god", or for me, think "the god-notion is incoherent and not relevant to my life".

[PufPuf23]

139. "the god-notion is incoherent and not relevant to my life".

and add beyond my sentinent perception.

Good post Odin.

One can see divinity and not believe in creation much less the evil fuck God(s) of Abraham.

God is an evil fuck if one reads their holy books and listens to experts in the paths.

I don't expect my personality nor sentinence to continue on death and really don't want eternal self-awareness. My particles and waves will be immortal.

I was fortunate to have been raised without religion (well maybe fly fishing and prospecting that I now longer partake). But myths and science and magick and various culture's cosmologies are great entertainment to me though I would never join a group nor be a Believer. I was raised what I would call a "cultural christian" in that we celebrated Christmas and Easter and Thanksgiving (lol nothing Christian, more about genocide of the American Indian in a negative light or Fall harvest in a positive.

The stars and natural law are fascinating and the scientific method clever and Hawkings an amazing man.

I lost a sister to her husband after their fundie conversion and his becoming a Promise Keeper leader. My BIL treated me with respect for over 30 years until the AM our father passed on. He was a corrupt Chief of Police toady of a small city in a mostly rural county. He was Chief of Police for over 30 years until fired with no going away party in a Tuesday night city council meeting and, unfortunately, I do not believe in karma but that life is inherently unfair and often brutal. I had lubricated the relations between Dad and the BIL for years and my Dad was right and I was wrong about his true character.

My second wife was raised Southern Baptist and was prone to praying in tongues and playing Bible roulette for making decisions. I bought her a Strong's Concordance and would Bible study with her (she and the other women in her large family met twice a week to pray and no longer attended church). She said I was the most Christian un-Christian she had ever met. When she was cranky, I would cast demons from her and describe the suckers. Once she got used to the process, my step daughters and their children and other members of her family would call for my assistence when she was in a bad mood because they knew she would be reduced to tears of laughter and forget her anger or irritability. I divorced her out of love because of my own setbacks in life and desire to return my "home" which she found foreign and scary and also would take her away from her family. She understands now.

[Enthusiast]

241. Dang!

Interesting post. Fly fishing, eh? Mine might be freshwater fishing in general -pan-fishing this month. Maybe I should consider fly fishing.

[Goblinmonger]

376. *Sigh*

Theism is about belief. Do you believe in a god? No. Then you are an atheist.
Gnosticism is about knowledge. Do you think we can have knowledge about god? No. Then you are an agnostic.

You can be an agnostic atheist, a gnostic atheist, and agnostic theist, or a gnostic theist.

Agnostic and Atheist are NOT mutually exclusive.

[roguevalley]

109. who cares? Richard Dawkins has an opinion. So do the rest of

us. WHo gives a shit what he thinks?

[WatsonT]

167. Putting it in such terms "cowardly" and the like, shows that Dawkins isn't thinking about it

in the right way.

He sees it as being about what other people think. Ie, you're showing your bravery to others by rejecting their beliefs.

In reality it ought to be about utilizing the facts available. I have no proof heaven or god exist, so I don't think about them much. But I cannot say that they conclusively do not exist as their very definition includes the possibility that god can set whatever rules he wants, meaning that no heaven and a heaven that does not wish to be seen are going to be the same things.

[roamer65]

83. Dawkins can kiss my ass.

Thinking scientifically makes you an agnostic immediately. Prove God exists...prove he doesn't...can't be done either way until there is absolute scientific proof.

[muriel_volestrangler]

110. Dawkins does not think gods have been disproven scientifically

So, that said, what a disapointement it was for me to find out that Richard is not a ‘strong atheist’ by his own definition, after all. In The God Delusion, he uses the following scale for classification of an individual’s strength of belief concerning the matter of the existence of God …
...
6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. ‘I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.’

7. Strong atheist. ‘I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung ‘knows’ there is one.’
...
So where do you expect this man to place himself on that scale? Surely, we must be dealing with a #7 – a ‘strong atheist’? What a disappointment to find out that he places himself as a #6 – not completely convinced. Yes, it is true that he says he is a #6, leaning toward a #7, but #6 is where he places himself on his own scale.

Richard acknowledges that it is impossible to prove that God does not exist. In fact, he says the fact is accepted and ‘trivial’. So, it turns out that this book does not set out to prove that God does not exist as I had first thought, but only that God is unlikely. A different thing entirely.

http://www.whitedovebooks.co.uk/blog/2011/the-god-delusion

I have no idea where this 'coward' claim about what Dawkins said has come from.

[roguevalley]

111. there are many scientists who are religious and clergy were the

only people with the time, education and income to do science back in the day.

[PVnRT]

399. Many Muslim scientists of the Middle Ages would disagree with you

Most weren't "clergy" at all.

[AtheistCrusader]

144. I don't think you understand the scientific method at all.

[Buzz Clik]

220. Dawkins has spent a lot of time lecturing about the scientific basis for not believing in God.

He cites the lack of physical proof and various logical inconsistencies. His "scientific" development of the topic is very weak.

[AtheistCrusader]

265. He also cites probability.

But what can you do, he's working with zero actual evidence offered by the 'believers'.

[Buzz Clik]

270. The evidence is all indirect, much like in the early days of atomic theory.

We have people who have observed miracles, those who claim to have talked to God, those who claim to have seen God.

It really doesn't lend itself to scientific study at all; but, when you consider the significant number of scientists who very actively believe in God, it's difficult to dismiss them as delusional.

[AtheistCrusader]

273. I observe 'miracles' every time I play blackjack.

There are no miracles. Simply happenstance/unusual odds.

[Goblinmonger]

377. Yes, certainly ,when it comes the scientific method, I'm going to believe an

anonymous DU poster over the foremost evolutionary biologist in the world.

Sure.

[Buzz Clik]

47. Meh. If Hawking gets in a shit fight, he's gonna get some shit on him.

:shrug:

[roguevalley]

108. critiquing his OPINIONS in light of our own OPINIONS isn't hate.

really, I hate seeing junior highisms thrown into discussions.

[lumberjack_jeff]

287. 100 recs = hate? n/t

[KurtNYC]

334. religion and spirituality are 2 different things

my biggest knock against religion is that it turns so many off to spirituality.

Hawking is either mis-quoted or wrong on this. Anyone who has spent time with hospice patients as they near the end has probably witnessed firsthand the start of the post-life spiritual journey. Many who approach death start to become aware of the other side even before they leave this world. It is very common. I've seen it.

[Silent3]

358. How do you distinguish "aware" from "wishful" or "delusional"...

...or just more inclined to repeat, perhaps elaborate upon, themes of spirituality and the afterlife which already exist in our culture, without need for there being an "other side" to explain any of it?

I'd certainly hope that my own recently-deceased sister's hospice experience reflects nothing of a real "other side". Her last couple of days were sadly plagued by fearful delusions and hallucinations. Only completely sedating her into an unconsciousness from which she never awakened spared her more suffering before she passed away.

I should point out that my sister was very much unlike my skeptical self, very into the kind of stuff I'd call "woo", so you can't say she wasn't "open" to any of this "other side" stuff.

[Fly by night]

44. For those of us who accept Mother Nature as our Higher Power, this is heaven.

I try to live each day with that frame of mind. It's working well so far.

[bloom]

266. I would like for this to become the new 'normal' n/t

[sarcasmo]

45. What about May 21st?

[roguevalley]

112. come to my house on May 22nd and I'll cook you dinner. :)

RV, religious but not stupid.

[firehorse]

53. Surprised at the negative reactions

As man's understanding of earth and beyond has expanded so has our gods and our idea of heaven. Our gods are no longer like local mayors that we pray to for a decent harvest. No that's not satisfying. Our God today has grown beyond the planet, his power is beyond the universe. We are no longer satisified with making heaven on earth here and now. Nor are we satisified with the idea of our souls returning here on spaceship earth as a gnat. No we want our heaven to be better than here, nicer, easier. Our heaven better be really great, it should be better than winning lotto and last longer than a dream destiny vacation. It better not have any of our earthly annoyances like our neighbors, or mosquitos, hurricanes or tornadoes.

[roguevalley]

113. nice thoughts, firehorse

[Warren DeMontague]

55. No heaven? How can that be?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zNdMc6wGtU

[malaise]

56. I share his view

Enjoy life - it's all we have

[catabryna]

67. Lots of offense here being taken here...

It's what the man believes; I'm good with that.

[jpak]

68. Reccing

n/t

[Gin]

74. I believe heaven and hell are states of mind....right here on earth

just my 2 cents!

[patrice]

91. That's what I think. nt

[Rage for Order]

72. Hawkings' belief on this topic is no more or less valid than anyone else's

:shrug:

[Tuesday Afternoon]

282. + One Million.

[alterfurz]

73. Rumi on dying

For millions & millions of years I lived as a mineral.
Then I died and became a plant.

For millions & millions of years I lived as a plant.
Then I died and became an animal.

For millions & millions of years I lived as an animal.
Then I died and became a man.

Now what have I ever lost by dying?

[LAGC]

78. I think the Mormons have the best after-life story.

When I die, I want to become a god and rule over my own planet, dammit.

[Arugula Latte]

81. The conventional view of Heaven

that millions believe in -- clouds, angels, harps, eternal life among the pious and the religious with Gawd 'n' Jebus -- sounds Hellish to me.

Heaven is here on Earth. Once we die most likely we're not much more than worm food, and I'm fine with that.

[GeorgeGist]

82. Stephen Hawking believes in Fairies?

Oh, my.

[patrice]

89. Oh!!! yeeeehaaa!!! Score!

:hi: :rofl: :hi:

[pintobean]

90. I thought that, too.

:thumbsup:

[Arugula Latte]

326. No, he's equating something that doesn't exist with something else that doesn't exist.

But you knew that. :)

[bhikkhu]

84. K & R

I wouldn't go around saying that at a nursing home or terminal ward, but it is nice to see Hawking (and anybody else) break the little taboo and tell the truth.

He's a good example of someone who lived life to the fullest, in spite of all difficulties, without any need of delusions to keep him going.

[roguevalley]

115. his truth. not the truth. both sides have the burden of proof.

giving him a pass because he's smart and rose above his physical prison doesn't make him right. he would tell you as well that you have to have evidence to prove a hypothesis. He has no more evidence than anyone else.

[Logical]

125. What does he need evidence of? You prove heaven exists. n-t

[roguevalley]

276. bullshit. prove it doesn't. hawking and you have an opinion.

religious have an opinion. both sides need to prove it not just one. its bullshit to say otherwise. lay the proof on the table that consciousness doesn't survive death. Forget the claptrap about what heaven looks like or not, or what the afterlife is like. prove that consciousness doesn't survive after death.

Hawking is a man, not god. his 'pronouncements are not holy writ. he stated a hypothesis as a fact. he has the duty to prove it or call it what it is, one man's opinion. anything less than that is bullshit.

[PVnRT]

400. You cannot prove a negative

I am actually a transdimensional alien named N't'z'k posting from Arcturus via subspace (faster-than-light) communications.

Now, you offer up evidence as to how that's not true.

[bhikkhu]

130. Truth is not always relative, or equivalent

The belief in heaven requires a suspension of critical thinking, and a dedication to remaining uneducated about how the mind works, and what happens when it stops.

[AtheistCrusader]

146. Sorry, but both sides do NOT have the burden of proof.

Those who claim there is a supernatural/whatever, do. The rest of us do not.

Just like you don't have a burden of proof to say there is no 'thor'.

[roguevalley]

278. I cry bullshit. he is a scientist. he alleged a statement of fact. he has

the burden of proof. He's not god. he can't say what he says and have it stand as truth. he already found that out with his last theory. he has the burden of proof. just because you don't think he does doesn't mean he's free to state opinion as fact. he has the burden to prove that consciousness DOESN'T survive death. him saying so is just another opinion and accepting his words as fact without proof is the same thing as accepting the opposite opinion as fact.

apparently you have the same method of operation as the people you scorn: you accept things on faith. Hawking is a pseudo god to you if you do.

he either proves consciousness doesn't survive death or he's just another guy with an opinion like the rest of us.

[AtheistCrusader]

285. Wrong on all counts.

First off, don't pretend you know how I feel about Hawking. You don't. Nor do I accept things on faith.


There is no reason whatsoever to believe there is anything for our consciousness beyond death. To claim there is, is to make a positive claim without evidence. Billions of people believing it for thousands of years, does not constitute evidence.

Hawking may dismiss the claim of post-death, fairly, without evidence. None has been proffered in favor of post-death experience.

[Arugula Latte]

319. Those who make stuff up out of thin air have the burden of proof.

When there is no evidence that something exists, it is up to the people asserting that the thing exists to prove that it does. For example, you can't see atoms, but scientists have proven they exist. Heaven believers should take it upon themselves to do the same if they feel strongly that there is a Heaven.

[bloom]

268. The idea of an afterlife has tradition - that's pretty much it

The idea seems to have gotten started when people noticed that snakes shed their skins and thought it was some sort of reincarnation - that snakes were immortal.

Most religions started out being based on snakes and what people could figure out from the stars - looking for patterns, etc.

Life, all life, not just human life, had more importance. So did women.

Most of western philosophy and religion of the past 4500 years has been about justifying male power, heroes and war, and trying to prove that "logic" is more important than life, itself. The idea of "proof" to which you refer is one more example.

Think about it - what's more valuable - life or death? What really needs to be proven?

[Nikia]

96. I thought that he never made a secret of his atheism before

I'm not sure what the OP is trying to accomplish in posting an article about his latest profession of atheism.

[pipoman]

102. I believe in an afterlife

if others choose not to, fine with me. I have thought maybe we each get exactly what we ask for beyond death.

[Logical]

126. Nice thought. That is how it gets started. Not wanting to die and go away. n-t

[Zebedeo]

104. Sad

that a scientist is so rigidly doctrinal in his anti-religious beliefs that he states as fact something that no one has ever come close to proving by the scientific method.

[Fuzz]

114. Can't believe this tread reads like one at FR

[pipoman]

129. Yea, right

one can only be a good Dem if they are atheist..If that were true there would never be a dem in any political office...ever..

[Fuzz]

157. I'm referring to the childish namecalling, etc.

[david13]

119. The proof is in the prior life. Where were you before you were born?

Nowhere. You didn't exist. And it's the same afterward. Just like Hawking says. And he also mentions why people refuse to understand that.
Fear. Fear of death. Fear of the eternal darkness that it is. Or more so, the eternal nothingness. Oh so many refuse to accept that.
But it's true.
dc

[1awake]

131. Eternal nothingness would be a cake walk

to me.. whats there to be afraid of? If all the lights go out when you die, and you become nothing, then you feel nothing and know nothing.. can't be scared of nothing lol. I think the opposite is true.

[david13]

145. The fear is not after you are dead. How could that be? The fear

is here, where it becomes necessary to believe in this "afterlife" to allay the fear.
After you are dead and feel nothing, you no longer fear what it is. In fact, you don't know what it is. You know nothing. You are gone. Forever. Scary thought (here) to oh so many.
dc

[pipoman]

132. Sounds like your truth..

truth requires proof. Belief or faith require only the person who is holding the faith or belief. Are you sure you aren't espousing your belief or faith? Are you sure you want to label this truth? If so provide proof.

[david13]

147. Look back to yourself, before you were born. What do you see?

And I do not mean the fantasy of reincarnation.
You see the proof. There is nothing else there to see. You lived the proof, or actually did not live, until you were born.
A belief or faith can only be in something that cannot be proved. If you could prove the jesus myth it wouldn't be faith.
See above post.
dc

[pipoman]

155. So in other words

you can't prove anything, therefore it is, in fact, your belief..or your truth, not the truth. I am surprised you can't grasp this very simple truth.

[david13]

272. Let me help you grasp the simple truth that eludes you. Where

were you before you were born? Who were you before you were born? What were you before you were born?
Who were you with before you were born?
What would make you think it will be different after you are dead?
I don't prove it, you do. You see it.
dc

[pipoman]

386. A lack of memory or consciousness

doesn't mean non-existence in my belief system. I don't recall the details of what I was doing at 3am yesterday morning yet I believe I existed. I don't recall anything from ages 0-2 yet I'm pretty sure I was alive most of that time. These are my beliefs. I am entitled to them. I can't prove them any more than you can prove yours. The difference is I am not claiming absolute truth of my beliefs in the absence of actual proof..you are. The justification for your beliefs are not proof..they may seem reasonable and indisputable to you, but they most certainly prove nothing.

[Silent3]

391. If lack of memory and lack of consciousness goes on and on, however...

...any kind of "existence" you might call such perpetual blankness doesn't count as much of an afterlife in my book, it certainly doesn't count as "heaven".

The fact that you don't recall anything from ages 0 to 2 is more of an argument in favor of our existence, the part that really matters, being tied up with our physical brains than it is for some sort of "immortal soul". You can't remember much from that time because most of your current identity and sense of self hadn't formed yet, your brain was very busy forming the capability to process and store experiences that you'd later need in order to slowly start building up a sense of personal identity.

As for who has the burden of proof, and treating a denial of heaven as if it's equally doctrinaire to asserting belief in heaven, I've already posted about that here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1108027&mesg_id=1114054

[PassingFair]

433. Right. If you believe in"heaven", can you describe it? What exactly do you believe?

Pearly Gates? Winged Angels? Is it in the sky or underground?
Another Dimension?
What is the definition of your "heaven" which you are sure exists?

I'm curious.

[tinrobot]

202. I suppose I was in the grocery store, among other places.

I am simply a mish-mash of the frameworks encoded in my parent's DNA. Those genetic molecules reproduced and collected additional matter from outside sources to build me. In fact, I still collect outside matter, mostly from the grocery store, to maintain the framework set in motion by my parent's genetic molecules.

[InvisibleTouch]

120. I actually very much respect someone who lives with the daily possibility of death...

...and doesn't feel the need to cling to a religious belief. I don't entirely agree with his point of view, as I do believe there's a consciousness pervading the Universe (not a "god" in the traditional religious sense, and not a "heaven" as it's described in various writings), and I do like to think some element of each living being is eternal - but I can respect his belief as the one which works for him, just as mine works for me. Ultimately all of our viewpoints on this topic are opinions, because there's no way to prove or disprove any of them. As long as we're not forcing them on one another, all is well.

[W_HAMILTON]

124. If we got here once...

...I figure we can get here again. Does anyone think that way?

I wish there is something beyond just this life, but if there is not, it at least gives me some solace that I ended up on this planet somehow, so, maybe I can end up back on it again somehow. I guess it would be akin to reincarnation of some sort.

[Raine]

135. That's just his opinion, nothing more. Hawking is still alive

and has no way of knowing anymore than anyone else. :shrug:

[Fumesucker]

150. Yep, dead people know so much more than we the living do.

[bloom]

264. :D n/t

[Skittles]

149. of course it's a fairy story

[Corruption Winz]

152. I believe he is right...

And I don't find anything sad about it at all. Being afraid of death is strange to me. On the one hand, I do feel uncomfortable with the thought of not getting to do the things I love anymore. However, I won't have to deal with realizing that. I'll be dead.

I assume that death is a lot like the time before you were born. Nothing really to fear.

With this, you just have to do all you can in life, try to be the happiest you can be and appreciate what you can in this world. It's a fun ride, or it can be.

[pipoman]

158. Until you are forced to face your own mortality

come tell me how you have no fear when/if you are alive facing certain, imminent death. Understand, I'm not wishing this on you. I am only saying, it is easy to say you don't fear death when death is an abstraction. When, as with my sister, doctors say, for instance, you have advanced pancreatic cancer and have less than a year to live...it is then that I would be willing to believe you if you say you have no fear of death.

[Corruption Winz]

162. I've had a gun pulled on me twice....

I still don't believe in God or an afterlife. I get what you're saying, but I'm not afraid of death. I'm afraid of not living. Subtle difference.

Once again, I get you and I'm sorry to hear about your sister.

[tblue37]

185. See my reply #184 below. I think we mean the same thing--though you said it much more

succinctly than I.

[Fumesucker]

164. It just seems a little odd that those who seem to fear death the most..

Are often those who are trying hardest to convince others or perhaps themselves that they believe in a life after death.

[PassingFair]

182. I've been at the deathbed of three atheists.

None of them had "conversions" or asked for
a supernatural assist.

Your comment is the one that bothers me the
MOST from "believers".

You can't BEGIN to understand the courage that
Stephen Hawking has to live his reality...or
face death.

My father's ALS, my sister-in-law's lung cancer...

They all faced death squarely in the eye without
whining or puling.

There are plenty of atheists in foxholes.

You've got a lot of nerve calling the poster's
feelings into question.

[pipoman]

232. I was not claiming any kind of conversion

what ever that is, nor have I stated in this thread anywhere my actual belief beyond believing in an afterlife. The poster stated no fear of death. I have absolutely no fear of death. Until one has to face certain imminent death with a clock, it is almost impossible to claim no fear. Self preservation should be an understanding everyone here, regardless of belief, can agree exists in normal, non-mentally disturbed people. I have never said that the poster or anyone else, regardless of belief, can't come to terms with their imminent mortality and face it with bravery and dignity with any of the beliefs espoused in this thread. My only claim is there will, in normal people, be an element of fear when put in this position...regardless of their beliefs. I too have seen death. I watched my mother die of stomach cancer last December..I was there for the 3 years she suffered with it and she never complained, I watched her take her last breath. Now I get a replay with my sister this year.

Now please explain what the hell I said which threw you into your flurry of assumptions about what I said?

[PassingFair]

248. Yes the poster stated no fear of death.

Then you said:

"Until you are forced to face your own mortality

come tell me how you have no fear when/if you are alive facing certain, imminent death. Understand, I'm not wishing this on you. I am only saying, it is easy to say you don't fear death when death is an abstraction. When, as with my sister, doctors say, for instance, you have advanced pancreatic cancer and have less than a year to live...it is then that I would be willing to believe you if you say you have no fear of death."



How do YOU know what that poster "has faced"? Your experiences may PALE in comparison with his/hers.

But don't let that stop you from lecturing, or from implying that your experience with suffering trumps all.

[pipoman]

258. Again, you are making shit up

I made none of the claims or implications you are stating. If the poster had faced imminent, certain death, I am sure we would know by now. I too have had guns pointed at me and threats made on my life. Hope was never lost. It isn't until we are beyond hope that we can state no fear.

Do you not understand, the only aspect of the poster's claims I dispute is the "no fear" claim. I don't buy that any person who has faced the reality of imminent certain death would have no fear at no point in the process. Even the poster agrees in concept..."I get what you're saying, but I'm not afraid of death. I'm afraid of not living. Subtle difference.". Any non-mentally unstable person will fear death, ultimately, unless it comes suddenly. The fear is usually overcome during the coping process, but there will be fear at some point in the process.

Do you really disagree with this?

[proReality]

154. How does anyone know for certain till we've been there?

Truly, how can anyone be so certain there is nothing after this life? Perhaps life as we know it will no longer exist, but we have no idea if there is some other type of existence once we depart.

I guess the absoluteness of either belief or disbelief is what made me an agnostic, questioning everything. None of us can know till the actual experience. And no, I'm not afraid of death, it's what we were all born to do.

[ozone_man]

171. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

- Carl Sagan

Few actually know or claim to know if there is a god or afterlife, hence most are agnostic, but most form a belief one way or another. They take a position. So being an agnostic is perfectly compatible with being a theist or atheist. One speaks of knowledge, while the other speaks of belief. Two separate things.

Sagan had a clever way of stating that the burden of proof lies on those making extraordinary claims, i.e., that god or gods exist, or invisible, pink unicorns.

[earcandle]

156. Belief systems keep people small minded and fascist.

I don't think religious people are people who have the public
interest at heart.  
I think they fund stealth fronts for gun running and fascism,
whether they know it or not.

That idea keeps me away from that circus of hypocrites. 

[highplainsdem]

161. I believe he's wrong, but he's as entitled to his belief system as anyone else.

[Bluebear]

165. Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman!

OK, I'm dating myself.

[WatsonT]

166. Not very scientific of him

there is no way way of knowing this.

Stating that there is no proof of a heaven is fine, but saying it does not exist cannot be substantiated.

[Trajan]

177. I think you are confusing what you think he might have said

With what he actually said ...

Nevertheless - It is HIS conclusion ... not yours ....

In a dismissal that underlines his firm rejection of religious comforts, Britain's most eminent scientist said there was nothing beyond the moment when the brain flickers for the final time.

It is what he said ... it is what he believes ..... You are not him ....

It is fair for an atheist to conclude that such entities do not exist, and to live with those conclusions .... It is unfair to say that he is demanding you also reach those conclusions ...

[WatsonT]

249. I never said he had to believe anything

merely that such a decisive statement is unscientific.

As the worlds leading scientific mind both in reality and by public perception he will have a different standard applied to him.

If he were to say that UFOs are real I'd expect proof.

[Logical]

192. So superman or Zeus might be real? Give me a break!

[WatsonT]

251. Something which cannot by it's own definition be disproven cannot be disproven

that is a tautology.

Superman doesn't include the caveat that he can bend the very rules of the universe to conceal his existence if he wishes.

Zeus? Same boat as god.

[Canuckistanian]

174. That's a helluva statement

From someone who's faced the possibility of death for over 40 years.

Gotta admire his conviction to his beliefs - or lack thereof.

[johnnyplankton]

175. I may not think there's a heaven or hell either, but...

How the Fuck does he know for sure?

[andym]

176. Where does the notion of heaven originate? To which "fairy tale" is he referring?

There is a brief discussion here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven

Many religions and belief systems had or have some idea of heaven or heavens. There are large differences in defining heaven. Not all religions insist that there is an afterlife, but many do.

How could one prove the existence of an afterlife? The strongest evidence beyond some "miracle" like a God talking to everyone in the world simultaneously and showing exactly how the universe works. Next might be something like the return of the dead in some form to this world to directly communicate their experience. Some people do report near death experiences in which they temporarily visited a heaven. Seances and sometimes the appearance of "ghosts" purport to communicate the thoughts of dead people. However, the former may be explained as hallucinations due to oxygen deprivation in the dying brain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_death_experience#Research). Seances and ghosts have never been scientifically validated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ance#Critical_objections and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost#Scientific_skepticism ).

So the question arises to which "fairy tale" is Hawking referring. To which heaven do people believe they are going.

Of course a large number of alternate scenarios for death does not rule out an afterlife, but when combined with the idea that our ability to think or be conscious is the direct results of physical and biochemical processes in our brains of which there is a great amount of evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Scientific_approaches), it does make unlikely the prospect of an afterlife that resembles anything like life on earth.

[lutherj]

178. I'm not sure Stephen Hawking's opinion on this subject is worth any more than anyone else's.

More interested in what he says about M-theory.

[davidthegnome]

181. Hawking states an opinion

not a fact.

The fact is that none of us know for certain what, if anything, awaits us after we die. Perhaps it is indeed nothing. Perhaps it is something grander than we can imagine. I suspect the first to be the case, but I still have some hope that it is the second. I've read numerous books written by those who have studied (and have had) near death experiences, that has given me more hope than anything else.

Now Stephen Hawking may have a first rate mind - he may be a grand intellectual of our age. Nonetheless, he is an arrogant man who dismisses a great deal out of hand. My study of near death experiences, despite the hope it gives me, proves nothing. Nor can Hawking prove his opinion as fact, regardless of his intellect, education, or study habits.

While I have a certain amount of respect for him, his arrogant dismissal of anything he believes improbable strikes me as very pessimistic and even ignorant.

I will neither accept nor dismiss out of hand what I do not and cannot know.

[tblue37]

184. Whenever I have surgery and am put under, and then awakened sometime later,

with absolutely no sense or awareness during my "out" time, I think that must be what death is like.

On the one hand, it is comforting to think I will not suffer for eternity in some way, even if only in the sense of being conscious and not able to do anything--the way the ancient Greeks imagined the afterlife was for the "strengthless dead," sort of like be a conscious nothing in an eternal waiting room.

Yet on the other it makes me deeply sad to think of just being--gone. Absolutely and forever not there.

I think it was Mark Twain who said he had been dead for billions of years before being born and it had done him no harm, so he wasn't worried about being dead after he actually died.

I agree with that, in a sense, but while I am still here, it makes me sad to think of absolutely not being here.

[demwing]

200. Several years ago, I had a series of surgeries

and developed a reputation with my doctor of saying some pretty harsh things while under anethesia.

Apparently, I don't go under quite as deeply as most people, and displayed moments of lucidness, none of which I remember.

My point is that consciousness is not a switch with a binary choice of on/off.

[Blue-Jay]

188. Point of Order: Why does the thread title say "Stephen Hawking" twice?

[Bluebear]

201. :)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1108027&mesg_id=1109474

[RandomThoughts]

208. Everyone can believe as they want.

Some actually take comfort in the thoughts of lack of existence at some point.


Had a story on that, the paradox of eternal life, and how that could that exist. Basically would you also have complete memory, or would your memory only be for a few hundred years. And if you had only partial memory, would you reach a maximum place of learning, and if that was the case, would you end up repeating, becuase you would find the same paths to solve problems that are outside of memory capability, creating an infinite loop of solving some problem, as you try to solve the same problem you don't remember already having tried to solve.

And if that occurred, then how would that be different then being reborn as a new life without memory of an old life.

Tada.

Thought it was a pretty good story, although not what I believe.


So in eternal life, you going to need lots of note pads to keep it all straight over the centuries. Or lots of songs and stories.

Which is also the story in this movie.

Memento Trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vS0E9bBSL0

Combine that with Illustrated man, and you have a reason for notes in many stories and songs.

Was going to write a story about that.


Post-it notes.


Do you notice, that is a ghost story, he fades, last thing he remembers is dying.


I have seen the supernatural, and if the supernatural exist, then after life is possible, so I would not say it is fear that makes someone think it is possible.



That is also why people need history, and why some want to erase cultural memory, so it can also be a story about society.

The story also explains why people should not take vengeance, and it explains how Orwellians try to use people to hurt the wrong people by misinformation and removing any knowledge of history, or even how to think.

Drumbeats to war to get people to torture, becuase people do not have the historical knowledge that the USA does not torture. Or changing tv narratives to create ideas of who the enemies are, that are not enemies, to get people to go after them. How many people go after the wrong ideas or groups becuase what they hear on tv, and becuase of lack of focus and historical knowledge on topics.

[laconicsax]

210. This thread is amusing.

I'd be willing to bet that had Hawking answered the question about his thoughts on death with, "The promise of life everlasting in Heaven gives me comfort" or something to that effect, the same people here who are lambasting him for arrogantly presuming to know what happens after death wouldn't have given it a moment's thought.

Since a god isn't required to explain the universe, why is it considered wrong to suppose that the one specific god favored by the majority here and the mythology surrounding it aren't true? Would Hawking be so arrogant to say that the river Styx and Charon's ferry to the underworld is myth? What about if he said that the Elysian Fields are a fairy story for people afraid of death?

[darkstar3]

455. You say amusing, I say depressing.

[DesertDiamond]

211. Sorry, he is brilliant but not about everything. I agree there's no heaven, but he of all people...

should be aware of the very scientific principle that energy never disappears, it just changes form. We are each a part of that energy, and though we leave our bodies, our life energy still exists.

[CBGLuthier]

219. HAHAHA

Yes sir, you fuzzy feeling folks are all geniuses and Stephen Hawking is silly. Oh god. It hurts to laugh so much.

[Silent3]

222. "life energy"?

What exactly is "life energy"?

The "very scientific principle that energy never disappears" offers no hope for immortality. This bad argument for immortality comes up often enough that I'll just copy and paste from a previous post:

Quite aside from whether you believe there are other reasons, the principle of conservation of energy (the First Law of Thermodynamics) offers nothing in favor of immortal souls or immortal minds. The Second Law of Thermodynamics offers nothing but bad news for hopes of immortality of any sort.

The human mind is no more energy than an ice sculpture is water. An ice sculpture may be made of water, but the essence of the sculpture is entirely in the shape and form the water holds as intricately carved ice. Melt the sculpture and the sculpture is gone, even if the water remains.

I can't, and won't, claim that immortality is impossible. If you're going invoke science, however, you have to stick with what's known and proven science. As there is no proof of some separate entity you might call a "soul", the human mind from a scientific point of view must be seen as an emergent phenomena of the biochemistry of the brain. A particular mind must be seen as the result of the particular patterns of electrochemical impulses traveling through a particular brain, the particular patterns of interconnected neurons and chemically-encoded states.

Upon death, all of those particulars break down. Whatever energy is involved in the processes of the mind loses coherence, eventually devolving into waste heat. Conservation of energy does not preserve the important details that make a mind unique.

[snooper2]

260. Somebody's life energy burned my back this weekend when I was working on roof

Damn sun burns life energy up quick!

I think all the humans in the planet would be gone in about 12 microseconds in that conversion of energy :P

[Citizen Worker]

212. The afterlife=deferred compensation. There's no such thing.

[humblebum]

213. Well by all means, if Hawking says so it must be true. Trouble is

that he can only make an educated guess on the subject. He has not the evidence to make such a definite statement. If he possessed that kind of knowledge, then he would also be able to find a cure for his physical affliction. Not meant to sound insensitive, but true.

[Jokerman]

221. That is one sick fucking statement you made there.

I'm sure your "god" is very proud.

[humblebum]

225. Hardly sick, but quite true. To deny otherwise is a cop out.

To claim a full understanding of the most complex workings of the universe and yet to have no such understanding of the maladies that affect the human body is ludicrous. Hypothesis should not be mistaken for theory and theory should not be mistaken for fact. His claims about the existence of diety or the origins of existence do not rise above the level of hypotheses.

[Warren Stupidity]

227. Hawkins comment refers back to his recent book.

There is an intersection between philosophy and physics were the philosophical advocates of theism insist that physics cannot explain the existence of the universe. Hawkins insists that in fact physics can explain the existence of the universe and there is no gap in that explanation into which the theists can insert a need for their deity. This got boiled down to 'there is no heaven'.

As there is no evidence of any interaction between an alleged afterlife and this one, no demonstrable exchange of information from one realm to the other, a belief in an afterlife is meaningless: it has no relevance to this life. Be here now.

[humblebum]

230. Yours is but one opinion.

"As there is no evidence of any interaction between an alleged afterlife and this one, no demonstrable exchange of information from one realm to the other, a belief in an afterlife is meaningless: it has no relevance to this life." You're certainly welcome to it, but it's not mine.

[Warren Stupidity]

289. that is not an opinion it is an assertion of fact.

"There is no evidence of interaction between an alleged afterlife and this one" is a assertion of a fact that is easily falsifiable. Go for it.

[humblebum]

332. Any afterlife and its characteristics have yet to be defined physically

therefore, to say that your statement is a fact is bunk. The Scientific Method is based upon the epistemology of Logical Positivism, which by its own definition RESTRICTS and LIMITS its ability to assess anything that is considered metaphysical, a priori, intuitive, etc. Your opinion is just that - OPINION. You can go no farther than physical evidence allows, period. The most you can say regarding any afterlife is "I DON'T KNOW."

[LAGC]

351. That's the most you can say about it, too.

You don't know.

[humblebum]

364. Only if you limit your reasoning your narrow epistemology. However,

we do not and ontologically, teleologically, historically, a strong case can be presented for the existence of diety. Proof? Proof only reaches 100% objectivity (theoretically) in science and math. In all other considerations it is varying degrees of subjectivity and objectivity. Believers do not claim "proof" as absolutely objective, but we do see evidence of, even if it is subjective.

[LAGC]

367. What does the possible existence of a deity have to with the odds of there being an after-life?

Why do you assume that just because a deity may exist, there therefore must be an after-life?

[humblebum]

368. Good question. If you believe that said diety is immortal as I do and

if you believe that said diety provides for said afterlife as I do, then there is a direct connection. But, if you are merely hypothesizing about possibilities, then those conditions do not necessarily hold.

[LAGC]

369. Some things in this universe are eternal, but many other things are finite.

I think just the fact that there was no before-life (unless you believe in reincarnation) that we can remember before we were born, makes it hard to expect there to be anything that we will be able to experience after we die.

One of the most common things in our universe -- stars -- have beginnings and ends. They don't shine forever. Why should we?

[humblebum]

370. Those are valid questions and ones that I'm sure many of us ask.

There is also a range of possible answers. As far as I know stars are not alive either, at least as we recognize the condition of life to be. And the remnants of stars continue to be, long after the star is no longer a star.

[LAGC]

385. True, stars continue on as black holes, etc.

But I guess the point I'm making is, if our memories aren't intact after we die, if we can't remember who we were, what difference does it make what we continue existing on as after?

Where do people who develop dementia in their life-times fit into your scheme? Do they magically start remembering who they were again?

[humblebum]

387. Or planetary nebulae or white dwarfs,etc., but what if there is

another existence, non-material in nature? And just what if intelligence and life exist in a manner that is totally foreign to our perceptions of existence?

[LAGC]

388. That's a pretty big what if, isn't it?

What makes you think its likely, or even possible, for our memories to remain intact in such a transfer to some totally foreign realm?

I notice you never answered my question about dementia. (Which hits very close to home, as I've had several close relatives develop it and turn into total vegetables before they finally passed... Do they remain vegetables in the after-life?)

[humblebum]

389. Who really knows? That was my point with that" pretty big what if ?"

I also have a father with advanced alzheimer's.

[cleanhippie]

514. That really is sad, HB.

And you have my sympathy. Seriously. Alzheimer's is no joke.


But "what if" your god's plan includes your father having alzheimers? If your god is omniscient and omnipotent, as your teachings state, your god is responsible for your fathers condition, as well as all of the suffering in the world. What possible reason would ever justify the sheer scale of suffering we see on this planet and why would you worship such a god?

[humblebum]

390. deleted

[cleanhippie]

424. What if? "What if "is worthless. I can say "What if humblebum is a delusional psycopath?"

But my statement can be either proven true or false. Your "what if" remains a "what if" and is nothing more than an idea in your head, and as such, is worthless toward any actual knowledge or understanding of the universe.

[humblebum]

363. delete

[cleanhippie]

423. I gotta admit, bum, that it sure is neat to watch you rationalize.

Man, with the sophistic gymnastics you do, you really should consider a run at the olympic team.

[humblebum]

442. It's called the real world buddy. Try it sometime.

[cleanhippie]

444. Uh, no, its your make-believe world, an I am not now, nor will I ever be

YOUR buddy.



The parable about not even pissing in ones mouth if ones teeth were on fire comes to mind.

[Ninjaneer]

291. Oh look a clawed foot!

Your sheep costume got caught on the fence Mr. Wolf. :)

[humblebum]

335. If the best you can do, Ninj, is to throw out ad homs instead of

producing a valid argument, then I am not too concerned.

[Ninjaneer]

339. I have given up on valid arguments with you for the most part.

I have learned all three of your tricks you see:

1. Hit and run

2. Cite "Other ways of knowing" that, when asked, you can provide no proof for.

3. Weasel out of questions by being purposefully obtuse, or by attempting to reword the point made against you, in your favor.

[humblebum]

343. I have went to great lengths to show you that other epistemologies

and methods exist. And the fact that a huge number of scholars attest to that is positive proof that they indeed do exist. Whether or not you accept anything that they have to offer is not my concern. If you label those things that you cannot understand or deny as "obtuse", then it certainly is not my fault that you don't understand them.

[Ninjaneer]

344. Sure thing, lets leave it at me being too stupid. eom

[humblebum]

346. Those are your words not mine. nt

[Ninjaneer]

354. 'Kay, cool. eom

[cleanhippie]

425. Oh yes, you have gone to great length, but have proved nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. ZERO.

:rofl:

[Ninjaneer]

440. You gotta pick your battles

:shrug:

[Waiting For Everyman]

226. All of existence springing from random chance is a fairy story.

Fred Hoyle was right, that it's statistically nonsense.

Hawking's faith in chance is exactly that - faith. And a lot of it. And chance is not much, to have so much faith in. That's fine for him (he's entitled to his opinion of course, like everybody else), but it doesn't fly with me. Not at all.

This world is anything but random.

[Vinca]

229. I feel exactly as Hawking does.

It must be comforting to believe in a god and heaven, but I can't find any basis to do so.

[Gman]

235. As expected, many gloat here about this

But Hawking is making a mega-huge gamble.

[Logical]

239. Gamble on what? Are you saying the loving God might punish him for this?

[Nye Bevan]

280. No, but he's going to feel pretty silly waiting in line at the Pearly Gates. (nt)

[Goblinmonger]

378. So will you when the correct answer at said gates isn't your religion.

Pascal's wager ain't that snazzy of thinking. Most atheists will have heard of it.

[Ninjaneer]

441. Win. eom

[Warren Stupidity]

288. there's a novel argument

did you just come up with that?

How do you know which deity you ought to be worshiping? What if Cthulhu is the one and only true god and really hates pascal's wager believers? What if competing deities take turns giving you ultimate torture for your sinful wrong believing? Oh lordy we are fucked!

[sudopod]

430. I know, right?

Ahura Mazda will be PISSED OFF.

[gmudem]

236. Hawking is absolutely right.

Any belief in afterlife is based on nothing more than pure superstition, there is absolutely no evidence of it. And if you just think about it logically for about a minute, you realize how completely absurd the idea is.

I don't believe in an afterlife which gives my life here on Earth plenty of purpose. I want to do all I can with this life because it's the only one I've got.

[RegieRocker]

244. In the whole scheme of things man knows and understands jack shit.

Same goes for Mr. Hawkings.

[VWolf]

245. Regardless of what you might think, we'll all find out

on May 21st.

:evilgrin:

[FailureToCommunicate]

247. In heaven there is no beer...

...that's why we drink it here!

Hint: That "cloud that hangs over (Hawking)" hangs over ALL of us...

So, find, or make your heaven where you can, I say.

Oh, and don't put it off...

If it turns out there IS a heaven, you're more likely to be able to stay if you've tried to do good 'down here'

[Nye Bevan]

279. Nope. There *is* beer in heaven. No budweiser though.

And there is plenty of this stuff:

[Solly Mack]

254. What a fun thread.

[trud]

257. perhaps Hawking can tell us about his source of information n/t

[Catherine Vincent]

261. Well, that's his opinion

We all are free to believe what we want to believe.

[bloom]

262. I agree with Hawking that the idea of an afterlife is silly

I agree that one's 'soul', one's mind, one's emotions cannot be separated from one's body. I think it is silly to think that people would have an afterlife existence but that birds, dogs, snakes, trees, flowers, etc. would not. It's all just imaginary.

I can see how some would like for others to be punished for "sins" - and don't like the idea of dying. But I share the idea with those who think that this life is enough. This world is amazing and wonderful just as it is.

I think the idea that there is something better beyond has been detrimental to this world - because the idea has given people the idea that what they do to this world does not matter.

Our moral imperative should be that we not destroy this world for future generations of people and other animals, plants, etc. To destroy this world is to destroy the real heaven, itself.

[BigD_95]

274. Im not sure what I believe anymore

but so what if people want to believe in a afterlife. If it helps them live better and more comfortable in this life good for them. If it gives them piece of mind when they are going to die or when losing a loved one good for them.


But a friend once said to me which someone mention earlier. Where were we before we were born. When all those people through the ages were alive & past years before we were born. There was nothing. No memories, no knowledge of existence. There was nothing. Blank. We didn't know our great, great, great grand parents. That to me is the scary part. Its looking at it with logic. I wish I could just believe in a afterlife like so many do. They seem happier and in a better place. I admit. I fear death. I fear never seeing my kids again. I want to be able to watch my cowboys play on Sunday. I want to live here. Call me a coward. Im scared to die.

[Nye Bevan]

277. I'm prepared to make a bet with any DUer:

10 harps and an extra soft cloud say there *is* an afterlife. And if I am proven wrong, feel free to ridicule me as much as you like.

[drokhole]

281. There is and will only ever be Now...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsNyLvzhJJo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCOJnIysQ1A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29atSZKbmS4

[lonestarnot]

284. Hmmf. And to think he's giving up thoughts of ever ridding himself of that talkie thing.

[lumberjack_jeff]

286. I'm an atheist. I also believe that my consciousness is not tied to the cells in this body.

http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Enigma-Physics-Encounters-Consciousness/dp/019534250X/ref=pd_sim_b_1

Every test of quantum theory are dependent on consciousness affecting the outcome. Heisenberg, Schroedinger. Quantum physics and consciousness are interconnected

[cherish44]

392. I agree

I see so many condescending remarks about all things not based on phsycial science as being "woo woo" or that people who believe in an afterlife are mindless buffoons who worship an invisible cloud being....Some of us are agnostic, no religious afilitations or beliefs but are open to the possibility that there could be something beyond what science and the human senses and brain can comprehend, whether it be an afterlife or forms of existance. There are many different ways of thinking, some people are logical and physical some people are more creative and "spiritual" (for lack of a better word. Both ways of thinking have something to contribute to this experience we call life.

[Lorien]

416. But to have consciousness one has to have functioning brain cells

what about people who are in a vegetative state? What about those with brain damage? I watched my father die just two weeks ago. He had cancer, and during the last two days of his life it seemed as if he was slowly losing brain function and consciousness. He believed as Hawking does, and he wasn't afraid to die.I watched him take his last three breaths and then...nothing. I knew he was gone and that we would never speak together again. It's heartbreaking, but it's an awful part of life that we all have to face. Belief in "something more" just seems to me to be a bit of self deception that allows us to avoid confronting the awful truth of it.

[valerief]

290. From the DUH files. nt

[MadHound]

295. Another "believer"

Hawking has no more of a valid idea of what, if anything, waits for us beyond death than the Pope and Billy Graham do. The fact is, nobody knows, nobody can prove anything in that regards.

So this simply makes Hawking simply another believer, just pushing a different belief.

Death is the last great adventure, the last great unknown. We have no clue about what lies beyond it, and we should stop pretending that we do.

[Ninjaneer]

303. Nope.

He's dismissing a claim made by those like the Pope and Billy Graham. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed in the same manner.

Have some http://tinyurl.com/5uzk6zp">Tea to wash that logic down.

[Warren DeMontague]

317. where were you before you were born?

I'm not a betting man, but I suspect that's where we're going back to.

[Goblinmonger]

379. I'm going back into my mom's womb?

That's gross. Plus she's been dead for 2 years which makes it even more gross. And she went back to where she came from so she's in HER mom's womb which is even MORE gross. This gets exponentially gross the more I think about it.

[Warren DeMontague]

396. Okay, where were "you" before that?

If the answer is "nowhere", then, again, there's your answer.

[harun]

297. All that knowledge, yet no wisdom.

[Deep13]

300. What a load of crap.

And just what wisdom do you have to know better? Here is a man who has spend an exceptionally productive life examining the profound questions of existence and you dismiss his deep insight with a trite, canned, greeting-card aphorism. Frankly, I am reminded of the beam and mote parable. You complain of a speck of dusk in Hawking's eye while you have a log in yours. Hawkings, like Sagan, Eisnstein and many others have found that the world looks alot better and is filled with possibility once the cheesecloth is removed from the lens.

[Ninjaneer]

302. A whole lot more than in anything like the quran or the bible. eom

[Warren DeMontague]

316. yes, suggesting the emperor has no clothes

makes the baby jeebus cry. :cry:

[PVnRT]

401. I guess "wisdom" requires profession in a higher power, then

:eyes:

[cleanhippie]

426. Oh, then by all means, please enlighten us, oh wise one.

[Deep13]

301. Life is a wonderous thing and full of limitless potential.

It is so much grander than anything the theologians have postulated. We stand on the vangard of a golden age of humanity is we have the courage to take the step. We frankly don't need the mythological security blankets of our childhood.

[Zorra]

305. +1

[Zorra]

304. He's so very wrong. He's missing something. nt

[Deep13]

322. like what?

:shrug:

[Zorra]

336. I should not have written that. That was a mistake.

I only know what is true for me.

My apologies.

There may be a chance that he is limiting his possibilities by believing that his energy will not continue on.

[PassingFair]

350. Since there is no proof whatsoever and no reason to suggest ...

the existence of an afterlife...there is a much greater
chance that you would be limiting your possibilities here
on planet Earth by believing that your energy WILL continue on.

Time wasted on fears of retribution.
Dubious motives for good deeds in expectation of reward.
Being held back from human potential by superstition (especially so for women).

[Zorra]

373. I'm sorry. You completely misunderstood me

Apparently you are projecting some type religious dogma into my simple statements.

My post had nothing to do with religion.

"Time wasted on fears of retribution.
Dubious motives for good deeds in expectation of reward.
Being held back from human potential by superstition (especially so for women)."

I really don't understand how you got that out of my simple statement except maybe that you are assuming I'm coming from a religious point of view. I'm not. Not at all.

[cbdo2007]

306. To give such a concrete answer to something that can't be proven or disproven...

shows his lack of intelligence.

Any good scientist holds off on their conclusions until the results are in.

[lynne]

307. He's entitled to his opinion but its only an opinion. He has failed to give us any science -

- to support his theory. When he provides that, I'll listen.

[truebrit71]

311. I'm sorry, but how do you prove a negative??

That makes less sense than believing in cloud-beings that mete out love, vengence, death and eternal life on a sliding scale dependent upon whether you actually believe in them or not, and if so, how much you believe in them...

Prove he exists and everything will be settled.

[Goblinmonger]

380. The burden of proof is on those claiming heaven exists.

He is just pointing out that there is NO evidence for it so it can be dismissed. Just like Superman is real.

[bowens43]

308. well duh..... why is this news? nt

[truebrit71]

309. I am amazed at the vitriole being spewed...

...There is no proof there is a heaven (or a hell but I have spent time in Scunthorpe which is a pretty close second), and he states his opinion as a scientist, and yet the Theist's just wig out...

Please prove to me heaven exists, or that our "souls" survive us post-death and I'll be happy to join in, until then I'll just work with what we know...we're born, we live, we die. There is no scientific evidence that anything other than that occurs, but I am willing to learn should some other facts come to the surface.

Invisible sky Daddies with strange passive-aggressive demands promising eternal life somewhere that hasn't been accurately described so long as we follow along with their dietary and worshipping schedule seems to me to be ultimately bizzare behaviour for an allegedly intelligent species...But colluding people to hand over their money for the promise of an eternal life AFTER they die sounds like a bloody good scam to me...

[Zorra]

314. I don't know if anyone can prove to you that heaven exists,

but is it possible that it is something that you can only find on your own?

Think of it in terms of possibilities way outside of the classic religious concepts.

[truebrit71]

323. Perhaps...but I think that being able to breathe oxygen would be a pre-requisite...

..and for that you'd have to be alive...However, once the old ticker stops working that's it, game over, and I am fine with that...

The whole "life after death" concept was invented to assuage people's fear of death...I remember being shit-scared as a kid that one day it would all be over, now, not so much...It makes me value every day I do have that much more...

[Zorra]

329. Yes, life rocks.

What happens to our life energy after this physical trip I don't know either.

But it seems to me that I have creative consciousness, and that others do also.

I often wonder how far we can go in creating our own personal realities to a great extent simply by absolutely believing that we can create them.

I choose to totally believe that my energy will continue in another totally fun way after I'm done here.

Works for me, I ain't preachin', I'm just postulatin'.
:hi:

[Ninjaneer]

340. People don't like it when you try to steal their cookies!

Even if they are of the imaginary variety.

[mysuzuki2]

313. I do not believe that the personality or consciousness

survive death. That being said, I'll be happy if it turns out I'm wrong.

[ozone_man]

330. You might not be happy.

We have this idyllic version of an afterlife planted in our minds by religion, where we connect up with our loved ones and all. But, what if it's pure hell, worse than any suffering experienced while alive, and that nothing would be much preferred? :)

I think whatever heaven there might be is right here on earth.

[Plucketeer]

315. I'm with Hawking.

Now IF things start to pop next Saturday (May 21st), I may have to rethink! :nuke:<->:think:

[EndElectoral]

318. Wasn't it Einstein who stated energy could not be destroyed?

[BeHereNow]

408. I believe it was Johannes Kepler. n/t

BHN

[bobburgster]

321. Not much substance.

There did not seem to be much of an interview. Most seemed to be regurgitation of his past, and controversial quotes.

[penndragon69]

333. There is no heaven and no hell.

These were all just concoctions made by manipulative old men who wanted to control others.
The universal mind is eternal, and all energy returns to the "cloud" when the physical body dies.

For all it's worth, the game is over.

[Akoto]

338. I don't think anyone can prove or disprove the existence of an afterlife.

The only way to have absolute proof is go. Unfortunately, people who find the answer can't come back to share it with us.

This is one of those questions no amount of research can resolve, for we lack the ability to peer beyond death. Personally, I would like to think that some aspect of our consciousness continues on, but that doesn't necessarily mean I expect there to be Heaven and Hell. Who knows?

We are just a little speck in a little corner of our universe. When we know so little about the reality in which we live, how can we be certain about whether there's another step?

[DavidDvorkin]

341. The burden of proof is on those who claim it exists.

[Akoto]

342. Is that truly a fair burden to place for *this* question, though?

You have to admit, the only way to get a scientific answer is to die, so there's no way they can offer you the absolute proof you seek. That doesn't mean they're wrong about the existence of an afterlife. For all we know, we could detach from our bodies and be free to roam the universe. Nobody can say one way or the other, except the folks who're gone.

I am not a particularly spiritual person, but yes, I do hope some part of myself will continue on past death. I live in the confines of a disabled, constantly pained body, so it's nice to think that there might be something to look forward to.

[Silent3]

345. Of course it's fair

I don't mean to deny you, or anyone else, hope for something better than this life, but as far as where the burden of proof lies, it's definitely on those who claim the existence of an afterlife.

The fact that proof for a claim is difficult or impossible to obtain is no reason to relax standards of evidence. If that were taken as a reason to let people off easy on burden of proof such a practice would only provide an incentive to make bigger, wilder claims designed to be difficult or impossible to verify.

If I claim Alice in Wonderland was originally written two billion years ago somewhere in the Andromeda galaxy would the burden of proof for that wild claim shift from me to you because traveling to the Andromeda galaxy for proof is hard to do?

Do we both become free from burden of proof, both obligated to politely say it's simply a "matter of opinion" and that "either opinion is equally valid"?

[cleanhippie]

427. Yes, it is. In fact, "this" question actually requires EXTRAORDINARY proof.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[Warren DeMontague]

397. Actually, it's like arguing how many testicles a unicorn has.

i.e. totally pointless.

[brooklynite]

410. If your essence can transcend your physical body...

...then why did need a body in the first place?

[whistler162]

349. Get back to us Dr. Hawkings 1/100000 of a second after you

die and let us know if you where right or wrong!

[mn9driver]

357. Hawking is a brilliant man who has made his peace.

Hawking:"Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing. It is a matter of chance which we are in."

Actually, Chaotic Inflation implies that a theoretically infinite number of Universes have been created, containing every possible variation of construction, events and history. Hawking is free to believe that none of them allow for the existence of God. I prefer to interpret M Theory in a different way.

[Taverner]

362. Absolutely Correct

BUT - Some people need that story

Without it, they don't see the point of living

Who am I to take this away from them?

[BillyJack]

381. Hawkings is VERY SMART ...... he has suffered/endured much, much more than

many, most of us EVER could endure.....but, imho, he's just stepped way out of line publically opining about the existence of heaven (or hell?)

Remember, "opinions are like assholes, everyone has one".

Hawkins has AN OPINION. He doesn't "know"....nor does anyone else on this earth.

edit: punctuation

[richard tansey]

406. Is there heaven

Strange i have some thing in common with Harking,in 2004 i was
officially diagnosed with A.L.S. upper as apposed to
lower,upper motor neuron disease is fatal ,lower you get
crippled.some of you may have experienced some thing like that
later month's of your life. it's called sleep paralyze, you
wake up you mind  and your thinking, but you cant move ,1 in 4
will have it once in a life time. Thats why my screen name is
neurontogo i tell you these thing's so you know I'm telling
you the truth,I'm spiritual on april 25 1966 as a kid with
three Friends i had a meteor pass approx, 80-100 feet pass
over our heads at approx 35 m.p.h. going north i lived in the
bx playing in a empty lot,the curator at the planetarium
thought i was nut's telling me no meteor go's the slow.He told
an old Friend of his when he got home,only to be reminded you
don't remember that and how angry you were that you didn't
have a camera,the next day he called me, and i thought he was
a nut and told me to go to the 42,nd street library they had
it on microfilm, and i had copies made . Now it's on the
web,but i have a small peace in my head to remind me a grain
of sand size. i'll be here a long time so it's reader digest
time ,i was hit by a taxi in 1969-70 flew 90 feet as heard bye
the police, when i opened my eye's there was a woman yellow
and orange dress looking down at me smiling and said i thought
you were dead, i said no sorry as i got the four police
leaning on a car about 7 feet away ran over to me looking
strange and asked if i could walk to a barber shop.So i went
to the back of the shop and looked in the last chair mirror
and the mirror behind me and saw my right pocket and under
wear where gone, but no cut's bones scratchers scrapes.When i
was told about A.L.S. i decided to close some questions, but
it was 42 years the 43 precinct told me to call 1 pp and i did
and was told to call albany, before i sent e -mail i called 1
police plaza again to make sure the write e-mail and was asked
why i was sending mail ,so i told her and her, response as
well sir i can tell you this ,no one say's that at an
accident. Okay i was not in shock, and i never would have
chose that house dress and i answer;ed her back. Alcoholic
hepatitis 14 times 5 times after told A.L.S.THERE'S MORE BUT
BOTTOM LINE IS .IF YOU CANNOT PROVE THERE IS A GOD,HOW CAN YOU
PROVE THERE IS NOT,Steven remember how you felt when you were
told , the numbness and the runaway mind not being able to
think of any thing else,i wound up in a Skye ward voluntary, i
see a break down before mother in law. TAKE CARE FRIEND

[cherish44]

411. "Some people want to fill the world with silly love songs" Paul McCartney

What's wrong with that?
We're not all scientific minded and some of us do believe there could be something "more" that we just can't sense or comprehend. I'm personally grateful for the dreamers, artists, poets and those who craft "fairy tales" of this world. I find the laws of science to be really kind of a buzzkill.

[sudopod]

467. Unweaving the Rainbow (1998), Preface - Richard Dawkins

The feeling of awed wonder that science can give us is one of the highest experiences of which the human psyche is capable. It is a deep aesthetic passion to rank with the finest that music and poetry can deliver. It is truly one of the things that make life worth living and it does so, if anything, more effectively if it convinces us that the time we have for living is quite finite.

[Lorien]

413. Actually, I find the idea of "eternal life" pretty scary. You'll be dead for trillions upon

trillions of years. After the first trillion I think you might get a bit bored.

[MellowDem]

415. The burden of proof is on him....

to prove that there is nothing beyond the moment you die. But, he has no evidence.

I personally find existence itself to be puzzling enough without contemplating death. It's all pretty hilarious to me.

[laconicsax]

429. *facepalm*

sigh...

[MellowDem]

469. Read the article again...

if you'd like. He makes a positive assertion that after you die there is nothing. Therefore, the burden of proof is on him. His seperate statement about there being no heaven is a seperate assertion.

[darkstar3]

449. "Nothing" is not a hypothesis, and therefore requires no supporting evidence.

"Something" is a hypothesis, if not simple conjecture, and therefore requires supporting evidence to become anything more.

[montanto]

468. Well and succinctly said.

[MellowDem]

471. It's a positive assertion...

and "nothing" can be a positive assertion just like "something". If you have a ball hidden under one of three cups and you believe under one particular cup there is "nothing", it's still a positive assertion.

[darkstar3]

473. You only wish it were.

The existence of the ball under one of the cups is a dichotomous possbility, and that dichotomy is brought about only due to the supposition of the ball itself. To propose that the ball is not under cup A is to propose that it is under cup B or C. The ball is still the focus, which means the ball's existence is still the hypothesis.

"Nothing" is not a positive assertion. "Nothing" is not a hypothesis. "Nothing" simply is, wait for it...

[Ninjaneer]

479. Oh snap.

:fistbump:

[MellowDem]

494. Heh, snarky today?

I never said that the proposal is there is no ball under cup A, I said the assertion is that there is nothing under cup A. THAT is the assertion.

Of course it can be a hypothesis that after you die there is "nothing".

If you believe that after you die there is nothing, that is a positive assertion.

[darkstar3]

499. I never said X, I said X.

I'm not going to debate with someone who is debating themselves.

[MellowDem]

501. It's alright...

I don't like talking with people who seem to want to put down others they think are wrong over semantics.

[darkstar3]

510. You really don't get that what you said is completely contradictory?

I never said that the proposal is there is no ball under cup A,

You didn't? That's odd, because this:

I said the assertion is that there is nothing under cup A.

begs to differ. In the cup and ball game of your example, if there is nothing under cup A, then there is no ball under cup A.

The only thing you've shown here is that you can double-speak with the rest of them. You have failed in every way to show how "nothing" can be a hypothesis. If you'd care to try again, I'll give you a starting point. Take this:











And tell me if you can think of any way to design a test for it.

[MellowDem]

512. It is not completely contradictory...

There is a difference between saying, for example, these two statements:

"There is not something after you die."

"There is nothing after you die."

The first one is a negative assertion, the second one is a positive assertion. Many would say they are one and the same, but they are not. The burden of proof is on the second statement.

The other issue you bring up is that "nothing" cannot be a hypothesis, as there is no way to test for it. I am not sure what this has to do with Hawking having the burden of proof regardless, as I cannot think of any way to design a test for what happens after death, whatever one's hypothesis.

As for the issue of whether "nothing" can be a hypothesis, I personally don't see why not, since anything can be a hypothesis, even things that we do not know how to test for. Sure, it can't be a scientific hypothesis, since it cannot be tested supposedly. But this is irrelevant to the point that the burden of proof is on Hawking.

One can still make a positive assertion for something that, as far as we know, cannot be tested. That is what happened here. Hawking is saying that there is an existence of "nothing" after you die. That is a positive assertion. Just like someone saying that there is an existence of "something" after you die. Just because a person's assertion involves the word "nothing" does not make such an assertion a negative assertion.

Perhaps the confusion lies in what "nothing" really means.

[darkstar3]

513. You have fun splitting that hair.

Nothing can be easily defined as "not something", and your two statements become one. Furthermore, "not something" is syntactically inconvenient, and you'll never find someone who uses it in favor of the shortcut "nothing".

As for "nothing" as a hypothesis, if you can't even begin to describe how to test something, it can't be a hypothesis. Talk to TZ some more about what a null hypothesis is, learn a little more about the difference between hypothesis and conjecture, and study up on burden of proof vs. rejection.

A strange website that does a decent job explaining how the null hypothesis works:
http://www.null-hypothesis.co.uk/science//item/what_is_a_null_hypothesis

It's Wikipedia, but it should help explain the difference between hypothesis and conjecture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjecture

A start on the burden of proof:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html
http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm

You have to understand that the null hypothesis does not equal an assertion. The burden of proof cannot possibly rest on Hawking, because it always rests on those who wish to nullify the null hypothesis.

[MellowDem]

515. It's not hair spliltting...

whether you find the use of the words convenient or not, one is a positive assertion and the other is a negative assertion. After all, saying there is not something after you die, mabey you believe there is not "nothing" either, but just a concept that goes beyond "nothing" or "something" as we define it. I think this is where a lot of the confusion comes, as these are not easily definable terms where there is a consensus on meaning.

Also, and I know it is wikipedia here, but just going off the link in the conjecture article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

A hypothesis is simply a proposed explanation for a phenomena. Only a scientific hypothesis requires that you be able to test it. I suppose one could say that a non-scientific hypothesis could also be a conjecture.

The null hypothesis is the default hypothesis set forth before testing other hypotheses. No default hypothesis has been set forth here, and as far as we can tell, it cannot be tested, so it seems irrelevant to bring up a null hypothesis, which can be defined in any way in order to test another hypothesis.

As for the burden of proof articles, they seem to show that Hawking has the burden of proof. I even think Hawking would accept it, and why not? It's not like this is a testable hypothesis, and anyone who makes a positive assertion will not be able to prove it.

I still don't understand why if someone says "nothing exists after you die", the burden of proof would not be on them. That is a positive assertion, it is not up to others to now prove that nothing does not exist after you die.

[darkstar3]

516. Go back and read the links a little futher for comprehension.

The null hypothesis need not be "set forth", as it is a consequence of any hypothesis someone makes up. For the hypothesis of "God", the null hypothesis is "no God." That's just how a hypothesis works in science and mathematics. So, for the hypothesis of "something in the way of an afterlife," the null hypothesis is "nothing in the way of an afterlife." I know it's difficult to understand when I say this, but it's not a hypothesis in the standard sense of the word, it's a null hypothesis. Further reading on the topic may help, I don't know.

A non-scientific hypothesis is conjecture.

The burden of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of those who would nullify the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis here, created entirely as a result of the hypothesis of "something", is "nothing." You, the supporter of the hypothesis, must meet the burden of proof in order to nullify the null hypothesis, or else you are engaging in a logical and argumentative fallacy.

Since the null hypothesis is not actually a hypothesis, but rather a negation required for control, maybe it would help if you referred to it as the anti-hypothesis. "Something" is the hypothesis, making "nothing" the anti-hypothesis. The links above show quite definitively that shifting the burden of proof to Hawking, when he is simply restating the anti-hypothesis, is a fallacy.

So that answers your final paragraph. "Nothing exists after you die" is not a positive assertion, but the "null hypothesis", or an anti-hypothesis, and as such it requires no proof.

[MellowDem]

517. Who is to say what the null hypothesis is?

Isn't the null hypothesis based on what your actual hypothesis is that you are testing? Isn't it possible for in one situation, "nothing" to be the null hypothesis and in the other, "not nothing" to be a null hypothesis?

So if the hypothesis Hawking proposes is "nothing", the null hypothesis would be "not nothing", and therefore the burden of proof would be on Hawking. Hawking is the one proposing a hypothesis when he says that there is nothing after you die.

[darkstar3]

518. And once again, I don't think you read to the bottom.

#516 answered your point before you tried to restate it. Hawking is clearly not proposing a new hypothesis, but simply restating the null, or anti-hypothesis. You are committing a logical fallacy.

[MellowDem]

521. That's not very convincing to me...

since one could say that their position is always the null hypothesis in order to avoid any burden of proof. And since Hawk's statement by no means has to be the null hypothesis, then it could indeed have the burden of proof.

[darkstar3]

525. No, one really couldn't.

The null hypothesis is entirely a consequence of the hypothesis. Current hypotheses posit an afterlife. The null hypothesis to all of those is no afterlife. Hawking has simply repeated the null hypothesis because it needed to be repeated, because people in this country seem to be forgetting, as they talk of heaven, that it is simply pretty fantasy until someone comes up with a shred of proof.

[MellowDem]

526. Current hypotheses posit all sorts of things...

including that there is nothing after you die. It certainly is one of many hypotheses out there on what happens after you die, isn't it? I mean, the point is, all hypotheses on what happens after you die are "pretty fantasy until someone comes up with a shed of proof" which isn't likely to happen anytime soon.

[darkstar3]

527. If "nothing after you die" is a hypothesis,

then what is the null to "something after you die"?

[MellowDem]

528. That there is not something after you die...

though usually that "something" is more specific, like heaven for example, or a choice of purgatory, heaven and hell, etc. etc. (well, not always a choice, heh).

[darkstar3]

529. You can't have it both ways.

One thing cannot be both a hypothesis and a null hypothesis. That throws the entire logic behind the scientific method out the window.

"Nothing after you die" is only a topic of interest in our conversation because someone has posited "something after you die" as a hypothesis. It is clearly the null hypothesis, and it cannot exist as both null and normal. In other words, you are fallaciously shifting the burden of proof.

[MellowDem]

538. Sure you can...

unless it has been decided somehwere that the only hypotheses involve something after you die. A null hypothesis depends on the hypothesis being tested, so you definitely could have opposite null hypotheses, depending on the hypothesis.

[darkstar3]

539. Oi.

Ask yourself: Would "nothing" be a hypothesis anyone would make if "something" were never posited?

[TZ]

490. Google "null hypothesis" and learn something

You seem to lack an understanding of the scientific method here. You cannot prove the lack of something.

[MellowDem]

496. Who said this is a null hypothesis?

You don't even know what a null hypothesis is. What you are saying is that you cannot prove a negative assertion, which is my point. But saying that there IS nothing after you die is indeed a positive assertion. Saying that there IS NOT "nothing" after you die would be a negative assertion.

Saying that there is no heaven after you die is a negative assertion. In the article, he makes both assertions.

[TZ]

505. Yeah, biologists like me know nothing about science

But neither does Hawking right? BTW, let me go tell my bosses that they need to show that their drugs DON'T work because of course its up to drug researchers to disprove everything they test.
You have no clue, really. Its up to believers to prove their hypotheis. Which is what the existence of god is. One giant hypothesis. Hawking has said that their is as much evidence for god as their is for fairies...NONE. What or what not people CHOOSE to believe is differerent.
Again, your grasp of the concept of science is very weak. As is your grasp of what Hawking is saying.

[MellowDem]

509. That is irrelevant

First of all, Hawking never said his assertion was a negative assertion, so invoking Hawking is rather irrelevant. Also, invoking your career is also irrelevant.

Isn't it up to anyone who makes a positive assertion to prove their assertion? Hawking's assertion is that there is nothing after death. That is a positive assertion. He has the burden of proof, just like someone who said that after death there is heaven, they also have the burden of proof.

It just seems silly to say that there is no evidence that there is a heaven, then turn around and say there is nothing after death, based on no evidence. It seems to be making the same mistake. When it comes to what happens after death, any positive assertion will be without evidence. So to criticize one positive assertion based on a lack of any evidence, then make another positive assertion yourself with no evidence is just silly to me.

I think Hawking's statement that there is no heaven is a negative assertion, and therefore the burden of proof is not on him and he can't prove a negative assertion anyways. Maybe that is where you are getting it confused with what I am saying. Saying that there is nothing after death is a belief. Not a religious belief. But just a belief. It certainly fits the definition of "belief". I think a lot of people conflate belief with faith, which is not what I am doing.

[dmallind]

511. Might just be me, but this struck me as unintentionally (I hope) hilarious

turned the young scientist to Wagner, but ultimately led him to enjoy life

The words "but ultimately" surely carry the meaning that it is impossible to enjoy life while listening to Wagner, yet somehow I seem to manage...

[pootbutta]

549. no heaven?

well we know there's no beer there (that's why we drink it here)

but my real reaction to this is: well, duh!!!!!!!!!!

[Odin2005]

556. This thread is EPIC!!!