• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hawking says there are no gods

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Big Dog said:
Hawking: there is no god.
God: there is no more Hawking

I wonder if Hawking was a member here. Of course, Hawking treasured his anonymity, frequently wearing sunglasses and a wig. Unfortunately, the wheelchair gave him away.

In purgatory, they probably wired up his box to Rodney Dangerfield’s voice: what’s a guy gotta do to get a Nobel prize around here, I tell you, no respect, no respect at all....
Click to expand...

Hawking: Existence has been proved; body of work led to a greater understanding of our universe; inspired millions to become more educated; helped millions more understand science better.

God: No evidence, let alone proof, of existence; body of supposed work led to millions being killed, tortured and millions of children being raped; he inspires billions to become supremely ignorant; he inspires billions to hatred and intolerance.

Score:

Hawking - 4 God - 0
 
qayak said:
Hawking: Existence has been proved; body of work led to a greater understanding of our universe; inspired millions to become more educated; helped millions more understand science better.

God: No evidence, let alone proof, of existence; body of supposed work led to millions being killed, tortured and millions of children being raped; he inspires billions to become supremely ignorant; he inspires billions to hatred and intolerance.

Score:

Hawking - 4 God - 0
Click to expand...

Oof, negative 4 for Hawking. Rough, yo.
 
In the way a mouse is unaware of the larger world, so might we be the "mouse" unaware of a larger universe. There might not be a god in the way ancient people envisioned but it doesn't mean there isn't some grander scheme of order that prevails that dictates our reality. I can't see human consciousness much less god consciousness but it doesn't mean something isn't there driving the underpinning of the whole of creation.
 
Jodie said:
In the way a mouse is unaware of the larger world, so might we be the "mouse" unaware of a larger universe. There might not be a god in the way ancient people envisioned but it doesn't mean there isn't some grander scheme of order that prevails that dictates our reality. I can't see human consciousness much less god consciousness but it doesn't mean something isn't there driving the underpinning of the whole of creation.
Click to expand...

Really? Awesome.

I eagerly await ANY evidence to support this "hypothesis".
 
Jodie said:
In the way a mouse is unaware of the larger world, so might we be the "mouse" unaware of a larger universe. There might not be a god in the way ancient people envisioned but it doesn't mean there isn't some grander scheme of order that prevails that dictates our reality. I can't see human consciousness much less god consciousness but it doesn't mean something isn't there driving the underpinning of the whole of creation.
Click to expand...

And what underpins the underpinning? Or is it turtles all the way down?
 
The Big Dog said:
Gosh, I did, because Hawking speculated about multiple Universes... so, give it a noodle and see if you can think what I was suggesting?
Click to expand...

Oh, I know what you were suggesting it's just that you obviously didn't understand the implications of that thought as it floated through your noggin.
 
qayak said:
Oh, I know what you were suggesting it's just that you obviously didn't understand the implications of that thought as it floated through your noggin.
Click to expand...

Really. Tell us what I was thinking:

Tick tock
 
qayak said:
Better yet, you try sorting out the error you made.
Click to expand...

Hmm, that is weird, you literally just said “I know what you were suggesting.”

As such, given that you know, I simply asked to state what you know, and rather than doing that you basically said “no, you!”

It is ok, no one really thought there was the slightest chance you were not lying.

It is cool.
 
Stephen Hawking said:
If you accept, as I do, that the laws of nature are fixed, then it doesn't take long to ask: What role is there for God?
Click to expand...
That seems a little more evangelistic than I would have expected of a scientist.

Hawking seems to claim that the universe and all of the laws that govern it are knowable. Yet at this point in time, we can't even argue that the universe is deterministic (if it were then consciousness and free will would be myths). Most of the equations that we have to describe the universe stem from quantum wave equations (equations of probability). That screams "we don't know".
 
psionl0 said:
That seems a little more evangelistic than I would have expected of a scientist.

Hawking seems to claim that the universe and all of the laws that govern it are knowable.
Click to expand...
Wait, why wouldn't they be knowable?
 
psionl0 said:
Hawking seems to claim that the universe and all of the laws that govern it are knowable. Yet at this point in time, we can't even argue that the universe is deterministic (if it were then consciousness and free will would be myths). Most of the equations that we have to describe the universe stem from quantum wave equations (equations of probability). That screams "we don't know".
Click to expand...

//Insert minimum of five page long digressions where we debate the difference between "Currently unknown, perhaps even requiring a major new field of study or paradigm shift to discover" and "Woo woo forever unknowable woo that's the realm of God because it's woo." here.

Because when a scientist says "Unknown" or even "Unknowable" and a Woo Slinger says "Unknown" or "Unknowable" they are saying two completely different things.
 
The Big Dog said:
Hmm, that is weird, you literally just said “I know what you were suggesting.”

As such, given that you know, I simply asked to state what you know, and rather than doing that you basically said “no, you!”

It is ok, no one really thought there was the slightest chance you were not lying.

It is cool.
Click to expand...

Nice! You almost managed to followed our exchange. I pointed out an error in logic that you made and instead of correcting the error you attempted to deflect the discussion with irrelevant questions.

I have BBQed salmon for dinner once every couple of weeks or so. My wife does a magnificent job cooking it and it is something I look forward to. Luckily I had it tonight for dinner. Unfortunately, my wife is leaving tomorrow for a month in Nepal so I won't be having it for at least that long. However, my loss does give us a bit of a time line to work with in a challenge to you. I challenge you to figure out the error you made before my wife gets back from Nepal and cooks the next salmon on the BBQ. That gives you a minimum of one month to work it out and possibly longer, maybe as much as 6 or 7 weeks, should you require more time. Good luck, little buddy.
 
Last edited:
qayak said:
Oh, I know what you were suggesting it's just that you obviously didn't understand the implications of that thought as it floated through your noggin.
Click to expand...

The Big Dog said:
Really. Tell us what I was thinking:

Tick tock
Click to expand...

qayak said:
Nice! You almost managed to followed our exchange. I pointed out an error in logic that you made and instead of correcting the error you attempted to deflect the discussion with irrelevant questions.

I have BBQed salmon for dinner once every couple of weeks or so. My wife does a magnificent job cooking it and it is something I look forward to. Luckily I had it tonight for dinner. Unfortunately, my wife is leaving tomorrow for a month in Nepal so I won't be having it for at least that long. However, my loss does give us a bit of a time line to work with in a challenge to you. I challenge you to figure out the error you made before my wife gets back from Nepal and cooks the next salmon on the BBQ. That gives you a minimum of one month to work it out and possibly longer, maybe as much as 6 or 7 weeks, should you require more time. Good luck, little buddy.
Click to expand...

Golly! You managed to type all those words without actually, you know, telling us what you so confidently declared, what was it again?

“I know what you were suggesting.”

Hmm, it has been quite clearly shown that you don’t because had you, you would have, you know, told us what you

“Know what you were suggesting”

Rather than typing out all that nonsense about, what was it? Oh yeah, what you had for dinner, which is hilarious. Let’s follow the conversation...

I know what you were suggesting!
O’rly, what was it?
No you!
Chuckling, we knew you were not going to do it.
I had salmon!

That is fantastic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom